Datasets:

jasper-xian

/

tevatron_fiqa_qrels

like 0

[ { "docid": "445731", "title": "", "text": "The biggest advantage to small business owners paid in cash is not that it might save the 2 or 3 percent that would go to the credit card company. The biggest advantage is that they have the opportunity to keep the transaction entirely off the books and pocket the cash without paying income tax or sales tax, especially when no receipt is given, or when it's a service instead of a product being sold, or when it's an approximately-tracked inventory unit going out the door. Although it's illegal, it's widely done, and it's also often a temptation for employees to try and get away with doing it too." } ]

[ { "docid": "427206", "title": "", "text": "Pay off your highest-interest debt first: credit card, car, maybe even mortgage. Pay minimums on all else. Student loans are typically low interest, so pay off anything else first, but double-check your rate of course. Even if you have no other debt, you may still want to hang on to your savings instead of paying down your student loans if getting rid of your savings causes you to accrue debt. For example, if you have a low income and no savings, you may accrue credit card debt (high interest). Or you may want to buy a car with cash instead of getting a loan. Even if this is not an issue, consider what you can do with your savings that others who lack them cannot do. You can put it into mutual funds, which may offer higher rate of return (albeit with risk) than your student loan interest. Or you may pay a down payment on a home. The very low interest rates of student loans are, to a person with savings, essentially a source of cheap money that doesn't need to be justified to a bank. You can use it as seed money to start a business, as funds for travel, for living expenses while in the Peace Corps, or whatever else. But if you pay down that principal, you bind yourself. In short, pay down your student loans when there is no better use for the money." }, { "docid": "121233", "title": "", "text": "A few things for you to consider: (1) Yes, if your average daily balance is lower [because you paid it off when you received your paycheck, then slowly used the card for the remainder of the month, until it's at the same balance next paycheck, vs just having the card at a flat $5k the whole month], you will accrue less interest, thereby allowing you to pay it off faster by reducing your interest payments. BUT: (2) Carrying a balance on your credit card is a big financial no-no, and eliminating it should be an immediate priority for you. If there is anything you can do (step 1: budget your expenses and then track actuals to see where you stand - step 2: see what expenses you can reduce - step 3: see if you can increase your income - step 4: rebudget with your new goals, determine how long it would take to pay off the card, possibly considering consolidating/refinancing your debt at a lower interest rate) to pay it off faster, then do it. However (3) If you have absolutely zero cash on hand, then taking your paycheck and immediately paying down your credit card, and then relying on that card to pay for things until the next paycheck, puts you at risk of your available credit changing. ie: if you have 5k on the card, and pay it down to 4.25k, then what happens to you if the credit card company [because they view you as a risk, or for whatever other reason - including a temporary hold because of fraudulent activity at no fault of your own] reduces your available credit to 4.5k? Suddenly, you will only have $250 in available spending power until your next paycheck. Therefore it may be wise for you to hold onto some amount of cash that you do not touch except for emergencies, even before you pay off your credit card. I really recommend you search this site for other questions related to budgeting and credit cards. There are many good answers, and some of what I've said above is just opinion, so you shouldn't just take my word for it, you should try to become familiar with these topics yourself. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "401267", "title": "", "text": "Regardless of how it exactly impacts the credit score, the question is does it help improve your credit situation? If the score does go up, but it goes up slowly that was a lot of effort to retard credit score growth. Learning to use a credit card wisely will help you become more financially mature. Start to use the card for a class of purchases: groceries, gas, restaurants. Pick one that won't overwhelm your finances if you lose track of the exact amount you have been charging. You can also use it to pay some utilities or other monthly expenses automatically. As you use the card more often, and you don't overuse it, the credit card company will generally raise your credit limit. This will then help you because that will drop your utilization ratio. Just repeat the process by adding another class of charges to you credit card usage. This expanded use of credit will in the long run help your score. The online systems allow you to see every day what your balance is, thus minimizing surprises." }, { "docid": "561123", "title": "", "text": "\"While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that \"\"regular\"\" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "447478", "title": "", "text": "I don't know of any that are comparable to credit cards. There's a reason for that. Debit cards, being newer, have a much lower interchange rate. Since collecting on debt is risky and less predictable, rewards / miles are paid from those interchange fees. This means with a debit card there's less money to pay you with. So what can you do? Assuming your credit isn't terrible, you can just open a credit card account and pay in full for purchases by the grace period. I don't know how all cards work, but my grace period allows me to pay in full by the billing date (roughly a month from purchase) and incur no finance charges. In effect, I get a small 30 day loan with no interest, and a cash back incentive (I dislike miles). You're also less liable for fraud via CC than debit." }, { "docid": "170494", "title": "", "text": "\"We *are* talking at cross-purposes, but not for the reason you think. The debt might or might not be legally or practically recoverable (the apple-farmer and everything he owns might have been destroyed in the fire), but the value created and destroyed was real, and so was the money. You're focusing on the debt owed to the shoemaker, which is fine, but your mistake is thinking that the debt is in some way meaningfully different from money, which it's not. Most people who try to explain this difference would go off on a spiel about how the overwhelming majority of money on deposit in banks and otherwise in circulation has never been printed, or something, which is okay, but it's not a very convincing argument because you'll come back with something like, \"\"But I can still withdraw all my money, I can still cash all my checks, etc...\"\" So instead, I'm going to try and break this down, bear with me... The apple-grower got a deer (worth 12 loddars, let's set the \"\"interest\"\" part aside for the moment). I got a pair shoes (also worth loddars). Forget about the shoe-maker and the debt for a moment, and focus on me. I sold a deer, and I used the proceeds to buy a pair of shoes. - Did I defraud anyone? No, I engaged in a fair transaction with willing partners on both sides. - Did I get paid for the deer? Obviously I did, because I used the payment to buy shoes. - What did I get paid with, if not money? I can hear you saying \"\"yeah, but the shoe guy...\"\" Forget about the shoe guy. When buy something on Amazon marketplace and charge it on a credit card and then get paid via direct-deposit and then have the money taken from your account to pay off the credit-card company electronically, is all of that real money? Of course it is. Now, what happens if you die before paying the the credit-card bill? Does that mean that the money Amazon paid to the seller doesn't exist? Does that mean that money paid by the CC company to Amazon doesn't exist? How about the money in your bank account, does that exist? What if your employer once defrauded someone, how about then? None of that money has ever been *printed*, nobody got permission from Ben Bernanke to authorize these transactions, but the money that changed hands was absolutely real, even though it was nothing more than a *series of promises.* Before you argue with me, think this through: all these account-transfers ultimately boil down to *promises* by the end bank to produce cash when and if the account-holder walks up to a teller and demands it. The bank doesn't have nearly enough cash to pay every account-holder, but they *do* have enough (hopefully) to keep their promises, since they know they won't all be called in at once. Nobody ever actually delivered a package of paper currency to cover these transactions. Everyone is just trading promises, and passing those promises along to others. It sounds crazy to say it that way, but it is *absolutely* true. Tally up your net worth (or if that's too ugly, imagine tallying up someone's net worth who has a net worth). Chances are that you have never in your life seen that amount of paper cash, certainly not in your physical possession. So who has it? It's not like your local bank branch has a box marked \"\"C_B_M\"\" with $400,000 in bills and coins sitting there. What you have is a series of promises. When your employer gets by credit-card, the customer promises to pay the credit-card company, who promises to pay your employer's bank. Your employer then pays you with a direct-deposit whereby his bank promises to pay your bank. You then swipe an ATM card and your bank promises to pay the grocery-store's bank, who in turn sends a check to their supplier which is a promise that the grocery-store's bank will pay the supplier's bank, who in turn does the same with the farmer, who does the same with his mortgage-company, who does the same to their investors, who do the same to whoever they spend money with. Occasionally one of them takes a cash withdrawal to tip the stripper or stick in a birthday-card or buy hot-dogs at the ballpark or something, but overwhelmingly, we are all just spending and re-spending *promises*, and the remarkable thing is that, overwhelmingly, *we keep them*, without anyone involved ever hiring a truck to deliver a bindle of cash to the \"\"first person\"\" because there *is* no \"\"first person.\"\" All of that stuff is *absolutely real money*. I used the example of a wildfire, but maybe it will be more useful to think of something that just changes in value for no obvious reason. Think of some article of clothing that has gone out of style-- everyone was buying that stuff up until the day they stopped. Somewhere, someone was stuck with the last warehouse full of hot-pink parachute pants or whatever. A month before, when they were ordered from China or wherever, they were worth $50 each. Now you can't give them away. That value is gone, it's just vanished. The money that bought the pants was real, the pants are real, but they are no longer worth anything. The person holding that warehouse full of pants now has to *pay* to either store of dispose of them. They might start bouncing checks and breaking promises. There was no fraud, but there also might not be any way to recover the money owed. $10mm worth of parachute pants is now negative $1mm worth of trash that has to be disposed of and mortgage obligations on the warehouse. I hope some of that makes sense. It is really hard to explain this stuff via analogy and hypothetical and the kinds of terms that lawyers think in, if you will forgive me for saying so.\"" }, { "docid": "277477", "title": "", "text": "The details of credit score calculation tend to change periodically, but the fundamentals are mostly consistent. Pay your bills, keep your average account age high, overpay your credit card minimums, and keep your overall debt low. And do soft pulls on your credit report to see what's happening. First, the simplest route: pay all your bills early or on time. Automatic deduction may be useful in this regard, especially for bills with predictable amounts. A corollary to this tip is to never leave an unpaid bill. What often happens to young people is in the course of moving around they leave the final bill unpaid and it gets reported to collections. Make sure you follow up online with all bills, even after canceling the service. Second, average account age and oldest account age matter. Open an account like a credit card and never close it, so you'll have an older account (hopefully a zero-fee card). Try to keep other accounts open rather than closing them (no need to cancel a zero-fee credit card) so your average account age stays higher. A card that works on internal systems (like a gift card) is not going to show up on a credit report; a card that works like any VISA/MC is likely going to show up. The rule of thumb is if they need your SSN to run a credit check for the application, then the card will appear on a credit report. You can pull your credit report to find out if the card is listed (you may have to allow time for lag before the card appears, but I'm not sure how long that might be). Third, a tip for extra credit score is to pay more than the minimum required on credit card bills. You can achieve this by either using your credit card at least once a month or by leaving a small hanging balance each month so there's always something to overpay next month. Credit card reporting will be either: unpaid, underpaid, minimum paid, or overpaid. Minimum payment helps your score and overpayment helps more. If you can use your credit card every month, that will give you something to overpay every month. Otherwise, you can leave a small debt left on the card but still pay over the monthly minimum. However, your total debt load, especially debt carried on your cards, counts against your score; aim for less than 10% of your limit. Finally, of course, is to pull your credit report periodically. You need to know what others are seeing. Since debt load utilization matters, make sure the reported card maximum is correct on your credit report. Talk to your bank or account issuer if the limit is wrong. If a collection appears, then you need to handle it. Often you can negotiate with the collector, but be careful to negotiate how they will report the resolution. You want them to agree to remove any negative information (either in exchange for payment or because of a mistake). Failing that, you want them to mark it paid in full or satisfied in full; letting them notate your score that you only partially paid is what you want to avoid, since it most signals someone with cash flow problems and credit issues. They control their reporting to credit bureaus, so if the person on the phone demurs, ask to speak to their supervisor or someone with negotiating authority. Try to get any agreements in writing. Remember that your total debt load is a factor in your credit score. Home loans and student loans do affect credit score. If you take on a smaller home loan, then it will affect your credit less harshly (and leave you with smaller monthly payments)." }, { "docid": "336518", "title": "", "text": "\"The trick to using a credit card responsibly is accounting. With your old system, you were paying for everything out of your savings account. Everytime you had an expense, it was immediately withdrawn from your savings account, and you saw how much money you had left. Now, with a credit card, there isn't any money being withdrawn from your savings account until a month later, when you have a huge credit card bill. The trick is to treat every credit card transaction as if it was a debit card transaction, and subtract the money from your \"\"available funds\"\" on paper immediately. Then you'll know how much money you actually have to spend (not by looking at your bank statement, but by looking at your \"\"available funds\"\" number), and when the credit card bill comes, you'll have money sitting there waiting to go to the credit card company. This requires more work than you had with your old system, and if it sounds like too much work, you might be better off with a debit card or cash. But if you want to continue to use the credit card, you'll find that the right software will make the accounting process easier. I like YNAB, but there are other software products that work as well. Just make sure that your system accounts for each credit card transaction as it is spent, deducting the amount from your budget now, so that there is money set aside for the credit card bill. Software that simply categorizes your spending after the fact is not as useful.\"" }, { "docid": "368026", "title": "", "text": "I've seen an increasing number of writeups about this. Some peers think people just use more credit cards nowadays (instead of cash for instance), and that it's normal. I'm not buying it. I think this is a serious problem and I'm wondering how we're going to see this play into the US economy moving forward. Also, if anyone knows how the EU is doing with credit card debt, I'd be grateful for any data points." }, { "docid": "91804", "title": "", "text": "Is there a debit card accessing this account? When you spend money on a debit card for certain item, including, but not limited to gas, restaurant, hotel, a bit extra is held in reserve. For example, a $100 restaurant charge might hold $125, to allow for a tip. (You're a generous tipper, right?) The actual sales slips my take days to reconcile. It's for this reason that I've remarked how credit cards have their place. Using debit cards requires that one have more in their account than they need to spend, especially when taking a trip including hotel costs." }, { "docid": "72168", "title": "", "text": "The prime rate is the interest rate banks use amongst themselves to lend money to each other only. It is used as the basis (sometimes) for what interest rate banks charge you. The prime rate is based loosely on the Fed rate. There is a committee that meets regularly to set this and other industry interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_rate I am not 100% positive the following is totally accurate The banks keep our deposits and pay us interest for doing so. They are paying us interest because they take yours, mine and everybody elses deposits as a large lump sum and invest that money. Sometimes as business loans, sometimes as mortgages and sometimes as credit card. The banks have a book of business that will be EXACTLY how much credit they have extended to everybody. But they do not keep that amount of cash in the vaults, only some smaller percentage of that large amount. When I use my credit card and they need to transfer money to amazon.com, if they don't happen to have enough cash that day, they will just borrow from another bank that does, and the interest rate they pay to do so is the prime rate. Since they are paying interest on the money they borrow to pay the debt I charged because they told me my credit was worth so much (...???...) they charge me a little bit more than that. Hence your credit card or mortgage's APR being based on the prime rate. I THINK that is what they do If I am wrong leave a comment and I will update, or the mods can." }, { "docid": "583321", "title": "", "text": "\"You should dispute the transaction with the credit card. Describe the story and attach the cash payment receipt, and dispute it as a duplicate charge. There will be no impact on your score, but if you don't have the cash receipt or any other proof of the alternative payment - it's your word against the merchant, and he has proof that you actually used your card there. So worst case - you just paid twice. If you dispute the charge and it is accepted - the merchant will pay a penalty. If it is not accepted - you may pay the penalty (on top of the original charge, depending on your credit card issuer - some charge for \"\"frivolous\"\" charge backs). It will take several more years for either the European merchants to learn how to deal with the US half-baked chip cards, or the American banks to start issue proper chip-and-PIN card as everywhere else. Either way, until then - if the merchant doesn't know how to handle signatures with the American credit cards - just don't use them. Pay cash. Given the controversy in the comments - my intention was not to say \"\"no, don't talk to the merchant\"\". From the description of the situation it didn't strike me as the merchant would even bother to consider the situation. A less than honest merchant knows that you have no leverage, and since you're a tourist and will probably not be returning there anyway - what's the worst you can do to them? A bad yelp review? You can definitely get in touch with the merchant and ask for a refund, but I would not expect much to come out from that.\"" }, { "docid": "444748", "title": "", "text": "\"I answered a similar question, How will going from 75% Credit Utilization to 0% Credit Utilization affect my credit score?, in which I show a graph of how utilization impacts your score. In another answer to Should I keep a credit card open to maintain my credit score?, I discuss the makeup of your score. From your own view at Credit Karma, you can see that age of accounts will help your score, so now is the time to get the right cards and stay with them. My background is technology (electrical engineer) and MBA with a concentration in finance. I'm not a Psychology major. If one is undisciplined, credit can destroy them. If one is disciplined, and pays in full each month, credit is a tool. The quoting of billionaires is a bit disingenuous. I've seen people get turned away at hotels for lack of a credit card. $1000 in cash would not get them into a $200/night room. Yes, a debit card can be used, but the rental car and hotel \"\"reserve\"\" a large amount on the card, so if you don't have a high balance, you may be out of town and out of luck. I'll quote another oft-quoted guru: \"\"no one gets rich on credit card rewards.\"\" No, but I'm on track to pay for my 13 year old's last semester in college with the rewards from a card that goes right into her account. It will be great to make that withdrawal and not need to take the funds from anywhere else. The card has no fee, and I've not paid them a dime in interest. By the way, with 1-20% utilization ideal, you want your total available credit to be 5X the highest monthly balance you'd every hit. Last - when you have a choice between 2% cash reward, and the cash discount Kevin manages, take the discount, obviously.\"" }, { "docid": "180673", "title": "", "text": "I don't think there's any law against having lots of bank accounts. But what are you really gaining? Every new account is a paperwork hassle. Every new account is another target for con men who might steal your information and write bad checks or make phony credit card purchases in your name. Yes, it's not unreasonable to have a credit card or two that you keep for emergencies. I'd advise anyone with running up debts while having no idea how you will pay them off. But to say that you might keep some credit available so that if you have a legitimate emergency -- like, say, your car breaks down and you don't have the cash to fix it and you can't get to work without it -- you have some a fallback. But do you really need ten credit cards for that sort of thing? And how much credit are they giving you on each card? I don't know how the banks work this, but I'd think if they're rational, they'd consider your total credit before giving you more. I have three credit cards that I use regularly -- two personal and one business. And I find that a real pain to keep track of, to make sure that I keep each one paid by the due date and to keep a handle on how much I owe and so forth. I can't imagine trying to deal with ten. I suppose you could just stuff all these cards in a drawer and only use them in case of emergency." }, { "docid": "253373", "title": "", "text": "What is my best course of action, trying to minimize future debt? Minimizing expenses is the best thing you can do. The first step to financial independence is making do with less. Assuming I receive this $3500, am I better off using the bulk to pay off my credit cards, or should I keep as much cash available as I can? This would depend on the interest rate that is associated with the credit cards and the $3500. If the $3500 has a higher interest rate than your credit cards, then do not use any of it to pay your credit cards. Paying back the money you borrow hurts but it's the interest rate that does you in. If the interest rate for the $3500 is lower than the credit card interest, then placing some of it on the credit cards may be a wise course of action. But this depends on how long you are out of work. If you could be out of work for an extended period of time, I would recommend holding on to all of the funds. Note on saving I know this goes against the grain, but I would actually not recommend saving several months worth of funds (maybe one month though). Most employers offer some type of retirement savings account (401(k), Thrift Savings Plan, etc.). I contribute 5% to this fund instead of putting the money in savings. This is an especially effective strategy if your employer offers matching contributions such as mine. Because the divedends for a savings account are so low, it is not a wise place to store your money in the long run. If I had placed my Thrift Savings Plan contributions in a standard savings account, I would now be $12,000 poorer. In addition to this, most long term investment accounts allow you to withdraw the money early in case of emergency, such as being without work. (I also find it too temping to have huge amounts of funds on hand)." }, { "docid": "575029", "title": "", "text": "\"My visa would put the goods on the current monthly balance which is no-interest, but the cash part becomes part of the immediate interest-bearing sum. There is no option for getting cash without paying immediate interest, except perhaps for buying something then immediately returning it, but most merchants will do a refund to the card instead of cash in hand. This is in New Zealand, other regions may have different rules. Also, if I use the \"\"cheque\"\" or \"\"savings\"\" options at the eftpos machine instead of the \"\"credit\"\" option, then I can have cash immediately, withdrawn from my account, with no interest charge. However the account has to have sufficient balance to do so.\"" }, { "docid": "145220", "title": "", "text": "If you've got the money to pay off your credit cards, do it. Today, if possible. There is no need to pay another penny of interest to them. They may or may not cancel your cards. That is up to them. We can't know what will trigger an individual bank to cancel your card. The answers you got on your other question offer some speculation on why some banks might cancel, but this is not something banks reveal. Anything you do on your own to try to keep the cards open is just a guess, and may or may not succeed. But ask yourself: why do you want to keep these cards? Is it for the convenience of the card? I agree that credit cards (paid in full monthly) are convenient, but when they start costing you money, they aren't worth it anymore, in my opinion. Debit cards have most of the same conveniences of credit cards, and are free. If it is for emergencies, I recommend instead building up an emergency cash fund. That way, if an emergency arises, you won't be forced to borrow money at high credit card interest rates. If the reason you want to hang on to the credit card is so you can spend more than you have, then you will find yourself in the same situation again. If I were you, I would pay off the cards ASAP. If the banks cancel your cards, just switch to a debit card and be thankful that you are no longer continuously leaking money to the banks." }, { "docid": "355592", "title": "", "text": "\"There absolutely is a specific model that makes this so popular with so many credit card companies, and that model is \"\"per transaction fees\"\". Card companies also receive cost-sharing incentives from certain merchants. There is also a psychological reasoning as an additional incentive. When you want to accept credit cards as a source of payment as a business, you generally have three kinds of fees to pay: monthly/yearly subscription fees, percentage of transaction fee, and per transaction fee. The subscription fees can be waived and sometimes are expressed as a \"\"minimum cost\"\", so the business pays a certain amount whether you actually have people use credit cards or not. Many of these fees don't actually make it to the credit card companies, as they just pay the service providers and middle-men processing companies. The percentage of transaction fee means that the business accepting payment via credit card must pay a percentage usually ranging from 1-3% of the total transactions they accept. So if they get paid $10,000 a month by customers in the form of credit cards, the business pays out $100-300 a month to the credit card processor - a good portion of which will make it back to the credit card issuing company, and is a major source of income for them. The per transaction fee means that every time a transaction is run involving a card, a set fee is incurred by the business (which is commonly anywhere from $0.05 to $0.30 per transaction). If that $10,000 a month business mentioned previously had 10 customers paying $1,000 each at $0.10 a transaction, that's only $1 in fees to the credit card processors/companies. But if instead that business was a grocery store with an average transaction of $40, that's $25 in fees. This system means that if you are a credit card company and want to encourage people to make a specific kind of purchase, you should encourage purchases that people make many times for relatively small amounts of money. In a perfect world you'd want them to buy $1 bottles of water 5 times a day with their credit card. If the card company had 50,000 card holders doing this, at the end of 1 year the company would have $91,250,000 spread across 91,250,000 transactions. The card company might reasonably make $0.05 per transaction and %1 of the purchase total. The Get Rewarded For Drinking More campaign might earn the card company $912,500 in percentage fees and over $4.5 million in transaction fees. Yet the company would only have to pay 3% in rewards from the percentage fees, or $2.7 million, back to customers. If the card company had encouraged using your credit card for large once-yearly purchases, they would actually pay out more money in rewards than they collect in card-use fees. Yet by encouraging people to make small transactions very often the card company earns a nice net-income even if absolutely every customer pays their balance in full, on time, and pays no annual/monthly fees for their card - which obviously does not happen in the real world. No wonder companies try so hard to encourage you to use your card all the time! For card companies to make real money they need you to use your credit card. As discussed above, the more often you use the card the better (for them), and there can be a built-in preference for small repeated transactions. But no matter what the size of transaction, they can't make the big bucks if you don't use the card at all! Selling your personal information isn't as profitable if they don't have in-depth info on you to sell, either. So how do they get you to make that plastic sing? Gas and groceries are a habit. Most people buy one or the other at least once a weak, and a very large number of us make such purchases multiple times a week. Some people even make such purchases multiple times a day! So how do people pay for such transactions? The goal of the card companies is to have you use their product to pay as much as possible. If you pay for something regularly you'll keep that card in your wallet with you, rather than it getting lost in a drawer at home. So the card companies want you to use your card as a matter of habit, too. If you use a card to buy for gas and groceries, why wouldn't you use it for other things too? Lunch, dinner, buying online? If the card company pays out more and makes less for large, less-regular purchases, then the ideal for them is to have you use the card for small regular purchase and yet still have you use the card for larger infrequent purchases even if you get reduced/no rewards. What better way to achieve all these goals than to offer special rewards on gas and groceries? And because it's not a one-time purchase, you aren't so likely to game the system; no getting that special 5% cash-back card, booking your once-per-decade dream vacation, then paying it off and cancelling it soon after - which would actually make the card company lose money on the deal. In the end, credit card companies as a whole have a business model that almost universally prefers customers who use their products regularly and preferably for small amounts a maximum number of times. They want to reduce their expenses (like rewards paid out) while maximizing their revenue. They haven't figured out a better way to do all of this so well as to encourage people to use their cards for gas and groceries - everything else seems like a losing proposition in comparison. The only time this preference differs is when they can avoid paying some or all of the cost of rewards, such as when the merchants themselves honor the rewards in exchange for reduced or zero payment from the card companies. So if you use an airline card that seems to give you 10% back in airline rewards? Well, that's probably a great deal for the card company if the airline provides that reward at their own expense to try to boost business. The card company keeps the transaction-related fees and pays out almost nothing in rewards - the perfect offer (for them)! And this assumes no shenanigans like black-out periods, \"\"not valid with any other offers\"\" rewards like on cars where only a fool pays full MSRP (and sometimes the rewards are tagged in this sort of way, like not valid on sale/clearance items, etc), expiring rewards, the fact that they know not everyone uses their rewards, annual fees that are greater than the rewards you'll actually be obtaining after accounting for all the other issues, etc. And credit card industries are known for their shenanigans!\"" }, { "docid": "483437", "title": "", "text": "What sort of amount are we talking about here, and what countries are you travelling to? As long as it's not cash, most countries will neither know or care how much money is in your bank account or on your credit card limit, and can't even check if they wanted to. Even if they can, there are very few countries where they would check without already suspecting you of a crime. I think you're worrying over nothing. Even if it's cash, most countries have no border control anyway, and those who do (UK, Ireland) allow up to £10,000 or so cash without even having to declare it... Just open a second bank account and don't take the card (or cut the card up). Use online banking to transfer money in smaller chunks to your main account. Alternately (or additionally) take a credit card or two with a smaller limit (enough to make sure you're comfortably able to deal with one month plus emergency money). Then set up your regular bank account to pay this credit card off in full every month. If I was really concerned, I'd open a second bank account and add a sensible amount of money to it (enough to cover costs of my stay and avoid questions about whether I can afford my stay, but not so much it would raise question). Then I'd open two credit cards with a limit of perhaps $1000-2000: one covers the costs of living wherever I'm going, the other is for emergencies or if I misjudge and go over my amount per month. Set up your bank to pay these off each month, and you're sorted Honestly, I think you're worrying over nothing. People travel inside Europe every day with millions in the bank and raise no questions. You're legally allowed to have money!" } ]

[ { "docid": "216540", "title": "", "text": "You know those perks/benefits that you don't want to give up? Those are funded by the fees you are trying to eliminate by paying cash. The credit card company makes money by interest, merchant fees, and other fees such a annual fees. They give you perks to generate more transactions, thus bringing in more merchant fees. For a small business they need to balance the fee of the credit card transaction with the knowledge that it is convenient for many customers. Some small businesses will set a minimum card transaction level. They do this because the small transaction on a credit card will be more expensive because the credit card company will charge 2% or 50 cents whichever is larger. Yes a business does figure the cost of the cards into their prices, but they can get ahead a little bit if some customers voluntarily forgo using the credit card." } ]

[ { "docid": "273947", "title": "", "text": "\"Exactly what accounts are affected by any given transaction is not a fixed thing. Just for example, in a simple accounting system you might have one account for \"\"stock on hand\"\". In a more complex system you might have this broken out into many accounts for different types of stock, stock in different locations, etc. So I can only suggest example specific accounts. But account type -- asset, liability, capital (or \"\"equity\"\"), income, expense -- should be universal. Debit and credit rules should be universal. 1: Sold product on account: You say it cost you $500 to produce. You don't say the selling price, but let's say it's, oh, $700. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"Stock on hand\"\" by $500. Debit (increase) Asset \"\"Accounts receivable\"\" by $700. Credit (increase) Income \"\"Sales\"\" by $700. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"Cost of goods sold\"\" by $500. 2: $1000 spent on wedding party by friend I'm not sure how your friend's expenses affect your accounts. Are you asking how he would record this expense? Did you pay it for him? Are you expecting him to pay you back? Did he pay with cash, check, a credit card, bought on credit? I just don't know what's happening here. But just for example, if you're asking how your friend would record this in his own records, and if he paid by check: Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"checking account\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. If he paid with a credit card: Credit (increase) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. When he pays off the credit card: Debit (decrease) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"cash\"\" by $1000. (Or more realistically, there are other expenses on the credit card and the amount would be higher.) 3: Issue $3000 in stock to partner company I'm a little shakier on this, I haven't worked with the stock side of accounting. But here's my best stab: Well, did you get anything in return? Like did they pay you for the stock? I wouldn't think you would just give someone stock as a present. If they paid you cash for the stock: Debit (increase) Asset \"\"cash\"\". Credit (decrease) Capital \"\"shareholder equity\"\". Anyone else want to chime in on that one, I'm a little shaky there. Here, let me give you the general rules. My boss years ago described it to me this way: You only need to know three things to understand double-entry accounting: 1: There are five types of accounts: Assets: anything you have that has value, like cash, buildings, equipment, and merchandise. Includes things you may not actually have in your hands but that are rightly yours, like money people owe you but haven't yet paid. Liabilities: Anything you owe to someone else. Debts, merchandise paid for but not yet delivered, and taxes due. Capital (some call it \"\"capital\"\", others call it \"\"equity\"\"): The difference between Assets and Liabilities. The owners investment in the company, retained earnings, etc. Income: Money coming in, the biggest being sales. Expenses: Money going out, like salaries to employees, cost of purchasing merchandise for resale, rent, electric bill, taxes, etc. Okay, that's a big \"\"one thing\"\". 2: Every transaction must update two or more accounts. Each update is either a \"\"debit\"\" or a \"\"credit\"\". The total of the debits must equal the total of the credits. 3: A dollar bill in your pocket is a debit. With a little thought (okay, sometimes a lot of thought) you can figure out everything else from there.\"" }, { "docid": "126171", "title": "", "text": "\"I found the study \"\"The irrationality of payment behaviour\"\" accidentally while searching on the term \"\"DNB Study\"\" instead of \"\"D&B Study\"\". This study, which, when I followed the link, went to the web site dnb.nl (Dutch National Bank), instead of dnb.com (Dun & Bradstreet). It mentions all the salient points that I hear Dave Ramsey and others mention when they talk about studies on this subject of credit vs cash. Also, it cross references to many other studies by various researchers, banks, and universities. Is this the \"\"missing mythical DNB study?\"\" I'll let you decide. Relevant \"\"coincidental\"\" points from the study: To be fair and complete, I should mention that clearly the relevant parts of this DNB study are talking about discretionary spending. Auto-paying your mortgage with a card is clearly not going to cost you more (unless you somehow forget to pay off the card or some other silliness).\"" }, { "docid": "584187", "title": "", "text": "The amount you are earning in the savings account is insignificant, since you would only have the money in the account for 1 month after purchasing the car. The instant 1.5% cashback (or travel mile reward), on the other hand, can be significant. However, it is not normal for a car dealership to allow you to put $16k on a credit card. The reason is that the fees that the dealer has to pay to process your credit card would be too burdensome. Car dealers have a much smaller profit margin on their sales than a typical retail store, so if the dealer has to pay 3 or 4% of the sales price in credit card fees, it just eats up too much of their profit. If the dealer does allow you to put the entire purchase price on a credit card, be aware that they have already factored in their processing fees into the price. You might be able to get a better than 1.5% discount by offering to pay with cash instead." }, { "docid": "72168", "title": "", "text": "The prime rate is the interest rate banks use amongst themselves to lend money to each other only. It is used as the basis (sometimes) for what interest rate banks charge you. The prime rate is based loosely on the Fed rate. There is a committee that meets regularly to set this and other industry interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_rate I am not 100% positive the following is totally accurate The banks keep our deposits and pay us interest for doing so. They are paying us interest because they take yours, mine and everybody elses deposits as a large lump sum and invest that money. Sometimes as business loans, sometimes as mortgages and sometimes as credit card. The banks have a book of business that will be EXACTLY how much credit they have extended to everybody. But they do not keep that amount of cash in the vaults, only some smaller percentage of that large amount. When I use my credit card and they need to transfer money to amazon.com, if they don't happen to have enough cash that day, they will just borrow from another bank that does, and the interest rate they pay to do so is the prime rate. Since they are paying interest on the money they borrow to pay the debt I charged because they told me my credit was worth so much (...???...) they charge me a little bit more than that. Hence your credit card or mortgage's APR being based on the prime rate. I THINK that is what they do If I am wrong leave a comment and I will update, or the mods can." }, { "docid": "345448", "title": "", "text": "What makes a credit card risky is that it requires discipline. It is very easy to buy things that you cannot afford with a credit card. Credit cards usually require a minimum payment every month if you owe them money, but if you pay only the minimum amount, your debt will grow quickly. And since the interest rates are usually very high, you can easily get into a state where you are overwhelmed by your debt. The correct way to use a credit card is to pay the complete bill every month. If you can't afford to pay the complete bill because you spent too much, cut up your credit card. On the positive side, there are many situations where paying by credit card will give you protection if you don't get the goods that you paid for, because the credit card company is fully responsible for those goods, just like the seller. So if you pay for a $5,000 holiday with a credit card and the company you paid to goes bankrupt, the credit card company will refund your money. Do not ever look at cash back on purchases. You only get cash back if you spend money. Getting $50 cash back is of no use if you had to get $2,500 deeper in debt to get that cash back. (Some people might contradict this. But if you ask for advice on money.stackexchange then this is the correct advice for you that you should follow)." }, { "docid": "517050", "title": "", "text": "\"I want to recommend an exercise: Find all the people nearby who you can talk to in less than 24 hours about credit cards: Your family, whoever lives with you, and friends. Now, ask each of them \"\"what's the worst situation you've gotten yourself into with a credit card?\"\" Personally, the ratio of people who I asked who had credit cards to the ratio of people with horror stories about how credit cards screwed up their credit was nearly 1:1. Pretty much, only one of them had managed to avoid the trap that credit cards created (that sole exception had worked for the government at a high paying job and was now retired with adult children and a lucrative pension). Because it's trivially easy over-extend yourself, as a result of how credit cards work (if you had the cash at any second, you would have no need for the credit). But do your own straw poll, and then see what the experience of people around you has been. And if there's a lot more bad than good out there, then ask yourself \"\"am I somehow more fiscally responsible than all of these people?\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "277477", "title": "", "text": "The details of credit score calculation tend to change periodically, but the fundamentals are mostly consistent. Pay your bills, keep your average account age high, overpay your credit card minimums, and keep your overall debt low. And do soft pulls on your credit report to see what's happening. First, the simplest route: pay all your bills early or on time. Automatic deduction may be useful in this regard, especially for bills with predictable amounts. A corollary to this tip is to never leave an unpaid bill. What often happens to young people is in the course of moving around they leave the final bill unpaid and it gets reported to collections. Make sure you follow up online with all bills, even after canceling the service. Second, average account age and oldest account age matter. Open an account like a credit card and never close it, so you'll have an older account (hopefully a zero-fee card). Try to keep other accounts open rather than closing them (no need to cancel a zero-fee credit card) so your average account age stays higher. A card that works on internal systems (like a gift card) is not going to show up on a credit report; a card that works like any VISA/MC is likely going to show up. The rule of thumb is if they need your SSN to run a credit check for the application, then the card will appear on a credit report. You can pull your credit report to find out if the card is listed (you may have to allow time for lag before the card appears, but I'm not sure how long that might be). Third, a tip for extra credit score is to pay more than the minimum required on credit card bills. You can achieve this by either using your credit card at least once a month or by leaving a small hanging balance each month so there's always something to overpay next month. Credit card reporting will be either: unpaid, underpaid, minimum paid, or overpaid. Minimum payment helps your score and overpayment helps more. If you can use your credit card every month, that will give you something to overpay every month. Otherwise, you can leave a small debt left on the card but still pay over the monthly minimum. However, your total debt load, especially debt carried on your cards, counts against your score; aim for less than 10% of your limit. Finally, of course, is to pull your credit report periodically. You need to know what others are seeing. Since debt load utilization matters, make sure the reported card maximum is correct on your credit report. Talk to your bank or account issuer if the limit is wrong. If a collection appears, then you need to handle it. Often you can negotiate with the collector, but be careful to negotiate how they will report the resolution. You want them to agree to remove any negative information (either in exchange for payment or because of a mistake). Failing that, you want them to mark it paid in full or satisfied in full; letting them notate your score that you only partially paid is what you want to avoid, since it most signals someone with cash flow problems and credit issues. They control their reporting to credit bureaus, so if the person on the phone demurs, ask to speak to their supervisor or someone with negotiating authority. Try to get any agreements in writing. Remember that your total debt load is a factor in your credit score. Home loans and student loans do affect credit score. If you take on a smaller home loan, then it will affect your credit less harshly (and leave you with smaller monthly payments)." }, { "docid": "201800", "title": "", "text": "This is obviously hearsay because I can't remember the sources at all, but I recall hearing that at that company's chains, they also would take the credit card fee out of the worker's tips. so if you used a card and there's a 2.5% fee, they'd take that amount out of your waiter's tips. Isn't that nice? Random citations that make it less hearsay: http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2008/09/some_restaurant_owners_say_its.html http://blogs.citypages.com/food/2011/10/parasole_restaurants_dipping_into_tip_jar_taking_2_of_wait_staffs_credit_card_tips.php http://www.tip20.com/restaurant-chain-drops-plan-taking-credit-card-fees-out-of-tips/38 >The tip plan, first reported by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, called for passing along part of the debit and credit card fees — about 3 percent of tips on average. That would have meant a waiter would collect $19.40 out of a $20 tip. http://www.care2.com/causes/restaurant-chain-takes-banking-fees.html http://restaurants.about.com/b/2008/01/29/employer-takes-servers-tip-money-to-pay-for-credit-card-fees.htm" }, { "docid": "393866", "title": "", "text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\"" }, { "docid": "533933", "title": "", "text": "My view is from the Netherlands, a EU country. Con: Credit cards are more risky. If someone finds your card, they can use it for online purchases without knowing any PIN, just by entering the card number, expiration date, and security code on the back. Worse, sometimes that information is stored in databases, and those get stolen by hackers! Also, you can have agreed to do periodic payments on some website and forgot about them, stopped using the service, and be surprised about the charge later. Debit cards usually need some kind of device that requires your PIN to do online payments (the ones I have in the Netherlands do, anyway), and automated periodic payments are authorized at your bank where you can get an overview of the currently active ones. Con: Banks get a percentage of each credit card payment. Unlike debit cards where companies usually pay a tiny fixed fee for each transaction (of, say, half a cent), credit card payments usually cost them a percentage and it comes to much more, a significant part of the profit margin. I feel this is just wrong. Con: automatic monthly payment can come at an unexpected moment With debit cards, the amount is withdrawn immediately and if the money isn't there, you get an error message allowing you to pay some other way (credit card after all, other bank account, cash, etc). When a recent monthly payment from my credit card was due to be charged from my bank account recently, someone else had been paid from it earlier that day and the money wasn't there. So I had to pay interest, on something I bought weeks ago... Pro: Credit cards apparently have some kind of insurance. I've never used this and don't know how it works, but apparently you can get your money back easily after fraudulent charges. Pro: Credit cards can be more easily used internationally for online purchases I don't know how it is with Visa or MC-issued debit cards, but many US sites accept only cards that have number/expiration date/security code and thus my normal bank account debit card isn't useable. Conclusion: definitely have one, but only use it when absolutely necessary." }, { "docid": "345482", "title": "", "text": "\"in theory, yes. in practice, no. largely because merchants pay a fee to process credit card transactions which normally exceeds the cash back you can get. i tried this with square, since their vendor fee was 2.75%, and i got 5% back on restaurants. however, even though i registered with square as a restaurant, transactions were categorized as \"\"other services\"\" or something, so i only got 1% back and lost 1.75% net. moreover, if you did find a card/processor combination that left you with a net gain, they would eventually catch on and charge you with some sort of fraud. i wasn't worried about it with the square experiment because it was only 1$, but if you tried to do this with large sums, a human would catch you. and if it was enough money to matter, there would be a lawsuit. if you were really unlucky, you might get charged with some terrorism crap like \"\"structuring\"\" deposits.\"" }, { "docid": "308970", "title": "", "text": "\"Using cash instead of a debit card lets you see in real time how much cash you have left and where it's going. It's a lot \"\"harder\"\" to see the cash disappear from your wallet than it is to swipe the plastic (whether it's a debit or credit card). Using cash is a way to keep the funds in check and to keep spending within a budget (i.e. you can't spend it if you don't physically have the cash anymore).\"" }, { "docid": "503034", "title": "", "text": "\"What it means is that you can always come up with alternative framings where the difference between two options is stated as a gain or a loss, but the effect is the same in either case. For instance, if I offer to sell a T-shirt for $10 and offer a cash discount of $1, you pay $10 if buying with a credit card or $9 if buying with cash. If I instead offer the shirt for $9 with a $1 surcharge for credit card use, you still pay $10 if buying with a credit card or $9 if buying with cash. The financial result is the same in either case, but psychologically people may perceive them differently and make different buying decisions. In a tax situation it may be more complicated since exemptions wouldn't directly reduce your tax, but only your taxable income. However, you can still see that, in general, having to pay $X more in tax for not doing some action (e.g., not purchasing health insurance) is the same as being able to pay $X less in tax as a reward for doing the action. Either way, doing the action results in you paying $X less than you would if you didn't do it; the only difference is in which behavior (doing it or not doing it) is framed as the \"\"default\"\" option. Again, these framings may differentially influence people's behavior even when the net result is the same.\"" }, { "docid": "164795", "title": "", "text": "I got a Capital One credit card because they don't charge a fee for transactions in foreign currencies. So I only use it when I travel abroad. At home, I use 3 different credit cards, each offering different types of rewards (cash back on gas, movies, restaurants, online shopping etc)." }, { "docid": "275593", "title": "", "text": "In the US, money talks and bullshit walks. You can skip any credit history requirement if you demonstrate your ability to pay in a very obvious way. Credit history is just a standardized way of weeding out people that cannot reliably pay, instead of having to listen to an individual's excuses about how the bank overdrafted their account five times while they were waiting for their friend to pay them back for bubble gum. If you can show up with a wad of cash, you can get the car, or the apartment, or the bank account without the troubles of everyone else. But you can begin building credit with a secured credit card pretty easily. This will be useful for things like utilities and sometimes jobs. Also, banks won't be opposed to giving you credit if you have a lot of money in an account with them. You should be able to maintain an exemption from all socioeconomic problems in the United States, solely due to your experience with money and assets." }, { "docid": "11936", "title": "", "text": "\"What you have is usually called a pre-paid credit card. You pay some money (Indian Rupees) to the credit card company, and then you can use the card to pay for purchases etc in foreign (non-Indian) currencies upto the remaining balance on the card. If a proposed charge exceeds the remaining balance, the transaction will be declined when you try to use the card. There might be multiple ways that the card is set up, e.g. it might be restricted to charge purchases denominated in US dollars alone, or you might be able to use it anywhere in the world (except India). The balance on the card might be denominated in INR, or in US$, say. In the latter case, the exchange rate at which your INR payment was converted into the $US balance is fixed and agreed to at the time of the original payment: you paid INR 70K (say) and the balance was set to US$ 1000 even though the exchange rate on the open market would have given you a few more US dollars. In the former case with the balance denominated in INR, a charge of US$ 100, say, would be converted to INR at a fixed agreed-upon rate, or at the current exchange rate that the Visa or MasterCard network is using, plus (typically) a 3% fee currency exchange fee, and your balance in INR will decrease accordingly. With all that as prologue, if you made a purchase from Walmart USA and later returned it for a credit, it should increase your credit card balance appropriately. You may be whacked with currency conversion fees along the way depending on how your card is set up, but with a US$-denominated card, a credit of US$100 should increase your card balance by US$100. So, that $US 100 can be spent on something else instead. In short, the card is your \"\"bank\"\" account. You cannot spend more than the remaining balance on the card just like you cannot withdraw more money from your bank account than you have in the account, and you can recharge your card by making more INR payments into it so as to increase the available balance. But it is like a current account in that you are unlikely to earn interest on the balance the way you do with a savings account. So what if you are back in India and have no further use of this card? Can you get your balance back as cash or deposit into your regular bank account? Call the Customer Help line, or read the card agreement you signed.\"" }, { "docid": "215180", "title": "", "text": "First and foremost you should do more research on credit cards and what everything means. As expressed by others the balance transfer fee is not what you think it is. Credit cards can be great, they can also quickly erode your credit score and your standing. So understanding the basics is VERY important. The credit card that is right for you should have the following criteria. The first two points should be straight forward, you should not have to pay a CC company for the privilege to use their card. They should pay you through perks and rewards. It should also be a CC that can be used for what you need it for. If you travel internationally a lot and the CC you choose only works within the US then what good is it? The third point is where you need to ask yourself what you do a lot and if a CC can offer rewards through travel miles, or cash back or other bonuses based on your lifestyle. The transfer fee is not what you think it is, people who already are carrying debt on another credit card and would like to transfer that debt to another credit card would be interested in finding a fee or a low %. People do this to get a batter rate or to get away from a bad credit card. If one charges 28% and another charges 13%, well it makes sense to transfer existing debt over to the 13% provided they don't crush you on fees. Since you have no credit card debt (assumption based on the fact you want to build your credit), you should ask yourself for what purpose and how often do you plan to use the credit card. Would this card be just for emergencies, and wont be used on daily purchases then a credit card that offers 3% cash back on gasoline purchases is not for you. If you however love to travel and plan to use your credit card for a lot of purchases OR have a few large purchases (insurance, tuition etc.) then get a credit card that provides rewards like miles. It really comes down to you and your situation. There are numerous websites dedicated to the best credit card for any situation. The final thing I will say is what I mentioned at the beginning, its important, CC's can be a tool to establish and improve your credit worthiness, they can also be a tool to destroy your credit worthiness, so be careful and make smart choices on what you use your card for. A credit score is like a mountain, it requires a slow and steady discipline to reach the top, but one misstep and that credit score can tumble quickly." }, { "docid": "157923", "title": "", "text": "First of all a big thumbs up for Ben's answer. A few small things you can do to help you on your way. Hopefully you are not more in debt that 6 months of salary in debt because that is a really tough road. first thing you need to do is get some professional help. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) offers free or low-cost debt counseling to help you through the process. Visit them at NFCC.org or call 1-800-388-2227 to find a local affiliate office near you. You might want to only use cash for a while. If not and you have a credit card with no balance always use that card because it will be interest free. Remember if you use credit cards as a payment system and not credit, you actually get free interest. If you roll even a penny over into the next statement you are paying interest day one of each purchase. Pay credit cards with highest interest rate first an pay minimums to others This one I like the best. As you get money pay your credit card. You interest is being compounded daily. Pay your cards when you have money, not when they are due. Have a mindset that reminds how much something is really going to cost you If you plan on taking 3 years to get out of debt and you buy something for $100 that is really costs you $156.08 Three years of compound 16% interest. 5b. Conversely if you sell something for $100 on eBay that is like selling something for $156.08." }, { "docid": "251538", "title": "", "text": "> But this isn't cash though, its credit card. Which is essentially cash, is it not? If I pay you with a credit card, your bank account gets cash. It gets cash from the credit card company. And yes, of course you'll have to report the incident. You're a victim of theft. The person whose credit card was stolen is also a victim of theft. Tell me why you have a *right* to someone else's stolen money." } ]

[ { "docid": "244641", "title": "", "text": "Assets can be acquired in different ways and for different purposes. I will only address common legal ways of acquiring assets. You can trade one asset for another asset. This usually takes place in the form of trading cash or a cash equivalent for an asset. The asset received should be of equal or greater value than the asset given in the eyes of the purchaser in order for the trade to be rational. Take this example: I am selling a bike that has been sitting on my porch for a few months. It's worth about $25 to me. My friend, Andy, comes by and offers $90 for it. I happily accept. Andy valued the bike at $110. This transaction produced value for both parties. I had a value benefit of $65 (90 - 25) and Andy had a value benefit of $20 (110 - 90). You can receive an asset as a gift or an inheritance. Less common, but still frequent. Someone gives you a gift or a family member dies and you receive an asset you did not own previously. You can receive an asset in exchange for a liability. When you take out a loan, you receive an asset (cash) which is financed by a liability (loan payable). In your case: Why would I buy a mall if having assets worth the same amount as the mall? I must value the mall more than the assets I currently have. This may stem from the possibility of greater future returns than I am currently making on my asset, or, if I financed the purchase with a liability, greater future returns than the cost associated with payment on the principal and interest of the liability." } ]

[ { "docid": "113786", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two umbrellas in investing: active management and passive management. Passive management is based on the idea \"\"you can't beat the market.\"\" Passive investors believe in the efficient markets hypothesis: \"\"the market interprets all information about an asset, so price is equal to underlying value\"\". Another idea in this field is that there's a minimum risk associated with any given return. You can't increase your expected return without assuming more risk. To see it graphically: As expected return goes up, so does risk. If we stat with a portfolio of 100 bonds, then remove 30 bonds and add 30 stocks, we'll have a portfolio that's 70% bonds/30% stocks. Turns out that this makes expected return increase and lower risk because of diversification. Markowitz showed that you could reduce the overall portfolio risk by adding a riskier, but uncorrelated, asset! Basically, if your entire portfolio is US stocks, then you'll lose money whenever US stocks fall. But, if you have half US stocks, quarter US bonds, and quarter European stocks, then even if the US market tanks, half your portfolio will be unaffected (theoretically). Adding different types of uncorrelated assets can reduce risk and increase returns. Let's tie this all together. We should get a variety of stocks to reduce our risk, and we can't beat the market by security selection. Ideally, we ought to buy nearly every stock in the market so that So what's our solution? Why, the exchange traded fund (ETF) of course! An ETF is basically a bunch of stocks that trade as a single ticker symbol. For example, consider the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY). You can purchase a unit of \"\"SPY\"\" and it will move up/down proportional to the S&P 500. This gives us diversification among stocks, to prevent any significant downside while limiting our upside. How do we diversify across asset classes? Luckily, we can purchase ETF's for almost anything: Gold ETF's (commodities), US bond ETF's (domestic bonds), International stock ETFs, Intl. bonds ETFs, etc. So, we can buy ETF's to give us exposure to various asset classes, thus diversifying among asset classes and within each asset class. Determining what % of our portfolio to put in any given asset class is known as asset allocation and some people say up to 90% of portfolio returns can be determined by asset allocation. That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. You can readjust your portfolio holdings periodically, but otherwise there is no rapid trading. Now the other umbrella is active management. The unifying idea is that you can generate superior returns by stock selection. Active investors reject the idea of efficient markets. A classic and time proven strategy is value investing. After the collapse of 07/08, bank stocks greatly fell, but all the other stocks fell with them. Some stocks worth $100 were selling for $50. Value investors quickly snapped up these stocks because they had a margin of safety. Even if the stock didn't go back to 100, it could go up to $80 or $90 eventually, and investors profit. The main ideas in value investing are: have a big margin of safety, look at a company's fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc), and see if it promises adequate return. Coke has tremendous earnings and it's a great company, but it's so large that you're never going to make 20% profits on it annually, because it just can't grow that fast. Another field of active investing is technical analysis. As opposed to the \"\"fundamental analysis\"\" of value investing, technical analysis involves looking at charts for patterns, and looking at stock history to determine future paths. Things like resistance points and trend lines also play a role. Technical analysts believe that stocks are just ticker symbols and that you can use guidelines to predict where they're headed. Another type of active investing is day trading. This basically involves buying and selling stocks every hour or every minute or just at a rapid pace. Day traders don't hold onto investments for very long, and are always trying to predict the market in the short term and take advantage of it. Many individual investors are also day traders. The other question is, how do you choose a strategy? The short answer is: pick whatever works for you. The long answer is: Day trading and technical analysis is a lot of luck. If there are consistent systems for trading , then people are keeping them secret, because there is no book that you can read and become a consistent trader. High frequency trading (HFT) is an area where people basically mint money, but it s more technology and less actual investing, and would not be categorized as day trading. Benjamin Graham once said: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Value investing will work because there's evidence for it throughout history, but you need a certain temperament for it and most people don't have that. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to adequately study stocks, and people with day jobs can't devote that kind of time. So there you have it. This is my opinion and by no means definitive, but I hope you have a starting point to continue your study. I included the theory in the beginning because there are too many monkeys on CNBC and the news who just don't understand fundamental economics and finance, and there's no sense in applying a theory until you can understand why it works and when it doesn't.\"" }, { "docid": "162467", "title": "", "text": "Canadian departure tax is implemented as a deemed sale gains proceeds taxation. Check here for details. What it means is that you're taxed on the difference between your FMV on the date of terminating residency and your Canadian cost basis (FMV when you acquired residency, or regular cost basis if you acquired the assets while being resident of Canada). It doesn't matter if you actually withdraw the money or not, it has no significance. You'll have to pay the tax either way." }, { "docid": "384983", "title": "", "text": "\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"" }, { "docid": "187776", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking: when a company buys another company it's a complex agreement that spells out many things, including how the acquiring company is paying for the target company. These are the most common form of payment: 1. Cash. Shareholders of the target company get cash. 2. Shares. Shareholders of the target company get shares of the acquiring company. 3. A combination of 1 and 2 above." }, { "docid": "484307", "title": "", "text": "\"There's an old adage in the equities business - \"\"buy on rumor, sell on fact\"\". Sometimes the strategy is to buy as soon as the rumor is out about a potential merger and then sell off into the news when it is actually announced, since this is normally when the biggest bounce occurs as part of a merger. The other part of the analysis you should do is to understand which of the companies benefits most (or is hurt the worst) by the merger and then make your play accordingly. Sometimes the company being acquired will see a bounce while the acquiring firm takes a hit, which is an indication the experts think the acquisition will be a drag on the acquiring company (perhaps because it is taking on a great deal of debt to make the acquisition, or because the acquiring firm is paying too much of a premium for what it's getting in return). Other times the exact opposite is true, where the company being acquired takes a hit while the buyer bounces, and again, the reasons for this can vary widely. If you wait until the merger is actually announced then by the time you get in, most of the premium from the announcement will likely have already been realized, and you'll be buying near the top of the market for the stock. The key is to be ahead of the other sellers by seeing the opportunities before they do and then knowing when to get out before everyone else does. Not an easy thing to pull off when you're trying to anticipate the markets, but it can be done if you do the right research and have patience. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "475748", "title": "", "text": "Adapted from an answer to a somewhat different question. Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over your 401k assets into an IRA. But I don't think that is the case here. If you had a Traditional 401k, the assets will roll over into a Traditional IRA; if it was a Roth 401k, into a Roth IRA. If you had started a little earlier, you could have considered considered converting part or all of your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA (assuming that your 2012 taxable income will be smaller this year because you have quit your job). Of course, this may still hold true in 2013 as well. As to which custodian to choose for your Rollover IRA, I recommend investing in a low-cost index mutual fund such as VFINX which tracks the S&P 500 Index. Then, do not look at how that fund is doing for the next thirty years. This will save you from the common error made by many investors when they pull out at the first downturn and thus end up buying high and selling low. Also, do not chase after exchange-traded mutual funds or ETFs (as many will likely recommend) until you have acquired more savvy or interest in investing than you are currently exhibiting. Not knowing which company stock you have, it is hard to make a recommendation about selling or holding on. But since you are glad to have quit your job, you might want to consider making a clean break and selling the shares that you own in your ex-employer's company. Keep the $35K (less the $12K that you will use to pay off the student loan) as your emergency fund. Pay off your student loan right away since you have the cash to do it." }, { "docid": "477630", "title": "", "text": "To me, it depends. How much are their total assets? Having 10% of your money in something like that isn't crazy. having it all in? That IS crazy. Can they reduce their exposure to this account without paying a penalty (say pull out 10%?) The Manager should be taking direction from them. If they aren't able to get the manager to re-allocate to something more suitable, under your friends direction, they should then pursue whether or not the manager is operating lawfully." }, { "docid": "561614", "title": "", "text": "Your question is rather direct, but I think there is some underlying issues that are worth addressing. One How to save and purchase ~$500 worth items This one is the easy one, since we confront it often enough. Never, ever, ever buy anything on credit. The only exception might be your first house, but that's it. Simply redirect the money you would spend in non necessities ('Pleasure and entertainment') to your big purchase fund (the PS4, in this case). When you get the target amount, simply purchase it. When you get your salary use it to pay for the monthly actual necessities (rent, groceries, etc) and go through the list. The money flow should be like this: Two How to evaluate if a purchase is appropriate It seems that you may be reluctant to spend a rather chunky amount of money on a single item. Let me try to assuage you. 'Expensive' is not defined by price alone, but by utility. To compare the price of items you should take into account their utility. Let's compare your prized PS4 to a soda can. Is a soda can expensive? It quenches your thirst and fills you with sugar. Tap water will take your thirst away, without damaging your health, and for a fraction of the price. So, yes, soda is ridiculously expensive, whenever water is available. Is a game console expensive? Sure. But it all boils down to how much do you end up using it. If you are sure you will end up playing for years to come, then it's probably good value for your money. An example of wrongly spent money on entertainment: My friends and I went to the cinema to see a movie without checking the reviews beforehand. It was so awful that it hurt, even with the discount price we got. Ultimately, we all ended up remembering that time and laughing about how wrong it went. So it was somehow, well spent, since I got a nice memory from that evening. A purchase is appropriate if you get your money's worth of utility/pleasure. Three Console and computer gaming, and commendation of the latter There are few arguments for buying a console instead of upgrading your current computer (if needed) except for playing console exclusives. It seems unlikely that a handful of exclusive games can justify purchasing a non upgradeable platform unless you can actually get many hours from said games. Previous arguments to prefer consoles instead of computers are that they work out of the box, capability to easily connect to the tv, controller support... have been superseded by now. Besides, pc games can usually be acquired for a lower price through frequent sales. More about personal finance and investment" }, { "docid": "523792", "title": "", "text": "for full disclosure I'm an Independent Contractor and work with Jeff Richman. @ Neil: Question 1: How legitimate is this? If you were never contacted by the company you would never know about the money. Period, end of story. Not trying to be rude but that is the bottom line truth. Look up asset recovery businesses. They are in every city almost. They work for individuals, governments and businesses. Very legitimate business. Question 2: Since this doesn't seem to be the case, how does this company know that I potentially have unclaimed assets to claim? I understand your concern and the best analogy I can think of to explain this is: A company's copier breaks down. A copy machine repair man is called. He shows up and opens the copier and studies it intensely and closes it back up. He takes a hammer out of his bag and hits the copier on the side in two different places, twice. The copier starts working. He charges the company owner a $1000.00. The company owner is glad to pay it because without the knowledge of the repair man, his business is not making money. This is the same: The professionals at Keane have specific knowledge about how to, where to and who to ask for these lists. Granted, it's not your business we're talking about here but without them, you get nothing. 2 professionals have advised you to move forward; your brother's accountant and lawyer. Take the money. It costs you nothing. If they want money from you up front or want you to pay for stuff, run." }, { "docid": "337993", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"" }, { "docid": "349974", "title": "", "text": "\"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long \"\"Long\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have possession of an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to debit an asset\"\", financially. Short \"\"Short\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to be liable for an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to credit an asset\"\", financially. Option \"\"Option\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action\"\", legally. Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery. For equities, this means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is \"\"the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". By the definition of \"\"long\"\" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be \"\"long\"\" the call means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" while to be \"\"short\"\" the call means \"\"to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". So, to be \"\"long\"\" a call means to simply own the call.\"" }, { "docid": "559166", "title": "", "text": "If you buy a CD through a brokerage, the trade confirmation will indicate whether the CDs is FDIC insured. Unless you have authorized the broker (in writing) to exercise discretion in your account, meaning they can act in your account without contacting you first, they must contact you and discuss the specific investment with you before buying it. If they have misled you and the CD is not actually FDIC insured, you have a right to ask them to reverse the transaction. Keep in mind that brokerages are also required to insure the assets in your account which they hold on their balance sheets (cash, bonds, stocks, mutual funds, but not commodities). This is provided by SIPC, the equivalent of FDIC in the brokerage world. Most large brokerages also insure you beyond the SIPC minimum. Keep in mind, unlike FDIC, you're not insured against market risk, only against a bankruptcy of the brokerage. Also, SIPC is funded by the securities industry, not by the US Government." }, { "docid": "163119", "title": "", "text": "\"negotiability is a legal concept that permits free transfer of a security without the requirement of prior consent of the issuer. that means the issuer must pay the current holder of the security, irrespective of who he is. negotiability also protects a good faith buyer of the instrument from adverse ownership claims of purported prior holders of the instrument. it is not related to \"\"negotiating\"\" the price or whatnot. A negotiable security means the current owner does not have to be concerned about acquiring the asset via a bad chain of title b/c he can always assert that he is a \"\"holder in due course\"\" defense against such claims, and have absolute security in his ownership right over the asset. securities and derivatives are different. securities are transferrable instruments representing a direct claim on the issuer for the value of the security, whether debt or equity ownership. derivatives are bilateral contracts, which can only be entered into with the consent of both parties, and can only be transferred by such consent. derivatives represent a claim against the parties of to the derivative that depends on some economic reference which is outside of the financial condition of the two parties to the contract, such as interest rates, FX rates, commodity prices, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "305794", "title": "", "text": "You acquire something because you expect to use it, or because you expect to exchange it for something that you want to use. Gold is a good candidate for storing value because it's rare, it's not easily counterfeited, it's divisible, it's portable, etc. Contrast this with your favorite currency: more can be printed up almost at will, etc. Overvaluedness/undervaluedness is only in reference to something else. How many dollars does it take to buy an ounce of gold? (About $1,500.) How many ounces does it take to equal the DJIA? (About 8.) How many ounces of silver does it take to buy an ounce of gold? How many barrels of oil can you buy with an ounce of gold? Etc., etc. But whatever measure you're using, the value of the gold you have is directly related to the mass of gold you own. Two ounces are twice as valuable as one ounce. As the old joke goes (no offense to taxi drivers intended!) when your cabbie starts talking about how to get rich with gold, it's probably overvalued. Sell it all! ;)" }, { "docid": "237301", "title": "", "text": "\"If you don't plan to stay in it, it is never good money to try to buy a house in a bad neighborhood. The question you want to be asking is probably \"\"Is it smart to buy this piece of real estate,\"\" not \"\"is it smart to buy a house in college.\"\" In this case, it's probably not smart because you won't actually have revenue from the property (you'll break even compared to renting), you may face some expensive repairs (water heater or other appliances going out, etc.), and you may find that your startup costs in things like lawn mowers, etc. is not worth the hassle (or cost of lawn service if you have someone else do it.) On top of that, can you get a loan with your proven income and assets? Don't forget to factor the cost of selling the house again into it -- and how long can you leave it on the market after you move out if it doesn't sell without going bankrupt yourself? In my opinion, it'd be a giant albatross around your neck.\"" }, { "docid": "527320", "title": "", "text": "\">It was a discussion about revenue recognition from the sales of iPhones, and whether it would be better for Apple if the regulation was changed to allow immediate recognition rather than deferring the income... My argument is that it didn't matter one bit, because nothing is changing about how the company is actually run. Cash flow in and out of the company doesn't change... The Accounting majors largely disagreed with me, while the Finance majors largely agreed. There are too many ways to \"\"buy\"\" an iPhone. While some assumptions could be made to make revenue recognition more uniform, cash flow could be wildly different and isn't guaranteed based on the number of units sold. If everyone paid in full with cash, this wouldn't be the case. However, the large majority of iPhone owners acquire their phones via carrier subsidy with another major group buying them on payment plans either from their carrier or directly from Apple.\"" }, { "docid": "152151", "title": "", "text": "A big issue for historical data in banking is that they don't/can't reside within a single system. Archives of typical bank will include dozen(s) of different archives made by different companies on different, incompatible systems. For example, see http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/big-bank-theory-chart-large.jpg as an illustration of bank mergers and acquisitions, and AFAIK that doesn't include many smaller deals. For any given account, it's 10-year history might be on some different system. Often, when integrating such systems, a compromise is made - if bank A acquires bank B that has earlier acquired bank C, then if the acquisition of C was a few years ago, then you can skip integrating the archives of C in your online systems, keep them separate, and use them only when/if needed (and minimize that need by hefty fees). Since the price list and services are supposed to be equal for everyone, then no matter how your accounts originated, if 10% of archives are an expensive enough problem to integrate, then it makes financial sense to restrict access to 100% of archives older than some arbitrary threshold." }, { "docid": "367829", "title": "", "text": "\"> Comcast has argued that—regardless of the competitive landscape in Internet service and cable television—the merger will not result in \"\"merger-specific\"\" harm. That is, the Internet may already be monopolized, but allowing it to acquire Time-Warner Cable will not make it any worse. I like how they have gotten to the point where no fucks are given and they ca come out and say it without any repercussions\"" }, { "docid": "248799", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"\"buckets.\"\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"\"target retirement\"\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"\"equity premium\"\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "393204", "title": "", "text": "Your question seems to be premised on your personal understanding of economics, and asking that people present to you an explanation of business transactions that is consistent with your own personal worldview. But your premises are flawed, so an accurate answer should not accept them. The basics of trade is that something is worth more to one person than another; a wheat farmer has more wheat that they could possibly eat, and so it has no value other than what they can get by selling it, while an accountant will starve if they do not have any food and thus is willing to pay what the market demands. The two parties can both be better off by having a transaction. The other motivation for transactions is that parties may disagree as to what something is worth; even if one party will lose from the transaction, they may both believe they will profit." } ]

[ { "docid": "380851", "title": "", "text": "\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"" }, { "docid": "272790", "title": "", "text": "\"In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by \"\"fundamental indexation\"\" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is \"\"price-weighted\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by \"\"fundamentals\"\" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan.\"" }, { "docid": "5607", "title": "", "text": "\"Here is how the Visa network works: A Visa transaction is a carefully orchestrated process. When a Visa account holder uses a Visa card to buy a pair of shoes, it’s actually the acquirer — the merchant’s bank — that reimburses the merchant for the shoes. Then, the issuer — the account holder’s bank — reimburses the acquirer, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Lastly, the issuer collects from the account holder by withdrawing funds from the account holder’s bank account if a debit account is used, or through billing if a credit account is used. I read this to mean the Merchant's Bank (the Acquirer Bank) gives the merchant the money within 2 days via the Card Issuer's Bank. The issuing bank is the one that provides the \"\"credit\"\" feature since that bank won't get reimbursed until the shopper's bill is paid (or perhaps even longer if the shopper carries a balance). You'll notice the Credit Card company (Visa/MC/etc) is only involved in the process as a way of passing messages. Of course they take a fee for this service so seller ultimately get's less than the buyer bought the shoes for.\"" }, { "docid": "102436", "title": "", "text": "Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started." }, { "docid": "220147", "title": "", "text": "Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options)." }, { "docid": "337993", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"" }, { "docid": "484307", "title": "", "text": "\"There's an old adage in the equities business - \"\"buy on rumor, sell on fact\"\". Sometimes the strategy is to buy as soon as the rumor is out about a potential merger and then sell off into the news when it is actually announced, since this is normally when the biggest bounce occurs as part of a merger. The other part of the analysis you should do is to understand which of the companies benefits most (or is hurt the worst) by the merger and then make your play accordingly. Sometimes the company being acquired will see a bounce while the acquiring firm takes a hit, which is an indication the experts think the acquisition will be a drag on the acquiring company (perhaps because it is taking on a great deal of debt to make the acquisition, or because the acquiring firm is paying too much of a premium for what it's getting in return). Other times the exact opposite is true, where the company being acquired takes a hit while the buyer bounces, and again, the reasons for this can vary widely. If you wait until the merger is actually announced then by the time you get in, most of the premium from the announcement will likely have already been realized, and you'll be buying near the top of the market for the stock. The key is to be ahead of the other sellers by seeing the opportunities before they do and then knowing when to get out before everyone else does. Not an easy thing to pull off when you're trying to anticipate the markets, but it can be done if you do the right research and have patience. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "62967", "title": "", "text": "\"Normally these are only generated upon an acquisition. When you acquire a business, all the tangible and intangible assets are market to \"\"fair value\"\", with goodwill as the plug to total to the actual purchase price. So the cash out the door is the purchase price. Then the asset is amortized. In the normal course you wouldn't create the intangible - the sales people salary would just be an expense.\"" }, { "docid": "279782", "title": "", "text": "\"Usually insiders are in a better position than you to understand their business, but that doesn't mean they will know the future with perfect accuracy. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes life events force them to liquidate an otherwise promising investment, sometimes their minds change. So while it is indeed valuable information, as everything in fundamental analysis it must be taken with a grain of salt. Automatic Sell I think these refer to how the sell occurred. Often the employees don't get actual shares but options or warrants that can be converted to shares. Or there may be special predetermined arrangements regarding when and how the shares may be traded. Since the decision to sell here has nothing to do with the prospects of the business, but has to do with the personal situation of the employee, it's not quite the same as outright selling due to market concerns. Some people, for instance, are not interested in holding stock. Part of their compensation is given in stock, so they immediately sell the stock to avoid the headache of watching an investment. This obviously doesn't indicate that they expect the company will go south. I think automatic sell refers to these sorts of situations, but your broker should provide a more detailed definition. Disposition (Non Open Market) These days people trade through a broker, but there's nothing stopping you from taking the physical shares and giving them to someone in exchange for say a stack of cash. With a broker, you only \"\"sell\"\" without considering who is buying. The broker then finds buyers for you according to their own system. If selling without a broker you can also be choosy with who is buying, and it's not like anybody can just call up the CEO and ask to buy some stock, so it's a non-open market. Ultimately though it's still the insider selling. Just on a different exchange. So I would treat this as any insider sell - if they are selling, they may be expecting the stock to become less valuable. indirect ownership I think this refers to owning an entity that in turn owns the asset. For instance CEO of XYZ owns stock in ACME, but ACME holds shares of XYZ. This is a somewhat complicated situation, it comes down to whether you think they sold ACME because of the exposure to XYZ or because of some other risk that applies only to ACME and not XYZ. Generally speaking, I don't think you would find a rule like \"\"if insider transactions of so and so kinds > X then buy\"\" that provides guaranteed success. If such a rule was possible it would have been exploited already by the professionals. The more sensible option is to consider all data available to you and try to make a holistic evaluation. All of these insider activities can be bullish or bearish depending on many other factors.\"" }, { "docid": "204151", "title": "", "text": "\"> everything looks 35 years old. My local kmart looks like the land before time. > The reason sears/Kmart is hurt is due to their management being directed by a hedge fund. But that hedge fund manager \"\"genius\"\" acquired all of that Sears real estate as an asset play in 2005. Makes you wonder how it's being carried on the books post crash. edit: here's the reason for the store closings: > Sears Holdings Corp announced that for the fourth quarter of 2011, it expects consolidated adjusted EBITDA will be less than half of last year's amount. http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/SHLD.O/key-developments/article/2456570 Ouch! That should put them in the red for the entire year! Retailers obviously depend on the holiday season, and it was dismal this year for sears. I noticed that they had been in the black solely because the always got bailed out by 4th quarter earnings. No more!\"" }, { "docid": "566205", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the \"\"dividend day\"\" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 \"\"refund\"\". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the \"\"normal\"\" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the \"\"normal\"\" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life.\"" }, { "docid": "186184", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \"\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\"\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\"" }, { "docid": "151203", "title": "", "text": "A derivative in finance is simply any asset whose value is based on the value of another asset or based on the value of a group of assets. A derivative contract is a type of contract (usually a 'standardized contract') with specific payout instruction based on the price changes of a different asset. The basic idea is that it becomes easier to make a claim to an asset or property (and profit from this claim), without needing to physically transfer it (or even the title to said asset), and use much less capital to do so (reduce risk). They become problematic when multiple people may have claims to the real asset, or when the value of the derivatives changes very quickly or are hard to calculate. There are also liquidity problems the further you get from the real asset. This is not a problem for all kinds of derivatives contracts. And you must recognize that derivatives are used colloquially in a way that has nothing to do with reality to cause fear in people/investors that are not financially savvy. Many derivatives also have dubious or no economic purposes such that regulators don't allow them to be traded since they can't see how it is different from gambling. This is seen in financial markets that are less liberalized or cultures with puritanical backgrounds. Typically the trick is to convince regulators that the derivative or financial product helps with reducing risk and hedging and it will get approved. I've mentioned some terminology, but this depends specifically on what kind of derivatives contract you become interested in. Swaps, Credit Default Swaps, Futures, Options, Options on Futures, Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, Inverse Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, warrants, and more all have their own terminology. How to trade them in a simulation? It all depends on which financial product you really become interested in." }, { "docid": "313285", "title": "", "text": "Interesting recent in depth article on sears hldg. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20111228/FREE/111229931 I wonder how sears is supposed to compete with everyone from walmart to home depot. For its size, it is insanely cheap(shld = $3.5B, wmrt = $205B). But who needs more mediocre retail space? I suppose it could be acquired for a bunch of reasons: assets, elimination as a competitor, threaten another major player, etc." }, { "docid": "472759", "title": "", "text": "What's it like being all the way up on that pedestal without having a clue what you're talking about? Are you dizzy? Do you have to apply extra Sunscreen to your upturned nose? When you read that one Wikipedia article, and 3 Forbes links are you just overwhelmed with the strength you just acquired, or have you felt this Supreme power all along? We have so many questions! Please answer them with vague, nondescript platitudes and more questions please. That would be awesome." }, { "docid": "109754", "title": "", "text": "Expensing a transfer of funds is incorrect. That will affect the Profit/Loss (Income) statement when you transfer it out and back in, which you do not want, at least for the principle. The interest should be recorded as a interest income. The general way to account for transferring money is to credit the originating account, and debit the destination account. This will only affect the balance sheet accounts. For example: Transferring (buying) 10,000 worth of fix term bank deposits Interest is paid: The bank deposit reaches maturity, so the principle is returned, with the final interest payment. The accounts Checking account and Fixed term bank deposit are asset accounts, which show up on the balance sheet. The Interest income is an income account, which will show up in the income statement. This is how a fixed term/CD is usually recorded. In certain cases, where the business must follow an accounting standard, this may very well be insufficient, but this situation will be unlikely if it's a small private sports club. Having said that, double check to make sure what you've stated is indeed correct, and look back into the past entries to see how it was dealt with before, especially since you said this bookkeeping job is temporary. I would strongly advise against changing non-recent entries, even if they are incorrect. For the insurance payments, that would depend on how the damaged assets were accounted for. It's a little hard to say without more detail-- the extent of the damage, how the diminished value was accounted for in the books, the cost of repair materials, etc." }, { "docid": "219398", "title": "", "text": "Bitcoin can facilitate this, despite the risks associated with using bitcoin exchanges and the price volatility at any given time. The speed of bitcoin can limit your exposure to the bitcoin network to one hour. Cyprus has a more advanced infrastructure than most countries to support bitcoin transactions, with Neo & Bee opening as a regulated bank/financial entity in Cyprus just two months ago, and ATM/Vending Machines existing for that asset. Anyway, you acquire bitcoin from an individual locally (in exchange for cash) or an exchange that does not require the same level of reporting as a bank account in Cyprus or Russia. No matter how you acquire the bitcoin, you transfer it to the exchange, sell bitcoin on the exchange for your desired currency (USD, EURO, etc), you instruct the exchange to wire the EURO to your cyprus bank account using your cyprus account's SWIFT code. The end. Depending on the combination of countries involved, the exchange may still encounter similar withdrawal limitations until certain regulatory requirements are resolved. Also, I'm unsure of the attitude toward bitcoin related answers on this site, so I tried to add a disclaimer about bitcoin's risks at the top, but that doesn't make this answer incorrect." }, { "docid": "548836", "title": "", "text": "\"The public doesn't really need to \"\"notice\"\" for inflation to take effect. Inflation happens there's more money relative to things to buy. Most people think that if say we increase the money supply by 2x, everything should get more expensive. But it matters \"\"where\"\" the increase in money supply is and to \"\"whom\"\" is receiving it. For example, the liquid money supply for US$ increased almost 4 times from 2009 to 2017 via quantitative easing, where the central bank purchased not just short term treasuries, but also longer term bonds. You would think that having 4x the amount of US$ circulating would lead to a lot of inflation on consumer prices. For every $1 that was floating around in 2009, we now have $4, so people should be willing to pay more for a given good, increasing its price. However, the \"\"new\"\" money has been primarily used to purchase assets, and drive up their prices. It has not really found its way to into worker pay (or to the general public), as median income for workers has stayed relatively flat in that time frame. So it can be argued that the \"\"asset\"\" markets are feeling the effects of \"\"inflation\"\" from the increased money supply. Where real estate prices, public stock prices, venture capital investments, etc. have all seen a large increase in their costs to acquire relative to the same asset and opportunity. These assets are acting like a \"\"sponge\"\" for the \"\"new money\"\" that prevents the effects of its inflationary properties from exiting out into the consumer economy. That is also why central banks across the globe are in a predicament in how to \"\"stop\"\" quantitative easing. If they were to shrink the money supply, the inflationary pressures on assets would go down because there's not enough new money to keep raising their prices. Doing it the wrong way would cause housing, stocks, and investment markets to stop growing, because there wouldn't be as much \"\"new money\"\" creating demand for those assets. The best way I can illustrate this is with an example: Say you have an economy that consists of an \"\"Orange Tree\"\" that produces 10 oranges per year. There are 10 people in this economy that each want 1 orange per year. And there is a circulating money supply of $10. The owner of the Orange Tree hires all 10 people to pick 1 orange for him, and pays them $1 to pick. In this scenario, each person picks 1 orange and gives it to the owner. They then receive $1. They then turn around and purchase one of the oranges from the owner of the tree. Because demand is 10 oranges, and supply is 10 oranges, and the money supply is $10, each orange is priced at $1 and everyone is happy. Now let's say the central bank \"\"prints\"\" $100 more dollars. If the central bank gave it to the \"\"people\"\" evenly, each person would end up with $11. Now we have 10 people that want 10 oranges and each have $11. So, the price for the oranges would \"\"inflate\"\" to $11 per orange. Now let's say instead of giving the extra $100 to the \"\"people,\"\" the central bank instead gives it to the \"\"orange tree owner.\"\" The owner can still pick his 10 oranges with the 10 people (the labor force), and can still charge $1 per orange. As long as oranges are still $1, he doesn't really need to increase the \"\"wages\"\" of the orange pickers. So, instead, he invests the $50 into building a bigger house for himself, and then puts the remaining $50 into developing an \"\"orange picking machine.\"\" The supply of oranges is the same, the demand for oranges is the same, and the supply of money that demands oranges is the same, so each orange will continue to be priced at $1. In this scenario, the supply of money increased by 10x, but the prices of oranges did not inflate. This is because the new money went into assets, not consumer demand. Now play this scenario forward a few years. The orange tree owner now has a machine that picks oranges, so he stops hiring people to pick oranges. Now he has a new house and all the oranges he can eat. Now let's say this economy was replicated 100 times, but here are only 20 houses. So there are 100 \"\"orange tree owners\"\" and 1,000 people that get paid to pick oranges and are willing to pay to consume oranges. The central bank hands $100 to each of the 100 orange tree owners. In this case, some of the Orange Tree owners will bid up the price of the houses from $50 to $100. The other Orange Tree Owners may invest in bigger and better \"\"Orange Tree Picking\"\" machines. That automation will lower the cost to pick oranges, and increase profits if prices stay the same. Eventually, those owners will be able to bid more than $100 for one of the 20 houses. As this plays out, the price of a house will continue to increase until all orange picking is automated, but no one can afford oranges because they are not needed to pick them anymore. This is a simplified version of what's basically happening on a global scale.\"" }, { "docid": "516260", "title": "", "text": "I have read from lot of places that transferring funds from NRO to NRE is possible given correct documents are provided. Yes this is correct. The key document 15CB establishes that you have paid taxes that were due before money is transferred from the NRO account to the NRE account and/or are repatriated. Here is what I am simply doing- Steps 3 & 4 more so the step 4 can be seen as new income. So the source of the funds is originally from NRE account. However, the CA feels that since my withdrawal and deposit mechanism in NRO is cash, I might be subject to questioning. Is there any issues in doing the above? The CA is right. The Cash Withdrawal and Cash Deposit has broken the link between the money withdrawn and the money deposited. It could easily be the case that the Cash Withdrawals were spent on expenses and the Cash Deposit is new (taxable) income to you. This new income needs to be declared and the taxes paid. If you Uncle is a close relative (the exact relationships that are called close relatives are defined by law), the return of the money can be declared to be a gift from your Uncle to you and no taxes are due from you on the money. If the funds are large, it is advised to have a gift deed. It is not a simple matter of creating a gift deed stating that your Uncle has given you a gift; your Uncle has to show how he acquired so many assets that he gave you some money as a gift and whether appropriate taxes were paid by him. If your Uncle is not a close relative, he can still gift you up to Rs 50,000 per year without you having to pay any income tax on the money received, but again, a gift deed would be needed to account for the cash deposits. In short, keep speaking to your CA. He will advise you on the best course of action. Related Question Transfering money from NRE account in India to family member" } ]

[ { "docid": "286017", "title": "", "text": "You don't start out buying a shopping mall, you have to work up to it. You can start with any amount and work up to a larger amount. For me, I saved 30% of my salary(net), investing in stocks for 8 years. It was tough to live on less, but I had a goal to buy passive income. I put down this money to buy 3 houses, putting 35% down and maintaining enough cash to make 5 years of payments. I rented out the houses making a cap of 15%. The cap is the net payment per year / cost of the property, where the net accounts for taxes and repairs. I did not spend any of the profits, but I did start saving less salary. After 5 years of appreciation, mortgage payments and rental profit, I sold one house to get a loan for a convenience store. Buildings go on the market all the time, it takes 14 years to directly recoup an investment at a 7% cap, which is the average for a commercial property sale. Many people cash out for this reason, it's slow, but steady growth, though the earnings on property appreciation is a nice bonus. Owning real estate is a long term game, after a long time of earning, you can reinvest, but it comes with the risk of bad or no tenants. You can start both slower and smaller, just make sure you're picking up assets, not liabilities. Like investing in cars is generally bad unless you are sure it will appreciate." } ]

[ { "docid": "305794", "title": "", "text": "You acquire something because you expect to use it, or because you expect to exchange it for something that you want to use. Gold is a good candidate for storing value because it's rare, it's not easily counterfeited, it's divisible, it's portable, etc. Contrast this with your favorite currency: more can be printed up almost at will, etc. Overvaluedness/undervaluedness is only in reference to something else. How many dollars does it take to buy an ounce of gold? (About $1,500.) How many ounces does it take to equal the DJIA? (About 8.) How many ounces of silver does it take to buy an ounce of gold? How many barrels of oil can you buy with an ounce of gold? Etc., etc. But whatever measure you're using, the value of the gold you have is directly related to the mass of gold you own. Two ounces are twice as valuable as one ounce. As the old joke goes (no offense to taxi drivers intended!) when your cabbie starts talking about how to get rich with gold, it's probably overvalued. Sell it all! ;)" }, { "docid": "516260", "title": "", "text": "I have read from lot of places that transferring funds from NRO to NRE is possible given correct documents are provided. Yes this is correct. The key document 15CB establishes that you have paid taxes that were due before money is transferred from the NRO account to the NRE account and/or are repatriated. Here is what I am simply doing- Steps 3 & 4 more so the step 4 can be seen as new income. So the source of the funds is originally from NRE account. However, the CA feels that since my withdrawal and deposit mechanism in NRO is cash, I might be subject to questioning. Is there any issues in doing the above? The CA is right. The Cash Withdrawal and Cash Deposit has broken the link between the money withdrawn and the money deposited. It could easily be the case that the Cash Withdrawals were spent on expenses and the Cash Deposit is new (taxable) income to you. This new income needs to be declared and the taxes paid. If you Uncle is a close relative (the exact relationships that are called close relatives are defined by law), the return of the money can be declared to be a gift from your Uncle to you and no taxes are due from you on the money. If the funds are large, it is advised to have a gift deed. It is not a simple matter of creating a gift deed stating that your Uncle has given you a gift; your Uncle has to show how he acquired so many assets that he gave you some money as a gift and whether appropriate taxes were paid by him. If your Uncle is not a close relative, he can still gift you up to Rs 50,000 per year without you having to pay any income tax on the money received, but again, a gift deed would be needed to account for the cash deposits. In short, keep speaking to your CA. He will advise you on the best course of action. Related Question Transfering money from NRE account in India to family member" }, { "docid": "305128", "title": "", "text": "\"You could do nothing for a while longer. Foreign exchange simply means your services are cheaper and imports and more expensive, local transactions are otherwise unaffected. Your main worry is whether the government's attempts to revert these issues will create inflation within Russia. Local clients will likely not care to pay you in Euros, Dollars, or Pounds (as it will cost them significantly more, they'd have to acquire the currency to pay you with) but does it matter if they pay in Roubles? The financial crisis in more an international thing, not a local one. Now it is possible there will be inflation setting in but I doubt the powers that be will allow that to happen... If you are concerned about it, buying non-liquid assets are the thing to do - a house will still be worth \"\"1 house\"\" no matter what a 1-million rouble note will buy you in a year's time. Similarly, you can invest in 'blue-chip' stocks that should be a good hedge against any further inflation (the rich don't tend to turn poor in difficult times!) In the meantime, get some international clients - as the Rouble is so low, relatively speaking, your services are very competitive. The rest of the time, is to wait it out a little - nobody knows what will happen, but in my knowledge of history interest rates like this drop back to something much closer to normal quite quickly.\"" }, { "docid": "145313", "title": "", "text": "No matter how promising the gold market is, investing in gold bars still has risks. For this reason, before you buy gold bars, make sure you have carefully studied the ins and outs of this investment. Know where, when, why and how to buy gold bar assets. Know the common pitfalls of investing in gold bars and do all that you can to avoid them." }, { "docid": "128469", "title": "", "text": "\"Since doodle77 handled arbitrage, I'll take goodwill. Goodwill is an accounting term that acts much like a \"\"plug\"\" account: you add/subtract to it the amount that makes everything balance. In the case of goodwill, it generally only applies to mergers & acquisitions. The theory (and justification) is this: firms buy other firms at prices other than the market price (usually higher), and it is assumed that this is because the acquirer values its acquisition more than other people do. But whether you use historical prices or market prices when you add (subtract) assets and liabilities to to (from) your balance sheet, this will never add up, because you paid more (less) than the assets are worth in the market, so more (less) cash flowed out than assets flowed in. The difference goes into the goodwill account, so firms with a large goodwill account are ones that have made lots of acquisitions.\"" }, { "docid": "152151", "title": "", "text": "A big issue for historical data in banking is that they don't/can't reside within a single system. Archives of typical bank will include dozen(s) of different archives made by different companies on different, incompatible systems. For example, see http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/big-bank-theory-chart-large.jpg as an illustration of bank mergers and acquisitions, and AFAIK that doesn't include many smaller deals. For any given account, it's 10-year history might be on some different system. Often, when integrating such systems, a compromise is made - if bank A acquires bank B that has earlier acquired bank C, then if the acquisition of C was a few years ago, then you can skip integrating the archives of C in your online systems, keep them separate, and use them only when/if needed (and minimize that need by hefty fees). Since the price list and services are supposed to be equal for everyone, then no matter how your accounts originated, if 10% of archives are an expensive enough problem to integrate, then it makes financial sense to restrict access to 100% of archives older than some arbitrary threshold." }, { "docid": "384983", "title": "", "text": "\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"" }, { "docid": "42738", "title": "", "text": "The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other." }, { "docid": "219398", "title": "", "text": "Bitcoin can facilitate this, despite the risks associated with using bitcoin exchanges and the price volatility at any given time. The speed of bitcoin can limit your exposure to the bitcoin network to one hour. Cyprus has a more advanced infrastructure than most countries to support bitcoin transactions, with Neo & Bee opening as a regulated bank/financial entity in Cyprus just two months ago, and ATM/Vending Machines existing for that asset. Anyway, you acquire bitcoin from an individual locally (in exchange for cash) or an exchange that does not require the same level of reporting as a bank account in Cyprus or Russia. No matter how you acquire the bitcoin, you transfer it to the exchange, sell bitcoin on the exchange for your desired currency (USD, EURO, etc), you instruct the exchange to wire the EURO to your cyprus bank account using your cyprus account's SWIFT code. The end. Depending on the combination of countries involved, the exchange may still encounter similar withdrawal limitations until certain regulatory requirements are resolved. Also, I'm unsure of the attitude toward bitcoin related answers on this site, so I tried to add a disclaimer about bitcoin's risks at the top, but that doesn't make this answer incorrect." }, { "docid": "162467", "title": "", "text": "Canadian departure tax is implemented as a deemed sale gains proceeds taxation. Check here for details. What it means is that you're taxed on the difference between your FMV on the date of terminating residency and your Canadian cost basis (FMV when you acquired residency, or regular cost basis if you acquired the assets while being resident of Canada). It doesn't matter if you actually withdraw the money or not, it has no significance. You'll have to pay the tax either way." }, { "docid": "151203", "title": "", "text": "A derivative in finance is simply any asset whose value is based on the value of another asset or based on the value of a group of assets. A derivative contract is a type of contract (usually a 'standardized contract') with specific payout instruction based on the price changes of a different asset. The basic idea is that it becomes easier to make a claim to an asset or property (and profit from this claim), without needing to physically transfer it (or even the title to said asset), and use much less capital to do so (reduce risk). They become problematic when multiple people may have claims to the real asset, or when the value of the derivatives changes very quickly or are hard to calculate. There are also liquidity problems the further you get from the real asset. This is not a problem for all kinds of derivatives contracts. And you must recognize that derivatives are used colloquially in a way that has nothing to do with reality to cause fear in people/investors that are not financially savvy. Many derivatives also have dubious or no economic purposes such that regulators don't allow them to be traded since they can't see how it is different from gambling. This is seen in financial markets that are less liberalized or cultures with puritanical backgrounds. Typically the trick is to convince regulators that the derivative or financial product helps with reducing risk and hedging and it will get approved. I've mentioned some terminology, but this depends specifically on what kind of derivatives contract you become interested in. Swaps, Credit Default Swaps, Futures, Options, Options on Futures, Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, Inverse Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, warrants, and more all have their own terminology. How to trade them in a simulation? It all depends on which financial product you really become interested in." }, { "docid": "257625", "title": "", "text": "\"This question and your other one indicate you're a bit unclear on how capital gains taxes work, so here's the deal: you buy an asset (like shares of stock or a mutual fund). You later sell it for more than you bought it for. You pay taxes on your profit: the difference between what you sold it for and what you bought it for. What matters is not the amount of money you \"\"withdraw\"\", but the prices at which assets are bought and sold. In fact, often you will be able to choose which individual shares you sell, which means you have some control over the tax you pay. For a simple example, suppose you buy 10 shares of stock for $100 each in January (an investment of $1000); we'll call these the \"\"early\"\" shares. The stock goes up to $200 in July, and you buy 10 more shares (investing an additional $2000); we'll call these the \"\"late\"\" shares. Then the stock drops to $150. Suppose you want $1500 in cash, so you are going to sell 10 shares. The 10 early shares you bought have increased in value, because you bought then for $100 but can now sell them for $150. The 10 late shares have decreased in value, because you bought them for $200 but can now only sell them for $150. If you choose to sell the early shares, you will have a capital gain of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $1000 purchase price), on which you may owe taxes. If you sell the late shares, you will have a capital loss of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $2000 purchase price is -$500), which you can potentially use to reduce your taxes. Or you could sell 5 of each and have no gain or loss (selling five early shares for $150 gives you a gain of $250, but selling five late shares for $150 gives you a loss of $250, and they cancel out). The point of all this is to say that the tax is not determined by the amount of cash you get, but by the difference between the sale price and the price you purchased for (known as the \"\"cost basis\"\"), and this in turn depends on which specific assets you sell. It is not enough to know the total amount you invested and the total gain. You need to know the specific cost basis (i.e., original purchase price) of the specific shares you're selling. (This is also the answer to your question about long-term versus short-term gains. It doesn't matter how much money you make on the sale. What matters is how long you hold the asset before selling it.) That said, many brokers will automatically sell your shares in a certain order unless you tell them otherwise (and some won't let you tell them otherwise). Often they will use the \"\"first in, first out\"\" rule, which means they will always sell the earliest-purchased shares first. To finally get to your specific question about Betterment, they have a page here that says they use a different method. Essentially, they try to sell your shares in a way that minimizes taxes. They do this by first selling shares that have a loss, and only then selling shares that have a gain. This basically means that if you want to cash out $X, and it is possible to do it in a way that incurs no tax liability, they will do that. What gets me very confused is if I continue to invest random amounts of money each month using Betterment, then I need to withdraw some cash, what are the tax implications. As my long answer above should indicate, there is no simple answer to this. The answer is \"\"it depends\"\". It depends on exactly when you bought the shares, exactly how much you paid for them, exactly when and how much the price rose or fell, and exactly how much you sell them for. Betterment is more or less saying \"\"Don't worry about any of this, trust us, we will handle everything so that your tax is minimized.\"\" A final note: if you really do want to track the details of your cost basis, Betterment may not be for you, because it is an automated platform that may do a lot of individual trades that a human wouldn't do, and that can make tracking the cost basis yourself very difficult. Almost the whole point of something like Betterment is that you are supposed to give them your money and forget about these details.\"" }, { "docid": "273992", "title": "", "text": "From an Indian Tax point of view, you can bring back all the assets acquired during the period you were NRI back to India tax free. Subject to a 7 years period. i.e. all the assets / funds / etc should be brought back to India within 7 years. It would still be treated as There are certain conditions / paperwork. Please consult a CA." }, { "docid": "220147", "title": "", "text": "Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options)." }, { "docid": "204151", "title": "", "text": "\"> everything looks 35 years old. My local kmart looks like the land before time. > The reason sears/Kmart is hurt is due to their management being directed by a hedge fund. But that hedge fund manager \"\"genius\"\" acquired all of that Sears real estate as an asset play in 2005. Makes you wonder how it's being carried on the books post crash. edit: here's the reason for the store closings: > Sears Holdings Corp announced that for the fourth quarter of 2011, it expects consolidated adjusted EBITDA will be less than half of last year's amount. http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/SHLD.O/key-developments/article/2456570 Ouch! That should put them in the red for the entire year! Retailers obviously depend on the holiday season, and it was dismal this year for sears. I noticed that they had been in the black solely because the always got bailed out by 4th quarter earnings. No more!\"" }, { "docid": "5607", "title": "", "text": "\"Here is how the Visa network works: A Visa transaction is a carefully orchestrated process. When a Visa account holder uses a Visa card to buy a pair of shoes, it’s actually the acquirer — the merchant’s bank — that reimburses the merchant for the shoes. Then, the issuer — the account holder’s bank — reimburses the acquirer, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Lastly, the issuer collects from the account holder by withdrawing funds from the account holder’s bank account if a debit account is used, or through billing if a credit account is used. I read this to mean the Merchant's Bank (the Acquirer Bank) gives the merchant the money within 2 days via the Card Issuer's Bank. The issuing bank is the one that provides the \"\"credit\"\" feature since that bank won't get reimbursed until the shopper's bill is paid (or perhaps even longer if the shopper carries a balance). You'll notice the Credit Card company (Visa/MC/etc) is only involved in the process as a way of passing messages. Of course they take a fee for this service so seller ultimately get's less than the buyer bought the shoes for.\"" }, { "docid": "122050", "title": "", "text": "In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole." }, { "docid": "151150", "title": "", "text": "I believe that the same message could be sent without shutting the company and putting thousands of people on unemployment and hurting shareholders. Dissolving the company would only hurt everyone except the people responsible who almost certainly have golden parachutes in their employment contracts. How about penalizing them by assessing an extra cyber-breach tax on their revenues? Or seizing stock options and assets of the top level execs and only releasing portions after X many months without a security breach? Or use the fines to fund an initiative that companies need to be bonded against data loss with the rates set by security experts doing audits on the companies? There are plenty of ways to improve the situation without putting them out of business. At the very worst, the company should be put up for sale to be taken over by a holding company that can manage the process of bolstering their security instead of just liquidating assets which would only hurt the innocent bystanders in the incident." }, { "docid": "566205", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the \"\"dividend day\"\" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 \"\"refund\"\". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the \"\"normal\"\" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the \"\"normal\"\" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "343196", "title": "", "text": "There are a number of ways someone acquires assets without buying it. People could have inherited assets. They could have been gifted assets. They might have won assets in a lawsuit (unlikely to be a mall, but not impossible). They could have married into the assets. So there's other ways of acquiring assets without purchasing them." } ]

[ { "docid": "220147", "title": "", "text": "Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options)." }, { "docid": "201484", "title": "", "text": "Shit article that displays the author has no farming idea of how Warren Buffet operates. The man has metrics that tell him when shares are too expensive. When this happens, he doesn't buy, and dividends can tend to accumulate when you have almost $500 billion in assets (which could just be 2 years of 5% dividend yields). If they are expensive, he won't buy, and money will accumulate. When there is a crash, he buys on the cheap. That how you get 23% of Year-on-year gains for 40 years. The fact that he is not buying does indicate that the market is overvalued, which is consistent with the fact that there is still a substantial amount of QE. The question is: what will happen as the Fed winds it down. They are aiming for a small decrease or leveling out of the stock market. If that happens, and the market stagnates for a couple of years, maybe the metrics will catch up and he will buy again without a crash happening." }, { "docid": "131127", "title": "", "text": "\"You asked for advice, so I'll offer it. Trying to time the market is not a great strategy unless you're sitting in front of a Bloomberg terminal all the time. Another person answering your question suggests the use of index funds; he's likely to be right. Look up \"\"asset allocation.\"\" What you want to do is decide that you want your portfolio to contain, for example: If one of your stock holdings goes up far enough that you're out of your target asset allocation ranges, sell some of it and buy something in another asset class,s so you're back in balance. That way you lock in some profit when things go up, without losing access to potential future profits. The same applies if something goes down; you buy more of that asset class by selling others. This has worked really well for me for 30+ years.\"" }, { "docid": "472759", "title": "", "text": "What's it like being all the way up on that pedestal without having a clue what you're talking about? Are you dizzy? Do you have to apply extra Sunscreen to your upturned nose? When you read that one Wikipedia article, and 3 Forbes links are you just overwhelmed with the strength you just acquired, or have you felt this Supreme power all along? We have so many questions! Please answer them with vague, nondescript platitudes and more questions please. That would be awesome." }, { "docid": "257625", "title": "", "text": "\"This question and your other one indicate you're a bit unclear on how capital gains taxes work, so here's the deal: you buy an asset (like shares of stock or a mutual fund). You later sell it for more than you bought it for. You pay taxes on your profit: the difference between what you sold it for and what you bought it for. What matters is not the amount of money you \"\"withdraw\"\", but the prices at which assets are bought and sold. In fact, often you will be able to choose which individual shares you sell, which means you have some control over the tax you pay. For a simple example, suppose you buy 10 shares of stock for $100 each in January (an investment of $1000); we'll call these the \"\"early\"\" shares. The stock goes up to $200 in July, and you buy 10 more shares (investing an additional $2000); we'll call these the \"\"late\"\" shares. Then the stock drops to $150. Suppose you want $1500 in cash, so you are going to sell 10 shares. The 10 early shares you bought have increased in value, because you bought then for $100 but can now sell them for $150. The 10 late shares have decreased in value, because you bought them for $200 but can now only sell them for $150. If you choose to sell the early shares, you will have a capital gain of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $1000 purchase price), on which you may owe taxes. If you sell the late shares, you will have a capital loss of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $2000 purchase price is -$500), which you can potentially use to reduce your taxes. Or you could sell 5 of each and have no gain or loss (selling five early shares for $150 gives you a gain of $250, but selling five late shares for $150 gives you a loss of $250, and they cancel out). The point of all this is to say that the tax is not determined by the amount of cash you get, but by the difference between the sale price and the price you purchased for (known as the \"\"cost basis\"\"), and this in turn depends on which specific assets you sell. It is not enough to know the total amount you invested and the total gain. You need to know the specific cost basis (i.e., original purchase price) of the specific shares you're selling. (This is also the answer to your question about long-term versus short-term gains. It doesn't matter how much money you make on the sale. What matters is how long you hold the asset before selling it.) That said, many brokers will automatically sell your shares in a certain order unless you tell them otherwise (and some won't let you tell them otherwise). Often they will use the \"\"first in, first out\"\" rule, which means they will always sell the earliest-purchased shares first. To finally get to your specific question about Betterment, they have a page here that says they use a different method. Essentially, they try to sell your shares in a way that minimizes taxes. They do this by first selling shares that have a loss, and only then selling shares that have a gain. This basically means that if you want to cash out $X, and it is possible to do it in a way that incurs no tax liability, they will do that. What gets me very confused is if I continue to invest random amounts of money each month using Betterment, then I need to withdraw some cash, what are the tax implications. As my long answer above should indicate, there is no simple answer to this. The answer is \"\"it depends\"\". It depends on exactly when you bought the shares, exactly how much you paid for them, exactly when and how much the price rose or fell, and exactly how much you sell them for. Betterment is more or less saying \"\"Don't worry about any of this, trust us, we will handle everything so that your tax is minimized.\"\" A final note: if you really do want to track the details of your cost basis, Betterment may not be for you, because it is an automated platform that may do a lot of individual trades that a human wouldn't do, and that can make tracking the cost basis yourself very difficult. Almost the whole point of something like Betterment is that you are supposed to give them your money and forget about these details.\"" }, { "docid": "8200", "title": "", "text": "Capital is an Asset. Decreasing value of capital is the decreasing value of an asset. When you buy the forex asset * DR Forex Asset * CR Cash When you sell * DR Cash * CR Forex Asset The difference is now accounted for Here is how: Gains (and losses) are modifications to your financial position (Balance sheet). At the end of the period you take your financial performance (Profit and Loss) and put it into your balance sheet under equity. Meaning that afterwards your balance sheet is better or worse off (Because you made more money = more cash or lost it, whatever). You are wanting to make an income account to reflect the forex revaluation so at the end of the period it is reflected in profit then pushed into your balance sheet. Capital gains directly affect your balance sheet because they increase/decrease your cash and your asset in the journal entry itself (When you buy and sell it). If making money this way is actually how you make you make an income it is possible to make an account for it. If you do this you periodically revalue the asset and write off the changes to the revaluation account. You would do something like *DR Asset *CR Forex Revaluation account; depending on the method you take. Businesses mostly do this because if the capital gains are their line of business they will be taxed on it like it is income. For simplicity just account for it when you buy and sell the assets (Because you as an individual will only recognise a profit/loss when you enter and exit). Its easier to think about income and expenses are extensions of equity. Income increases your equity, expenses decrease it. This is how they relate to the accounting formula (Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity)" }, { "docid": "248799", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"\"buckets.\"\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"\"target retirement\"\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"\"equity premium\"\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\"" }, { "docid": "566205", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the \"\"dividend day\"\" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 \"\"refund\"\". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the \"\"normal\"\" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the \"\"normal\"\" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life.\"" }, { "docid": "5607", "title": "", "text": "\"Here is how the Visa network works: A Visa transaction is a carefully orchestrated process. When a Visa account holder uses a Visa card to buy a pair of shoes, it’s actually the acquirer — the merchant’s bank — that reimburses the merchant for the shoes. Then, the issuer — the account holder’s bank — reimburses the acquirer, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Lastly, the issuer collects from the account holder by withdrawing funds from the account holder’s bank account if a debit account is used, or through billing if a credit account is used. I read this to mean the Merchant's Bank (the Acquirer Bank) gives the merchant the money within 2 days via the Card Issuer's Bank. The issuing bank is the one that provides the \"\"credit\"\" feature since that bank won't get reimbursed until the shopper's bill is paid (or perhaps even longer if the shopper carries a balance). You'll notice the Credit Card company (Visa/MC/etc) is only involved in the process as a way of passing messages. Of course they take a fee for this service so seller ultimately get's less than the buyer bought the shoes for.\"" }, { "docid": "153281", "title": "", "text": "No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge)." }, { "docid": "349974", "title": "", "text": "\"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long \"\"Long\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have possession of an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to debit an asset\"\", financially. Short \"\"Short\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to be liable for an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to credit an asset\"\", financially. Option \"\"Option\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action\"\", legally. Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery. For equities, this means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is \"\"the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". By the definition of \"\"long\"\" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be \"\"long\"\" the call means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" while to be \"\"short\"\" the call means \"\"to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". So, to be \"\"long\"\" a call means to simply own the call.\"" }, { "docid": "421652", "title": "", "text": "First, if it is in any way a joint account, the debt usually goes to the surviving person. Assets in joint accounts usually have their own instructions on how to disperse the assets; for example, full joint bank accounts usually immediately go to the other name on the account and never become part of the estate. Non-cash assets will likely need to be converted to cash and a fair market valuation shown to the probate court, unless the debts can be paid without using them and they can be transferred to next of kin. If, after that, the deceased has any assets at all, there is usually (varies by state) a legally defined order in which debtor types must be paid. This is handled by probating the estate. There is a period during which you publish a death notice and then wait for debt claims and bills to arrive. Then pay as many as possible based on the priority, and inform the others the holder is deceased and the estate is empty. This sometimes needs to be approved by a judge if the assets are less than the debts. Then disperse remaining assets to next of kin. If there are no assets held by just the deceased, as you get bills you just send a certified copy of the death certificate, tell them there is no estate, then forget about them. A lawyer can really help in determining which need to be paid and to work through probate, which is not simple or cheap. But also note that you can negotiate and sometimes get them to accept less, if there are assets. When my mother died, the doctors treating her zeroed her accounts; the hospitals accepted a much reduced total, but the credit cards wanted 100%." }, { "docid": "343042", "title": "", "text": "I work on a buy-side firm, so I know how these small data issues can drive us crazy. Hope my answer below can help you: Reason for price difference: 1. Vendor and data source Basically, data providers such as Google and Yahoo redistribute EOD data by aggregating data from their vendors. Although the raw data is taken from the same exchanges, different vendors tend to collect them through different trading platforms. For example, Yahoo, is getting stock data from Hemscott (which was acquired by Morningstar), which is not the most accurate source of EOD stocks. Google gets data from Deutsche Börse. To make the process more complicated, each vendor can choose to get EOD data from another EOD data provider or the exchange itself, or they can produce their own open, high, low, close and volume from the actual trade tick-data, and these data may come from any exchanges. 2. Price Adjustment For equities data, the re-distributor usually adjusts the raw data by applying certain customized procedures. This includes adjustment for corporate actions, such as dividends and splits. For futures data, rolling is required, and back-ward and for-warding rolling can be chosen. Different adjustment methods can lead to different price display. 3. Extended trading hours Along with the growth of electronic trading, many market tends to trade during extended hours, such as pre-open and post-close trading periods. Futures and FX markets even trade around the clock. This leads to another freedom in price reporting: whether to include the price movement during the extended trading hours. Conclusion To cross-verify the true price, we should always check the price from the Exchange where the asset is actually traded. Given the convenience of getting EOD data nowadays, this task should be easy to achieve. In fact, for professional traders and investors alike, they will never reply price on free providers such as Yahoo and Google, they will most likely choose Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. However, for personal use, Yahoo and Google should both be good choices, and the difference is small enough to ignore." }, { "docid": "237301", "title": "", "text": "\"If you don't plan to stay in it, it is never good money to try to buy a house in a bad neighborhood. The question you want to be asking is probably \"\"Is it smart to buy this piece of real estate,\"\" not \"\"is it smart to buy a house in college.\"\" In this case, it's probably not smart because you won't actually have revenue from the property (you'll break even compared to renting), you may face some expensive repairs (water heater or other appliances going out, etc.), and you may find that your startup costs in things like lawn mowers, etc. is not worth the hassle (or cost of lawn service if you have someone else do it.) On top of that, can you get a loan with your proven income and assets? Don't forget to factor the cost of selling the house again into it -- and how long can you leave it on the market after you move out if it doesn't sell without going bankrupt yourself? In my opinion, it'd be a giant albatross around your neck.\"" }, { "docid": "475748", "title": "", "text": "Adapted from an answer to a somewhat different question. Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over your 401k assets into an IRA. But I don't think that is the case here. If you had a Traditional 401k, the assets will roll over into a Traditional IRA; if it was a Roth 401k, into a Roth IRA. If you had started a little earlier, you could have considered considered converting part or all of your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA (assuming that your 2012 taxable income will be smaller this year because you have quit your job). Of course, this may still hold true in 2013 as well. As to which custodian to choose for your Rollover IRA, I recommend investing in a low-cost index mutual fund such as VFINX which tracks the S&P 500 Index. Then, do not look at how that fund is doing for the next thirty years. This will save you from the common error made by many investors when they pull out at the first downturn and thus end up buying high and selling low. Also, do not chase after exchange-traded mutual funds or ETFs (as many will likely recommend) until you have acquired more savvy or interest in investing than you are currently exhibiting. Not knowing which company stock you have, it is hard to make a recommendation about selling or holding on. But since you are glad to have quit your job, you might want to consider making a clean break and selling the shares that you own in your ex-employer's company. Keep the $35K (less the $12K that you will use to pay off the student loan) as your emergency fund. Pay off your student loan right away since you have the cash to do it." }, { "docid": "305128", "title": "", "text": "\"You could do nothing for a while longer. Foreign exchange simply means your services are cheaper and imports and more expensive, local transactions are otherwise unaffected. Your main worry is whether the government's attempts to revert these issues will create inflation within Russia. Local clients will likely not care to pay you in Euros, Dollars, or Pounds (as it will cost them significantly more, they'd have to acquire the currency to pay you with) but does it matter if they pay in Roubles? The financial crisis in more an international thing, not a local one. Now it is possible there will be inflation setting in but I doubt the powers that be will allow that to happen... If you are concerned about it, buying non-liquid assets are the thing to do - a house will still be worth \"\"1 house\"\" no matter what a 1-million rouble note will buy you in a year's time. Similarly, you can invest in 'blue-chip' stocks that should be a good hedge against any further inflation (the rich don't tend to turn poor in difficult times!) In the meantime, get some international clients - as the Rouble is so low, relatively speaking, your services are very competitive. The rest of the time, is to wait it out a little - nobody knows what will happen, but in my knowledge of history interest rates like this drop back to something much closer to normal quite quickly.\"" }, { "docid": "273992", "title": "", "text": "From an Indian Tax point of view, you can bring back all the assets acquired during the period you were NRI back to India tax free. Subject to a 7 years period. i.e. all the assets / funds / etc should be brought back to India within 7 years. It would still be treated as There are certain conditions / paperwork. Please consult a CA." }, { "docid": "477630", "title": "", "text": "To me, it depends. How much are their total assets? Having 10% of your money in something like that isn't crazy. having it all in? That IS crazy. Can they reduce their exposure to this account without paying a penalty (say pull out 10%?) The Manager should be taking direction from them. If they aren't able to get the manager to re-allocate to something more suitable, under your friends direction, they should then pursue whether or not the manager is operating lawfully." }, { "docid": "146204", "title": "", "text": "There is economic value added to the marketplace, by having many investors trading stocks. The stock market itself can be thought of as a tool which provides additional 'liquidity' to the marketplace. Liquidity is the ease with which you can convert your assets into cash (for example, how quickly could you sell your car if you needed money to pay a medical bill?). Without a stock market, funds would be very illiquid - an investor would likely need to post advertisements to have other people consider buying his/her shares. Until the match between a buyer and seller is found, the person with the shares can't use the cash they need. On the other side of the transaction, are people who have an appetite for risk. This means that, for various reasons, they are willing to take on more risk than you, if it pays off on average (they are young [and have many years of salary earnings in front of them], or they are rich [can afford to lose money sometimes if it pays off on average]). Consider this like a transaction between your insurance broker - you don't want to pay for a new car if you get in an accident, and you're willing to pay total annual premiums that, on average, will cost more than that same car over time. You don't want the risk, but the insurance company does - that's how they make money. So by participating in any marketplace, you are providing value, in the form of liquidity, and by allowing the market to allocate risk to those willing to take it on." } ]

[ { "docid": "399115", "title": "", "text": "The $10,000 is not taxable to either of you, but the $500 is taxable income to you - and a deductible business expense for your friend." } ]

[ { "docid": "269646", "title": "", "text": "I find that there are two violation of law , prima facie , if someone earns money by depositing in the online account and then not reporting it ( including in his total income for the year ) and not bringing in India. Income Tax Act violation 1. It is simply comcealment liable for penalty & prosecution under I.T.Act. 2. You should know that anyone who is resident of India as per income Tax Act and having taxable income ( gross total income exceeding exemption limit) will have to fill up the column in his/her income tax return whether Previously these column were not in the Income Tax Return. So , now anyone who is liable to file return of Income can be tried for false return if he has hiddne assets aborad. 2. FEMA violation RBI permits remittance under Liberalized Remittance Scheme. However this scheme can not be used for certain purpose . It is important to examine whether RBI prohibits use of remittance for any entity or business you have described. You can read following FAQ on RBI site Q. 30. What are the prohibited items under the Scheme? Ans. The remittance facility under the Scheme is not available for the following: i) Remittance for any purpose specifically prohibited under Schedule-I (like purchase of lottery tickets/sweep stakes, proscribed magazines, etc.) or any item restricted under Schedule II of Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000; ii) Remittance from India for margins or margin calls to overseas exchanges / overseas counter-party; iii) Remittances for purchase of FCCBs issued by Indian companies in the overseas secondary market; iv) Remittance for trading in foreign exchange abroad; v) Remittance by a resident individual for setting up a company abroad; vi) Remittances directly or indirectly to Bhutan, Nepal, Mauritius and Pakistan; vii) Remittances directly or indirectly to countries identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as “non co-operative countries and territories”, from time to time; and viii) Remittances directly or indirectly to those individuals and entities identified as posing significant risk of committing acts of terrorism as advised separately by the Reserve Bank to the banks. You will have to examine , if the remittance was NOT done for purpose not allowed by RBI under LRS . If you clear this , you can say there is no violation and your violation is restricted to I.T.Act only." }, { "docid": "214480", "title": "", "text": "Never trust a single source to give you a fair price, especially if they are not in competition, moreso if they know that's the case. I would want to get a quote from at least one other broker in terms of what they feel they can sell the bonds for. (and let them know they are not the only one you are getting a quote from) To start with you need information, such as when is the last time a bond like the ones you have traded and what did it sell for. Also sources for where you can sell the bonds and more info on the entire subject. SIFMA (The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association) has a pretty helpful website called InvestingInBonds.com. I find it has a wealth of information, and is relatively free of bias. On the Municipal Markets at a Glance page you can get history for various bonds if you have the CUSIP (pronounced 'que-sip') numbers for the bonds. If these bonds are as good as the advisor is telling you they are, then they should be selling for a premium, and the recent sales history would reflect that. I'd find one or two other potential sellers, and get prices from each of them, compare that against recent history and go with whichever one seems to be offering you the best deal. In terms of choosing someone, and how to go about selling bonds, the same website has some excellent information and guidance on buying and selling bonds and How to Choose an Investment Professional which includes how to check up on them to see if they have ever faced disciplinary action, etc.. I would also consider any gains you might have to declare if you sell these for more than face value, and if that would be taxable etc. I would also question your 'too safe' judgement. Just because something is 'safe' I would not necessarily throw it out. You need to look at the return relative to the risk, and if you are not investing in a tax sheltered account, the affect of taxes on your net return. If these are earning a really good return, for fairly low risk, they might be worth keeping, especially if in today's market you need to take substantially more risk to get a comparable return. Taking more risk to get nearly the same return isn't very wise, since an aspect of the risk is perhaps not getting any return, or losing money. In a volatile market there can be a substantial benefit to having a lower risk 'foundation' that you build upon with more risky investments, in order to provide some risk diversity in your portfolio. You might want to consider for example how these bonds have done over the last 13 years, compared to a similar investment in the type of 'less safe' vehicles you are considering. Perhaps you'd be better off just holding these to maturity instead of gambling on something with a lot more risk that could go south on you." }, { "docid": "391323", "title": "", "text": "You can get no load annuities through some no-load financial companies like Vanguard so to start with I'd see how what she is being offered compares with something that comes free of a sales load. I'd also question that fixed rate, seems pretty impossible to me, which makes me think there is some catch or 'gotcha' that we are not seeing that either brings down that rate, or makes it delusional (they are kidding themselves) or deceptive in some way. In any case it's setting off my 'too good to be true' alarm at full volume, along with the 'shark attack' alarm as well. (I would strongly suspect the 'advisor' is advising the product that makes the most money for him, NOT what is in your mother's best interest) A fixed annuity is an insurance product, not a security, because the insurance company must credit the annuity holder’s account with the specified interest rate for the contractually-stipulated time period, regardless of market fluctuations in actual interest rates. It is the insurance company that bears the investment risk, which it does by investing the annuity holder’s purchase proceeds in fixed-income instruments that the company hopes will provide sufficient return to fulfill its contractual representations to the holder. THIS is why there is no prospectus (it's not a 'security' they are not required to provide one by SEC) because the risk is entirely with the company. Obviously as pointed out in the comments, the company could easily go out of business (especially of they sell a lot of these and can't find a way to get that kind of return on the invested money). Now, ask yourself, if I was the insurance company, would I be comfortable guaranteeing that level of return over that much time if I intend to make a profit from it, pay sales comissions, and stay in business? In terms of 'will they stay in business' I'd have a hard look at their ratings, and go compare where that is on the total range for AM Best (they are lowest 'secure' rating, next thing down is in the 'vulnerable' category) and Standard and Poors (4 places down from their best rating, next thing down is 'marginal' followed by 'poor') You might also want to see if you can get any idea of historical ratings, is this company's ratings falling, or rising? Personally, for the amount of money involved, I'd want a company with MUCH higher ratings than these guys.. THEN maybe someone could say 'no risk', but with those ratings? an no, I don't think so! BTW I'd check over what this bozo (um sorry, that's not fair to clowns) is recommending she do with her own funds as well. For example is he recommending she take something that is already tax sheltered such as an IRA and investing the stuff inside that in an annuity (kind of pointless to 'double shelter' the money, or lock it up for a period of time when she may be required to make withdrawals) make sure you don't see something there that is actually against what is in her best interest and is only done to make him a comission." }, { "docid": "216590", "title": "", "text": "\"Sounds like your grandmother's estate had taxable income and the estate did not pay the estate \"\"INCOME\"\" tax. Rather the estate shifted the burden to pay that tax on the beneficiaries which is why you received a K1. If that K1 reports income received by you, then YES you would have to amend your tax return. I am in exactly that same situation now. After the October 15 deadline to file 2012 tax returns, I received a K1 for income received from my dad's estate. I now have to file a late amended 2012 income tax return and pay income tax on what I inherited. My dad had a small estate, but the money that made up that small estate all came from an IRA he had. He designated the estate as his beneficiary. So when the stocks in the IRA were sold, that all became taxable income to the beneficiaries of the estate. Anything involving taxes is confusing at best. But do not confuse estate income tax, with estate tax -- they are two different taxes. Hope this helps.\"" }, { "docid": "58964", "title": "", "text": "From the IRS: You do not include in your gross income qualified distributions or distributions that are a return of your regular contributions from your Roth IRA(s). It's not just that the particular money you take from the IRA isn't taxable. It's not counted as part of your income at all, so it won't have any effect on the taxation of other income." }, { "docid": "467894", "title": "", "text": "\"Genuine (nearly) passive income can be had from some kinds of investing. Index funds are an example of a mostly self-managing investment. Of course investment involves some risk (the income is essentially paying you for taking that risk) and returns are reasonable but proportional to the risk -- IE, not spectacular unless the risk is high. If someone is claiming they can get you better than market rate of return, look carefully at what they are getting out of it and what the risks are. Fees subtract directly from your gains, and if they claim there is no additional risk, they need to prove that. You are giving someone your money. Be very sure you are going to get it back. If it isn't self-evident where the income comes from, it's probably a scam. If someone is using the term \"\"auto-pilot\"\", it is almost certainly a scam. If they are talking about website advertising and the like, it is far from autopilot if you want to make any noticable amount of money (though you may make money for them).\"" }, { "docid": "85478", "title": "", "text": "\"You didn't have a situation of \"\"excess contribution\"\". If you have proof that someone in Fidelity actually told you what you said, you might try to recover some of your losses through a lawsuit. However, their first (and main) defense would be that they're not in the business of providing tax advice, and it is your problem that you asked random person a tax question, and then acted on an incorrect answer. By the way, that only goes to say that anything you might read here you should, as well, take with a grain of salt. The only one who can give you a tax advice is a licensed tax professional. I explained it in details in my blog post, but in short - it is either an EA (Enrolled Agent, with the IRS credentials), or a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or Attorney licensed in your State. Back to your question - \"\"Excess Contribution\"\" to a IRA is when you contribute in excess to the limits imposed. For Traditional IRA in 2012 the limit was $5000. You contributed $4000 - this means that you were not in excess. There's nothing they can \"\"correct\"\", the 1099-R you got seems to be correct and in order. What you did have was a case of non-deductible contribution. Non-deductible contribution to your IRA should have been reported to the IRS on form 8606. Non-deductible contribution creates basis in your IRA. Withdrawals from your IRA are prorated to the relation of your basis to your total value, and the taxable amount is determined based on that rate. It is, also, calculated using form 8606. So in short - you should have filed a form 8606 with your 2012 tax return declaring non-deductible IRA and creating $4000 basis, and then form 8606 with your 2013 tax return calculating which portion of the $4000 you withdrew is non-taxable. If your total IRA (in all accounts) was that $4000 - then nothing would be taxable. Talk to a tax adviser, you might need to amend your 2012 return (or send the 2012 form separately, if possible), and then do some math on your 2013 return. If 60 days haven't passed, you might want to consider depositing the $4000 in a Roth IRA and perform what is called \"\"Conversion\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "12329", "title": "", "text": "Your mortgage represents a negative cash flow of $X for N months. The typical mortgage prepayment doesn't reduce your next payment, but does reduce the length of the mortgage. If you look at the amortization table of a 30 year loan, you might see a payment of $1000 but only $50 going to principal. So if on day one you send an extra $51 or so to the bank, you find that in 30 years you just saved that $1000 payment. In effect, it was a long term bond or CD, yielding the post tax rate of the mortgage. Say your loan were 7%. At 7%, money doubles every 10 years or so. 30 years is 3 doubles or 8X. If I were to offer you $1000 and ask for $7500 in 30 years, you might accept it, with an agreement to buy me out if you refinanced. For me, that would be an investment. Just like buying a bond. In fact, there is a real return, as you see the cash flow at the end. The payments 'not made' are your payback. Those who insist it's not an investment are correct in the strict sense of the word's definition, but pedantic for the fact in practice, the prepayment is a choice to be considered alongside other investment choices. When I have a mortgage, I am the mortgagor, the bank, the mortgagee. Same as a company issuing a bond, the Bank holds my bond and I'm making payments to them. They hold my bond as an investment. There is no question of that. In fact, they package these and sell them as CMOs, groups of mortgages. A pre-payment is me buying back the last coupon on my mortgage. I fail to see the distinction between me 'buying back' $10K in future coupons on my own loan or me investing $10K in someone else's loans. The real question for me is whether this makes sense when rates are so low. At 4%, I'd say it's a matter of prioritizing any high rate debt and any other investments that might yield more. But even so, it's an investment yielding 4%. Over the years, I've developed the priorities of where to put new money - The priorities are debatable. I have my opinion, and my reasons to back them up. In general, it's a balance between risk and return. In my opinion, there's something wrong with ignoring a dollar for dollar match on the 401(k) in most circumstances. Others seem to prefer being 100% debt free before saving at all. There's a balance that might be different for each individual. As I started, the mortgage is a fixed return, with no chance to just get it back if needed. If your cash savings is pretty high, and the choice is a .001% CD or prepay a 4% mortgage, I'd use some funds to pay it down. But not to the point you have no liquid reserves." }, { "docid": "322033", "title": "", "text": "This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness. It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%." }, { "docid": "486243", "title": "", "text": "To me this sounds like a transaction, where E already owns a company worth 400k and can therefore pocket the money from D and give D 25% of the profits every year. There is nothing objective (like a piece of paper) that states the company is worth 400K. It is all about perceived value. Some investors may think it is worth something because of some knowledge they may have. Heck, the company could be worth nothing but the investor could have some sentimental value associated to it. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? It is worth what someone pays for it when they pay for it. I repeat- the 400K valuation is subjective. In return the investor is getting 25% ownership of the product or company. The idea is that when someone has ownership, they have a vested interest in it being successful. In that case, the investor will do whatever he/she can to improve the chances of success (in addition to supplying the 100K capital). For instance, the investor will leverage their network or perhaps put more money into it in the future. Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash? Perhaps. It is an asset that may later be used to fund inventory (for instance). ... and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? No. See what I said about the valuation just being perception. Note that the above analysis doesn't apply to all Dragons Den deals. It only applies to situations where capital is exchanged for ownership in the form of equity." }, { "docid": "216892", "title": "", "text": "Federal income tax refunds received during 2016 are not taxable income for 2016 (or any other year) on either the Federal or the State tax return. The State income tax refund for 2015 received during 2016 is not taxable income on the State tax return for 2016. It is taxable income on the Federal tax return for 2016 only to the extent that you received a tax benefit (reduction in Federal income tax due) from deducting State income tax as an Itemized Deduction on your 2015 Federal return. If you didn't deduct State income tax because you deducted State sales tax instead, then the State income tax refund is not taxable income on the Federal tax return." }, { "docid": "196237", "title": "", "text": "\"Debt increases your exposure to risk. What happens if you lose your job, or a major expense comes up and you have to make a hard decision about skipping a loan payment? Being debt free means you aren't paying money to the bank in interest, and that's money that can go into your pocket. Debt can be a useful tool, however. It's all about what you do with the money you borrow. Will you be able to get something back that is worth more than the interest of the loan? A good example is your education. How much more money will you make with a college degree? Is it more than you will be paying in interest over the life of the loan? Then it was probably worth it. Instead of paying down your loans, can you invest that money into something with a better rate of rate of return than the interest rate of the loan? For example, why pay off your 3% student loan if you can invest in a stock with a 6% return? The money goes to better use if it is invested. (Note that most investments count as taxable income, so you have to factor taxes into your effective rate of return.) The caveat to this is that most investments have at least some risk associated with them. (Stocks don't always go up.) You have to weigh this when deciding to invest vs pay down debts. Paying down the debt is more of a \"\"sure thing\"\". Another thing to consider: If you have a long-term loan (several years), paying extra principal on a loan early on can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan, due to power of compound interest. Extra payments on a mortgage or student loan can be a wise move. Just make sure you are paying down the principal, not the interest! (And check for early repayment penalties.)\"" }, { "docid": "483081", "title": "", "text": "1.What are the tax implications - income tax, gift tax, wealth tax etc. for the money credited in the NRO Account? As the funds are transferred by your wife to you, there is NO Income. Hence Income Tax rules don't apply. It would be treated as GIFT and come uder Gift Act. As per gift Act, one can transfer unlimited amount between close releatives. The defination of close relative as per Income Tax includes parents, spouse, siblings etc. The interest you earn in NRO account is taxable in India. 2.Can I transfer this money to my parents and would that attract any tax?. I understand my parents will have bear any tax based on income they earn on my transfer... Are there any tax implications for me? You can transfer this money to your parents. This will not be taxable to you. It will not be taxable to your parents as its Gift. Any income earned by your parents on this will ofcourse be taxable. 3.Can I move this money to NRE account and what is the process for that and how easy it is? Its best if you had your wife send funds into NRE account. Direct transfer as much as know is not allowed. Having said that, it is possible to transfer funds out of India via proper paperwork, there is also a limit [quite large] on the amount that can be transferred a year. Get a CA to help you with the paperwork." }, { "docid": "294386", "title": "", "text": "The only downside is for the agents, not you. Agents, especially selling agents, prefer the concession over the price reduction for their own interests. They get a commission on a higher purchase price. That, and the recorded sales price for the house is a tad higher, which incrementally increases the comps for the next sales. When we moved, the agent conditioned me to get ready to offer a concession should we decide to sell our previous home. We decided to rent that property, and have someone else manage it. But with regard to your questions, the concessions are applied against your closing costs. When we bought our last house they specified caps on the closing costs, so money will be typically be withheld (or not) contractually. The concessions aren't a taxable gain. Your basis in the property will be higher than if you get a price reduction, but the lower basis (hopefully) means a higher capital gain when you sell." }, { "docid": "396097", "title": "", "text": "You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns. Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains. The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it. This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA. So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs. If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur. You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year. These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on. With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years." }, { "docid": "499871", "title": "", "text": "I keep visiting Dubai Not sure what kind of work it is, assuming it regular job. For the period mentioned above I was out of India for more than 182 days, If you were out of India for more than 182 days in a given financial year then you would NRI for tax purposes. till date I have not transferred any money from Dubai to my India account. Whether you have transferred the money or not is not relevant for tax purposes. Your status [NRI / Resident] is relevant. Do I need to declare the income I have earned in Dubai? No you are not required to as your status is NRI. You are required to file a return on the income [Salary/Interest/gains/etc] accruing in India. Do I need to change my residential status ? Not sure where you are wanting to change this. Will the income I have earned in Dubai is taxable ? As you are NRI, the income earned outside of India is not taxable in India. From a tax point of view, it does not matter whether you keep the funds in Dubai or transfer it back to India. Edit: The Income Tax rules are not very clear if your wife can claim for her father-in-law. Best consult a CA. For quite a few regulations, Wife's father-in-law are treated at par with father." }, { "docid": "61539", "title": "", "text": "Hehe, I feel your pain.. well, 'pain' isn't really the feeling though is it. I was unemployed for several years when I was younger, and I loved it. It taught me 2 things: you need to be careful with your money, and you don't need money to be happy. I loved the freedom, the carefree attitude I had to the world, the ability to do many things not constrained by having to spend all day in an office, to be with my mates a lot. If your problem is that you are being too miserly ($3 researching better product... we all do that, though not for $3 except on ebay sometimes) then put a cost on your time. If it took you 3 hours to research the $3 saving, and your time is worth even just $10 an hour to you, then you've not saved anything. You've wasted 'money'. If, on the other hand, you're more worried about hoarding money and being unproductive and a bad social citizen, get involved in investing it instead. Let someone else put it to good use, whilst giving you some return." }, { "docid": "11032", "title": "", "text": "\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\"" }, { "docid": "375777", "title": "", "text": "Is there a better vehicle for this than an index fund? Seems like a good choice to me, unless you want to protect it from market risk since it's in essence an emergency fund, in which case maybe you'd want to keep some of it in CD's. Are significant downsides to keeping the money in our name until he needs it? The main downside would be if you had need to dole out more than the maximum annual gift exclusion amount in a single year (currently $14,000), you'd have to report it as a taxable gift on your tax return and it'd count toward your lifetime gift exclusion. You and your wife can each give a gift, and if your brother were married you and your wife could each give to both he and his spouse, so 2-4x the annual gift limit before this becomes an issue. Additionally you can pay medical/education expenses directly and that is not counted toward the annual exclusion. Are there any other considerations that we are overlooking? There's always a risk that gift-giving can create expectation and/or resentment. I'd think you'd want to make instances of giving not sound like something you planned for, but something you are sacrificing for. Not sure what the best strategy is there, every family is different when it comes to dealing with finances." } ]

[ { "docid": "56803", "title": "", "text": "By no means is this a comprehensive list, but a few items to consider:" } ]

[ { "docid": "379786", "title": "", "text": "You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact." }, { "docid": "306800", "title": "", "text": "If you are a non resident Indian, the income you earn and transfer to India is tax free in India. You can hold the funds in USD or convert then into INR, there is no tax implication." }, { "docid": "432116", "title": "", "text": "Typically Banks look for a steady source of income or savings based on which they issue a credit card. If you can't show that build a cash balance and show it. For Example if you have an PPF account with say SBI, they issue you a card with a limit of around 50% of the balance in PPF. No other documentation is required. Similarly if you have Fixed Deposits for a large amount quite a few Banks would give you a Credit Card. My wife has a credit card because she had a good balance [around 100,000 INR] for around a year, the Bank kept calling her and offered her a card." }, { "docid": "426797", "title": "", "text": "When the corporate tax rate is increased corporations either pass tax this on to 1. consumers through higher prices 2. Shareholders through smaller/fewer dividend payouts or 3. Employees through lower wages. The paper argues that the tax burden mainly falls on the shareholders which is whoever owns the stock (capital income). Effectively investors and retirement accounts/mutual funds etc" }, { "docid": "125976", "title": "", "text": "You could go further and do a carry trade by borrowing EUR at 2% and depositing INR at 10%. All the notes above apply, and see the link there." }, { "docid": "217006", "title": "", "text": "Am I correct in understanding that a Scrip Dividend involves the issue of new shares instead of the purchase of existing shares? Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. This allows shareholders who join the program to obtain new shares without incurring transaction costs that would normally occur if they purchased these shares in the market. Does this mean that if I don't join this program, my existing shares will be diluted every time a Scrip Dividend is paid? Yes, because the number of shares has increased, so the relative percentage of shares in the company you hold will decrease if you opt-out of the program. The price of the existing shares will adjust so that the value of the company is essentially unchanged (similar to a stock split), but the number of outstanding shares has increased, so the relative weight of your shares declines if you opt out of the program. What is the benefit to the company of issuing Scrip Dividends? Companies may do this to conserve their cash reserves. Also, by issuing a scrip dividend, corporations could avoid the Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) that they would normally pre-pay on their distributions. Since the abolition of the ACT in 1999, preserving cash reserves is the primary reason for a company to issue scrip dividends, as far as I know. Whether or not scrip dividends are actually a beneficial strategy for a company is debatable (this looks like a neat study, even though I've only skimmed it). The issue may be beneficial to you, however, because you might receive a tax benefit. You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend)." }, { "docid": "21136", "title": "", "text": "You would need to pay taxes in India on your salary. It is not relevant whether the funds are received as INR or GBP. The taxes would be as per normal tax brackets. Note that if your company is not deducting any taxes, you would need to keep paying Advance Taxes as per schedule, else there would be penalty. Depending on your contract with the UK Company, there are certain expenses you can claim. For example laptop / net connection / etc if these are not already reimbursed. Consult a CA and he would advise you more on any tax saving opportunity." }, { "docid": "306149", "title": "", "text": "Fully Paid up Partly Paid up: A company may issue stock to you which is only partly paid up, for example, a company may issue a stock of face value 10 to you and ask you to pay 5 now and other 5 will be adjusted later by some other mechanism. This stock shall be partly paid up. Usually, these stocks are issued in different circumstances, for example as part payment for debentures, preference shares or other capital structuring. On the other hand for a fully paid up share no more money needs to be paid by you or no other adjustments need to be made. So, above, the company is issuing you with stocks for which you will need to pay no further money, they are fully paid for. Authorized Capital: Authorized capital of a company is the amount of money a company can raise by selling stock (not debt, equity). This number is registered when the company is incorporated, subsequently, this number can be revised upward by applying to the registrar of companies. Now, this means that at max. the company is authorized to raise this much capital and no more. However, a company may raise less than this, which is called Issued Capital. In your case, the company is raising its authorized capital by applying to the registrar of companies, though in this case they are looking at their full authorized capital to be issued capital, it was not necessary to do so. Increase of Authorized capital: The main benefit is that the company can get more money in form of equity and utilize the same, perhaps, for expansion of business etc., that is the primary benefit. Bonus Share: Usually, companies keep some surplus as reserve, this money comes out of the profit the company makes and is essentially money of the shareholders. This reserve surplus is maintained for situations, when the money may be required for exigencies. However, this surplus grows over a few years and the company usually the company plans for an expansion of business. However, this money cannot be just taken, as it belongs to the shareholder, so shareholders are issued extra equity in proportion to their current holding and this surplus is capitalized i.e. used as part of the company's equity capital. Bonus declaration does not add t o the value of the company and the share prices fall in proportion (but not quite) to the bonus." }, { "docid": "392041", "title": "", "text": "\"Since these indices only try to follow VIX and don't have the underlying constituents (as the constituents don't really exist in most meaningful senses) they will always deviate from the exact numbers but should follow the general pattern. You're right, however, in stating that the graphs that you have presented are substantially different and look like the indices other than VIX are always decreasing. The problem with this analysis is that the basis of your graphs is different; they all start at different dates... We can fix this by putting them all on the same graph: this shows that the funds did broadly follow VIX over the period (5 years) and this also encompasses a time when some of the funds started. The funds do decline faster than VIX from the beginning of 2012 onward and I had a theory for why so I grabbed a graph for that period. My theory was that, since volatility had fallen massively after the throes of the financial crisis there was less money to be made from betting on (investing in?) volatility and so the assets invested in the funds had fallen making them smaller in comparison to their 2011-2012 basis. Here we see that the funds are again closely following VIX until the beginning of 2016 where they again diverged lower as volatility fell, probably again as a result of withdrawals of capital as VIX returns fell. A tighter graph may show this again as the gap seems to be narrowing as people look to bet on volatility due to recent events. So... if the funds are basically following VIX, why has VIX been falling consistently over this time? Increased certainty in the markets and a return to growth (or at least lower negative growth) in most economies, particularly western economies where the majority of market investment occurs, and a reduction in the risk of European countries defaulting, particularly Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain; the \"\"PIGS\"\" countries has resulted in lower volatility and a return to normal(ish) market conditions. In summary the funds are basically following VIX but their values are based on their underlying capital. This underlying capital has been falling as returns on volatility have been falling resulting in their diverging from VIX whilst broadly following it on the new basis.\"" }, { "docid": "265551", "title": "", "text": "That's not what he's saying at all. Basically most of his argument (4 of 6 points) is the connection between bond prices and equity prices. It's not particularly interesting but it definitely doesn't always apply either. If bond yields fall, then so too should equity earnings yields if spreads remain relatively constant, i.e. higher equity prices. Additionally, if bond yields are low, then any future equity growth gets capitalized at a much higher value because discount rates are much lower. Again, not particularly insightful. The two interesting comments were about oil and cash as a % of assets at financial institutions. Both of these are likely linked to falling or low rates above, because banks can't invest profitably at low rates and hence hold cash and equivalents instead, and oil prices are more likely to fall in a low or falling inflation environment (implied by the low rates or Fed tightening). Really, I think hes's saying something more obvious but not necessarily trivial, which is if one asset class goes up, so too is another related one." }, { "docid": "56527", "title": "", "text": "I am pretty sure he is referring to the fact that hedge funds manage over $2.1 trillion of capital, a good deal of which comes from pension funds and charitable endowments BUT their fees are falling and someone has got to do it." }, { "docid": "236780", "title": "", "text": "No, it doesn’t. If I sell my eggs for a dollar each, I made that choice. Capitalism gives us a mechanism by which to judge whether our deal will be financially lucrative or not. Capitalism doesn’t set off the new craze for fitbits. Capitalism shows the trend to allow you to take advantage of the craze. And if you are saying I shouldn’t speak economics to you, then you are committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority: that just because you are an authority in the field, you must be right. Authority ty is a good fall-back when you have no other methods to verify your decisions by, but authority alone doesn’t hold the reigns of truth." }, { "docid": "470032", "title": "", "text": "\"In my experience working at a currency exchange money service business in the US: Flat fees are the \"\"because we can\"\" fee on average. These can be waived on certain dollar values at some banks or MSBs, and sometimes can even be haggled. If you Google EURUSD, as an example, you also get something like $1.19 at 4pm, 9/18/2017. If you look at the actual conversion that you got, you may find your bank hit you with $1.30 or something close to convert from USD to Euro (in other words, you payed 10% more USD per Euro). And, if you sell your Euro directly back, you might find you only make $1.07. This spread is the real \"\"fee\"\" and covers a number of things including risk or liquidity. You'll see that currencies with more volatility or less liquidity have a much wider spread. Some businesses even go as far as to artificially widen the spread for speculators (see IQD, VND, INR, etc.). Typically if you see a 3% surcharge on international ATM or POS transactions, that's the carrier such as Visa or Mastercard taking their cut for processing. Interestingly enough, you also typically get the carrier-set exchange rate overseas when using your card. In other words, your bank has a cash EURUSD of $1.30 but the conversion you get at the ATM is Visa's rate, hence the Visa fee (but it's typically a nicer spread, or it's sometimes the international spot rate depending on the circumstances, due to the overhead of electronic transactions). You also have to consider the ATM charging you a separate fee for it's own operation. In essence, the fees exist to pad every player involved except you. Some cards do you a solid by advertising $0 foreign exchange fees. Unfortunately these cards only insulate you from the processing/flat fees and you may still fall prey to the fee \"\"hidden\"\" in the spread. In the grander scheme of things, currency exchange is a retail operation. They try to make money on every step that requires them to expend a resource. If you pay 10% on a money transaction, this differs actually very little from the mark-up you pay on your groceries, which varies from 3-5% on dry food, to 20% on alcohol such as wine.\"" }, { "docid": "10677", "title": "", "text": "A pure free market for agricultural commodities would be disastrous. Markets respond efficiently but not instantaneously. Shifts in he supply and demand of labor and capital investment are particularly slow. If a large percentage of corn farmers go under one fall there have to be new farmers/capitalists picking up the slack by next spring or there will be insufficirnt production that cant be recovered for an entire year. Society can't withstand massive losses of commodity production, strategic reserves can help absorb the damage but youre still paying for innefficient production as grains can only be stored for so long and need replacing on an annual basis." }, { "docid": "150607", "title": "", "text": "\"In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty. Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors. As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you \"\"can\"\" pay off the loan in a short time. If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above.\"" }, { "docid": "509879", "title": "", "text": "You should never invest in a stock just for the dividend. Dividends are not guaranteed. I have seen some companies that are paying close to 10% dividends but are losing money and have to borrow funds just to maintain the dividends. How long can these companies continue paying dividends at this rate or at all. Would you keep investing in a stock paying 10% dividends per year where the share price is falling 20% per year? I know I wouldn't. Some high dividend paying stocks also tend to grow a lot slower than lower or non dividend paying stocks. You should look at the total return - both dividend yield and capital return combined to make a better decision. You should also never stay in a stock which is falling drastically just because it pays a dividend. I would never stay in a stock that falls 20%, 30%, 50% or more just because I am getting a 5% dividend. Regarding taxation, some countries may have special taxation rules when it comes to dividends just like they may have special taxation rules for longer term capital gains compared to shorter term capital gains. Again no one should use taxation as the main purpose to make an investment decision. You should factor taxation into your decision but it should never be the determining factor of your decisions. No one has ever become poor in making a gain and paying some tax, but many people have lost a great portion of their capital by not selling a stock when it has lost 50% or more of its value." }, { "docid": "304743", "title": "", "text": "I'd say there's a lot of oversight in the public companies, like maintaining transparency to the public by having public consultations and sending out lots of communication. There's also the way budgets are managed in public companies that are very different from a private company, so there's way more oversight into where the money goes. The reason public projects take so long generally falls under these considerations. Private companies (at least where I'm from) also have to follow some pretty strict rules that there is a lot of pushback on, but considering that a lot of the oversight boils down to things like don't increase traffic by x amount without creating a detour route, don't increase stormwater flows to a river that would flood out people downstream, don't build houses so close together that a fire can jump from one to the next, etc, but I agree with having the strict regulation because it means that in fifty years we won't have the same massive problems that there have been before. Also it's a tough sell to get some things done by private investment, like a country road, so it's a lot easier to have the government do it. That's why there's usually a division between capital works and development, where capital works will build the roads and sewers in existing areas while development will be subdivisions and industrial complexes where the developer has to put in all of the infrastructure as part of their development that they're making sales or rentals to turn a profit on. So there is a balance, but it's capital works that gets the most media attention for being horrible and in need of repair." }, { "docid": "519980", "title": "", "text": "\"*A Libertarian's take on the above passage*: As long as capitalism is actively working, businessman and profiteer are synonymous, and neither is bad; neither will be able to stay in business without benefitting society by keeping willing customers. So where does the above ideal fall apart? Monopoliesl. Adam Smith himself warned about natural monopolies (think Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt, yet I personally wouldn't call them demons). Yet, I can't think of a single example of one of them today, yet we still have a massive number of demons obstructing capitalism. **The real demons are government-sanctioned monopolies**. * Giant barriers to entry, permits, certifications, extensive tax code, licenses, etc are only the beginning. * A patent grants an automatic 20-year monopoly, for better or for worse. For medicines, probably worse. * Did you know you can patent a fucking *gene* now? Government-supported. * Software and design patents are so broad it's trivial for any established firm to put a newcomer out of business simply through legal bullying. * What if the people are unhappy with which defense contractor the gov't picks to do work in Iraq? Is that capitalism? * The government pretty much gave at&t a blank check to \"\"own\"\" the entire Internet backbone as long as they *promised* to invest the money and not dump it to their shareholders (*cough*). * Cable TV trusts... Argh, corruption at its finest. My family only has the \"\"choice\"\" of a single cable provider because of the gov't approved anti-competitive practices. Zip code 18015. Not exactly a remote area, either. All the above examples are clear abuses of power, and none would disagree other than the direct beneficiaries. Where does the Libertarian perspective diverge from the Keynesian one, then? * Keynesians believe that we need rules in place to prevent companies from exploiting positions like these. * Libertarians believe that the government should not have the power in the first place to enable these abuse methods to arise in the first place.\"" }, { "docid": "70907", "title": "", "text": "AFAIU, you don't need pay any taxes for you amount in NRE account since this amount is already taxed. I also think, you do not need to pay taxes on the interest earned on NRE account. However, you need to disclose the amount in your Indian Bank(s), if at any point of time, exceed $10K (When converted from INR to $). This is FBAR. Sending money to non-NRE account would come under Indian Tax scanner. For instance, if your parents use that money to pay EMIs or any huge purchase, then that might cause an issue. Most of the times, these type of purchases go unnoticed. However, the party who is taking money, may ask for source, especially if its a financial institution or Govt bodies. Also, for non-NRE accounts, you need to pay taxes and on interest earned. Hope this helps!" } ]

[ { "docid": "420672", "title": "", "text": "One simplest way is to to do Forex trading. You can do this by buying Foreign Currency Futures when you feel Rupee is going down or by selling those Futures when you feel Rupee will go up." } ]

[ { "docid": "102823", "title": "", "text": ">Hate to break it to you but it's the republican policies of deregulation and tax cuts we can't afford that got us this shit sandwich. Not even close. 1.1Trillion/year deficit is NOT related to taxes, it's related to increased spending while yes, tax revenues fall a bit. But you don't take actions that will make tax revenues fall more. Putting additional burdens on companies doesnt yield more tax revenue. If it did, why not tax them at 90%? But then guess what happens along that chart curve? There are no companies left. How much in additional taxes could we take in? 100 billion conservatively? Ok genius, what about the other $1 Trillion/year? WE SPEND TOO MUCH! >Really? Seems to me like a person living paycheck to paycheck would actually have a very good idea of what it's like to live on the edge of bankruptcy Except for most people close to bankruptcy they never had any capital to begin with. They lived pay check to pay check, using credit cards, buying houses, buying cars. Businesses must keep a MUCH larger cushion of liquid capital and assets and must plan YEARS in advance. ---very few individuals do this or ever will. The only correlation is that more and more liabilities are not meeting income. Except when an individual goes bankrupt it's mostly on them. If a company goes bankrupt it can effect hundreds or thousands of employees AND the company. An indivdual going bankrupt won't then bankrupt their creditors or vendors but a company going bankrupt very well could. I don't know if you knew this, but the United States itself is bankrupt.... We can't meet liabilities with the current income. That doesn't mean increased taxes to increase income. It means reducing liabilities and creating an envionment where those who bring in the revenue can expand. What we're talking about here is companies receiving additional burdens, not less, thus there is an incentive to decrease liabilities where possible, sell or close if necessary." }, { "docid": "70907", "title": "", "text": "AFAIU, you don't need pay any taxes for you amount in NRE account since this amount is already taxed. I also think, you do not need to pay taxes on the interest earned on NRE account. However, you need to disclose the amount in your Indian Bank(s), if at any point of time, exceed $10K (When converted from INR to $). This is FBAR. Sending money to non-NRE account would come under Indian Tax scanner. For instance, if your parents use that money to pay EMIs or any huge purchase, then that might cause an issue. Most of the times, these type of purchases go unnoticed. However, the party who is taking money, may ask for source, especially if its a financial institution or Govt bodies. Also, for non-NRE accounts, you need to pay taxes and on interest earned. Hope this helps!" }, { "docid": "555608", "title": "", "text": "Overpriced shares: Cheaper to raise new capital through secondary share offerings or debt using shares as a security. Fends off hostile take overs, since the company is too dear. When a company is taken over it needs only one set of management. Top management of the company that is taken over loses their jobs - no one wants to lose their job. Shareholders love to see share price grow - sale brings them profit, secures jobs for company management. Shares are used as a currency during acquisitions, if company shares are overpriced that means they can buy another company on the cheap - paying with the overpriced shares. Undervalued shares: More expensive to raise additional capital through secondary share offerings - for the same amount of capital the management has to offer a bigger chunk of the company; have to offer bigger chunk of a company as a security as well. Makes company vulnerable to hostile take overs, company is undervalues - makes it an attractive bargain. Once the company is taken over top management will almost certainly lose jobs. Falling price makes shareholders unhappy - they will vote management out. Makes difficult to acquire other companies." }, { "docid": "240023", "title": "", "text": "One way to look at a butterfly is to break it into two trades. A butterfly is actually made up of two verticals... One is a debit vertical: buy 490 put and sell the 460 put. The other is a credit vertical: sell a 460 put and buy a 430 put. If someone believes Apple will fall to 460, that person could do a few things. There are other strategies but this just compares the three common ones: 1) Buy a put. This is expensive and if the stock only goes to 460 you overpay for it. 2) Buy a put vertical. This is less expensive because you offset the price of your put. 3) Buy a butterfly. This is cheapest of the three because you have the vertical in #2 as well as a credit vertical on top of that to offset your cost. The reason why someone would use the butterfly is to pay less upfront while capitalizing on a fall to 460. Of the three, this would be the better strategy to use if that happens. But REMEMBER that this only applies if the trader is right and it goes to 460. There is always a trade off for every strategy that the trader must be aware of. If the trader is wrong, and Apple goes to say 400, the put (#1) would make the most money and the butterfly(#3) would lose money while the vertical (#2) would still gain. So that is what you're sacrificing to get the benefits of the butterfly. Also helps to draw a diagram to compare the strategies." }, { "docid": "414772", "title": "", "text": "Buyer A didn't send money to the US government, Buyer A sent money to Seller B, a US resident. I think the most common way to facilitate a transaction like this is a regular old international wire transfer. Buyer A in India goes to their bank to exchange X INR to $1mm USD. $1mm USD is then wire transferred to Seller B's bank account. The USD was sold to Buyer A, either by funds held by Buyer A's bank, or foreign exchange markets, or possibly the US government. Seller B may owe taxes on the gain derived from the sale of this thing to Buyer A, but that taxation would arise regardless of who the buyer was. Buyer A may owe an import tax in India upon importing whatever they bought. I don't think it's common to tax imported money in this sort of transactional setting though." }, { "docid": "32328", "title": "", "text": "Fundamentally these are my opinions I am expressing. Even though I try to remain as factual as possible, and have significantly modified my opinion over the years as a result of apparently factual information, it's still technically just opinion. > My view is not so much that labour and finance capital returns need to be balanced (although that is probably a great thing to aim for), but that creation of wealth/capital needs to be intrinsically linked with the creation of real value. By the way, when I say capital it's not generally just finance capital, but all operational capital goods. Which includes factories and all means of production. A certain amount of financing is needed to keep it operational, and more is needed to increase the means of production to grow overall wealth. Have you ever heard of the [Bowley's law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowley%27s_law)? Basically you can't really push this ratio very far. If consumer demand dries up then production will get cut back to meat demand. Overproduction of stuff they can't sell is not what they are in business for. Likewise, is demand exceeds the capacity of production to keep up it pushes inflation, which drives up cost to reduce demand. So this ratio remains very nearly a constant. Even though this ratio was at historic highs in the 1970s, and historic lows today. What happens when you artificially dry up labor returns, through excessive supply side policies, is that demand for production falls. Hence production is cut back to meet that demand. This of course reduces employment and increases job competition, which puts more downward on wages exacerbating the situation. Only once labor cost fall low enough it effectively subsidizes inefficient production methods which limits the falling wages at a reduced overall productivity. Note that this is under present circumstances, not those of the 1970s. This adaptive matching between production and demand insures that the Bowley ratio is never too far off of its historical averages, even if productivity is driven well below its potential. More or less the same effect occurs for the opposite reason if capital return ratios are too low. Though with opposite effects on the inflation rate and such. When consumer demand is high enough capital will pay whatever labor cost is required to meet that demand, so long as it remains profitable enough, i.e., they get a reasonable ratio of the market return. Consumer demand with sufficient capital profit margins is what drives full employment, not the sheer volume of capital returns as present policies essentially assume. Yet you can't have a broad based consumer demand, to drive employment, without sufficient labor returns, as those labor returns is what finances that demand needed to drive employment. So not only does labour and capital returns need to be balanced. Economics does NOT allow it to be unbalanced, at least for long. Even if balancing requires the economy to shrink, productivity to fall, etc., that is exactly what it will do to remain balanced. No choice given, no matter how draconian the regulations to force it. This is true under purely agrarian economies of the past, pure communism, and even ecology. This is why I am a capitalist, because nature gives me no choice. But acceptance of that fact does not require me to have an ounce of tolerance for cronyism. The only thing we can do is not push this balance in either direction to destructive levels. Because destruction is what will happen for the balance to remain. Because so much of our productive capacity has been in productivity gains since the 1990s, and wages and demand have as yet not matched these productivity gains, we have a huge latent wealth capacity that continues to grow as we fail to take advantage of it. So far our supply side policies haven't so much destroyed wealth and productivity. Rather it has prevented us from seeing the potential gains from the latent productivity growth from technologies over the few decades. --- The last part you mention about wealth/capital needing to be intrinsically linked with the creation of real value. You are absolute 100% entirely correct. Perhaps even more than you know. Ever heard of planned obsolescence, or [The Light Bulb Conspiracy](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/)? That link is a documentary on the issue that will make you mad. We could almost certainly pay a flat 90% tax rate on everything and still not come close to what this issue cost us. That's not the only means this issue imposes cost, but it is extreme. Of course just because an appliance still works doesn't mean people will not replace it with newer better models. But the trash pile insures there is a much more limited secondary market for poorer people. Consumption debt cost is also a far bigger issue than people recognize. Debt to finance capital goods for production is fine, as this feeds productivity and wealth in a manner that sustains itself even as the debt is paid. Consumption debt is an entirely different beast. Creating a significant section of the population that feeds on peoples income without producing a thing. Only to let allow people to consume income they haven't earned yet. This generally falls under the category of rent seeking behavior. Yeah, the lack real value creation turns my stomach. That people will knowingly spend money on temporary non-essential novelties and such is all fine and dandy, but underhandedly renting our base appliances for a certain number of uses is outrageous in my book." }, { "docid": "2748", "title": "", "text": "from what i understand, which is not much, some companies use some of their own company shares as securitisation for loans. If the share price decreases, the security in the loan decreases, which means the company would need to find new capital. It can create a vicious cycle if the fall in share price is the result of operational concerns." }, { "docid": "570178", "title": "", "text": "At the most basic level of financing a business -- you are trying to acquire capital as cheaply as you can to invest in your projects. The measure for how expensive your capital is to acquire is Weighted Average Cost of Capital. The formula for WACC: Equity Ratio * Cost of Equity + Debt Ratio * Cost of Debt * (1 - Tax Rate) This is also your discount rate when you're making a DCF model. Debt tends to be cheaper than equity when you don't already have any, and is also advantaged by tax rates since you don't pay taxes on interest. In the real world, banks and lenders will ratchet up rates the more debt you acquire, or shut you out once you've taken on too much and your debt service coverage is too low for them. In a classroom though, most teachers are too lazy to make a curvilinear formula for borrowing and will just state a rate for borrowing so you can load up on debt so long as you don't fall below being able to service your debt (cash flow to make your debt payments). This will ultimately juice the returns on equity. Realistically, you would find lenders would let you have ~20% equity in the business and ~80% debt without raising your teacher's eyebrow. If you haven't taken accounting yet; be careful about the difference between cash and revenue in your analyses. Revenue is recognition for work done; not cash in hand. You can have all the revenue in the world but if no one's paid you for it yet, you can't pay anyone." }, { "docid": "598177", "title": "", "text": "sorry I disagree, they buy government bonds currently held by private banks (who hold them for account holders), this increased demand for government bonds means that the yield on them decreases, this means the government can then borrow at a lower rate (providing the QE isn't offset by a fall in private demand for bonds as they may be seen as unrewarding in terms of the risk taken), private investors will then turn to other investments offering a greater return, this will then increase the capital stock available and expand output, thus increasing employment" }, { "docid": "253982", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/europes-crisis-the-cluj-debate-with-mark-blyth/) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** > If profits are the result of the exploitation of labour power and not merely the result of the distribution of production between wages and profits, then it is profits that matters for capital, not wages. > Rising profit margins show capital is making bigger profits; but that can still mean overall profitability is falling. > If the euro crisis and the Great Recession were the product of wage compression and too much credit, then the solution for the EU project may just be better taxation of profits, more wage increases and public spending. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6m5rme/europes_crisis_the_cluj_debate_with_mark_blyth/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~162726 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **profit**^#1 **wage**^#2 **capital**^#3 **profitability**^#4 **Euro**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "313248", "title": "", "text": "Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio." }, { "docid": "455983", "title": "", "text": "In addition to above points : Interest earned on NRE accounts are tax free. But you can deposit any foreign currency except INR. Nothing is taxable. While the NRO account gives you a flexibility to deposit INR too, the interest will be taxable and tax will be deducted at source at the rate of 30.9%. It is necessary to convert the existing Indian local accounts to NRO as per the Reserve Bank of India circular: RBI/2007-2008/242 Master Circular No. 03 /2007- 08 . So basically you need:" }, { "docid": "334902", "title": "", "text": "There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard." }, { "docid": "129724", "title": "", "text": "The way the question is worded, it is slightly opinion based. Just to point out; Tax benefits - Upto 50000 INR is tax free when invested here. This is actually 200,000 INR under 80C. So if you invest max of 150,000 in other instruments in 80C; you can still invest 50,000 into NPS. Hopefully it will provide some lumpsum money that I could probably use to buy a house / kid's education / kid's marriage. There are very few withdrawal options. Generally in the current scenario; By the time you retire; you would already have house, kid would have got married. Answers given the current data is it a worthwhile investment? It is a good investment option available. It is up to individual to select this or invest else where. If yes, would be better to fix choice at 50% in E and 25% in C and E or go for the auto choice? As you are young it is better to have max 50% in Equity and actively monitor this and change the percentage as you near the retirement age. If you don't have time, or are not financial savy, or one is plain simple lazy; going with Auto choice makes sense. bad investment because if you put the same money into equity oriented mutual funds then you will get better returns ... This depends. If you are currently investing everything into Equity; then yes at absolute level, the returns are high. However if you are investing into Equity and debt to achieve a balance, then NPS is doing it automatically for you. As the NPS has very low costs, there is substantial advantage. In some years [2013-2014?] the NPS equity return has been excellent and exceeded leading mutual funds. Other Aspect Edits: The Annuities need to invest in guaranteed risk free instruments; generally bonds. As the rates are locked for life, they need to factor things like average life expectancy, demographics, etc. This is largely statistical. Similar to how the Insurance premiums are decided. This is adjusted periodically. Say they offer 6.5% for 100 people. The investments into bonds is yielding only 6%. Then for next 100 people, they would offer 5.5%. However if the mortality increases, i.e. 50 people die at age of 70, they just need to adjust it to 5.75% for next 100 ... so there are quite a few parameters that go in and statical models output what the rate should be offered. At times the corpus manager may take a hedge to minimize downside. This is a specialized subject and there no dummies that show how rates are determined. It is also a trade secret." }, { "docid": "426797", "title": "", "text": "When the corporate tax rate is increased corporations either pass tax this on to 1. consumers through higher prices 2. Shareholders through smaller/fewer dividend payouts or 3. Employees through lower wages. The paper argues that the tax burden mainly falls on the shareholders which is whoever owns the stock (capital income). Effectively investors and retirement accounts/mutual funds etc" }, { "docid": "340791", "title": "", "text": "\"It appears that the company in question is raising money to invest in expanding its operations (specifically lithium production but that is off topic for here). The stock price was rising on the back of (perceived) increases in demand for the company's products but in order to fulfil demand they need to either invest in higher production or increase prices. They chose to increase production by investing. To invest they needed to raise capital and so are going through the motions to do that. The key question as to what will happen with their stock price after this is broken down into two parts: short term and long term: In the short term the price is driven by the expectation of future profits (see below) and the behavioural expectations from an increase in interest in the stock caused by the fact that it is in the news. People who had never heard of the stock or thought of investing in the company have suddenly discovered it and been told that it is doing well and so \"\"want a piece of it\"\". This will exacerbate the effect of the news (broadly positive or negative) and will drive the price in the short run. The effect of extra leverage (assuming that they raise capital by writing bonds) also immediately increases the total value of the company so will increase the price somewhat. The short term price changes usually pare back after a few months as the shine goes off and people take profits. For investing in the long run you need to consider how the increase in capital will be used and how demand and supply will change. Since the company is using the money to invest in factors of production (i.e. making more product) it is the return on capital (or investment) employed (ROCE) that will inform the fundamentals underlying the stock price. The higher the ROCE, the more valuable the capital raised is in the future and the more profits and the company as a whole will grow. A questing to ask yourself is whether they can employ the extra capital at the same ROCE as they currently produce. It is possible that by investing in new, more productive equipment they can raise their ROCE but also possible that, because the lithium mines (or whatever) can only get so big and can only get so much access to the seams extra capital will not be as productive as existing capital so ROCE will fall for the new capital.\"" }, { "docid": "457122", "title": "", "text": "\"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The \"\"return of capital, not return on capital\"\" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb.\"" }, { "docid": "18792", "title": "", "text": "\"You are confining the way you and the other co-founders are paid for guaranteeing the loan to capital shares. Trying to determine payments by equity distribution is hard. It is a practice that many small companies particularly the ones in their initial stage fall into. I always advise against trying to make payments with equity, weather it is for unpaid salary or for guaranteeing a loan such as your case. Instead of thinking about a super sophisticated algorithm to distribute the new shares between the cofounders and the new investors, given a set of constraints, which will most probably fail to make the satisfactory split, you should simply view the co-founders as debt lenders for the company and the shareholders as a capital contributor. If the co-founders are treated as debt lenders, it will be much easier to determine the risk compensation for guaranteeing the loan because it is now assessed in monetary units and this compensation is equal to the risk premium you see fit \"\"taking into consideration the probability of default \"\". On the other hand, capital contributors will gain capital shares as a percentage of the total value of the company after adding SBA loan.\"" }, { "docid": "584090", "title": "", "text": "An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time." } ]

[ { "docid": "287019", "title": "", "text": "For $100 you better just hold it in Mexico. The cost of opening an account could eat 10% or more of your capital easily, and that won't be able to buy enough shares of an ETF or similar investment to make it worthwhile." } ]

[ { "docid": "225688", "title": "", "text": "\"But it isnt how countries work. Republicans constantly want to pretend a country is a business or a home budget it isnt. And I dont get why people dont remember that Bush ran on the fact that he was a businessman and that gore was the out of touch guy who was in politics all his life. how did that work out? the country isnt a business we cant fire our citizens and hope they get new citizenship in a better country. we cant carve off missouri and sell it to mexico to get rid of some of our less profitable states. The US is not a business. and last if you say \"\"thats just capitalism\"\" then perhaps we should examine if we want capitaism in our SOCIETY.. If that is good for SOCIETY. I mean if you are just going to send all the jobs over seas to were workers are cheaper, then all you are doing is asking america to go into a state of decline until all of us are willing to take the same pay as some guy who lived in a hut in middle of africa all his life. Personally I dont.\"" }, { "docid": "95890", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say \"\"growth\"\". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling \"\"final goods\"\" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the \"\"technicalities\"\" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about \"\"growth\"\" in the market, what they really mean is \"\"return\"\". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population.\"" }, { "docid": "396254", "title": "", "text": "\"In most countries, you are deemed to dispose of all your assets at the fair value at that time, at the moment you are considered no longer a resident. ie: on the day your friend leaves Brazil, Brazil will likely consider him to have sold his BTC for $1M. The Brazilian government will then likely want him to calculate how much it cost him to mine/buy it, so that they can tax him on the gain. No argument about how BTC isn't \"\"Fiat money\"\" matters here; tax laws will typically apply to all investments in a way similar to stocks etc.. The US will likely be very suspicious of such a large amount of money without some level of traceability including that he paid taxes on any relevant gains in other countries. By showing the US that he paid appropriate 'expatriate taxes' in Brazil (if they exist; I am speaking generally and have no knowledge of Brazilian taxes), he is helping to prove that he does not need to pay any taxes on that money in the US. Typically the BTC then is valued for US tax purposes as the $1M it was worth when he entered the US becoming a resident there [This may require tax planning prior to entering the US] [see additional answer here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/48031/44232]. Any attempt to bring the BTC into the US without paying appropriate Brazilian / US taxes [as applicable, I'm not 100% on either; check with a tax lawyer knowledgeable on both US & Brazilian tax law, because the amount of money is material] will likely be considered fraud. 'How to commit fraud' is not entertained as valid subject matter on this site.\"" }, { "docid": "152643", "title": "", "text": "I strongly recommend you to invest in either stocks or bonds. Both markets have very strict regulations, and usually follow international standards of governance. Plus, they are closely supervised by local governments, since they look to serve the interests of capital holders in order to attract foreign investment. Real estate investment is not all risky, but regulations tend to be very localized. There are federal, state/county laws and byelaws, the last usually being the most significant in terms of costs (city taxes) and zoning. So if they ever change, that could ruin your investment. Keeping up with them would be hard work, because of language, legal and distance issues (visiting notary's office to sign papers, for example). Another thing to consider is, specially on rural distant areas, the risk of forgers taking your land. In poorer countries you could also face the problem of land invasion, both urban and rural. Solution for that depends on a harsh (fast) or socially populist (slow) local government. Small businesses are out of question for you, frankly. The list of risks (cash stealing, accounting misleading, etc.) is such that you will lose money. Even if you ran the business in your hometown it would not be easy right?" }, { "docid": "138795", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd agree that this can seem a little unfair, but it's an unavoidable consequence of the necessary practicality of paying out dividends periodically (rather than continuously), and differential taxation of income and capital gains. To see more clearly what's going on here, consider buying stock in a company with extremely simple economics: it generates a certain, constant earnings stream equivalent to $10 per share per annum, and redistributes all of that profit as periodic dividends (let's say once annually). Assume there's no intrinsic growth, and that the firm's instrinsic value (which we'll say is $90 per share) is completely neutral to any other market factors. Under these economics, this stock price will show a \"\"sawtooth\"\" evolution, accruing from $90 to $100 over the course of a year, and resetting back down to $90 after each dividend payment. Now, if I am invested in this stock for some period of time, the fair outcome would be that I receive an appropriately time-weighted share of the $10 annual earnings per share, less my tax. If I am invested for an exact calendar year, this works as I'd expect: the stock price on any given day in the year will be the same as it was exactly one year earlier, so I'll realise zero capital gain, but I'll have collected a $10 taxed dividend along the way. On the other hand, what if I am invested for exactly half a year, spanning a dividend payment? I receive a dividend payment of $10 less tax, but I make a capital loss of -$5. Overall, pre-tax, I'm up $5 per share as expected. However, the respective tax treatment of the dividend payment (which is classed as income) and the capital gains is likely to be different. In particular, to benefit from the \"\"negative\"\" taxation of the capital loss I need to have some positive capital gain elsewhere to offset it - if I can't do that, I'm much worse off compared to half the full-year return. Further, even if I can offset against a gain elsewhere the effective taxation rates are likely to be different - but note that this could work for or against me (if my capital gains rate is greater than my income tax rate I'd actually benefit). And if I'm invested for half a year, but not spanning a dividend, I make $5 of pure capital gains, and realise a different effective taxation rate again. In an ideal world I'd agree that the effective taxation rate wouldn't depend on the exact timing of my transactions like this, but in reality it's unavoidable in the interests of practicality. And so long as the rules are clear, I wouldn't say it's unfair per se, it just adds a bit of complexity.\"" }, { "docid": "578427", "title": "", "text": "\"Stock market indexes are generally based on market capitalization, which is not the same as GDP. GDP includes the value of all goods and services produced in a country; this includes a large amount of small-scale production which may not be reflected in stock market capitalizations. Thus the ratio between countries' GDPs may not be the same as the ratio of their total market capitalization. For instance, US GDP is approximately 3.8 times as much as Japan's (see here), but US total market cap is about 5.5 as much as Japan's (see here). The discrepancy can be even more severe when comparing \"\"developed\"\" economies like the US to \"\"developing\"\" (or \"\"less-developed\"\") economies in which there is less participation in large-scale financial systems like stock markets. For instance, US GDP is roughly 10 times that of Brazil, but US total market cap is roughly 36 times that of Brazil. Switzerland has a total market cap nearly double that of Brazil despite its total GDP being less than half of Brazil's. Since the all-world index includes all investable economies, it will include many economies whose share of market cap is disproportionately lower than their share of GDP. In addition, according to the fact sheet you linked to, that index tracks only large- and mid-cap stocks. This will further skew the weighting to developed economies and to the US in particular, since the US has a disproportionate share of the largest companies. Obviously one would need to take a more detailed look at all the weights to determine if these factors account precisely for the level of discrepancy you see in this particular index. But hopefully that explanation gives an idea of why the US might be weighted more heavily in a stock index than it is in raw GDP.\"" }, { "docid": "589607", "title": "", "text": "I think the strongest reason against DHA purchases (I don't consider them investments) is points 3 and 5 mentioned above. The resale market is only to other investors that are convinced its a good investment.If you can't sell to owner occupiers, you've just removed the MAJORITY of your potential pool of people to resell to - this has a devastating effect on your ability to make any capital gain from your investment - if you're not chasing capital gain...be sure to understand why! (see article below)The marketing people will have you believe that DHA is a great investment from a yield perspective...maybe so, I haven't crunched the numbers. But in my opinion, I would wonder - who cares?Yield is important to ensure you can hold the property, but if there is no capital growth and you can't sell it for a profit or release some equity to buy the next investment, then you've just put a massive road block in your wealth building path.I am at the asset accumulation phase of my investing journey, so my opinion is skewed towards capital growth investments. Unless you have a sizable equity base already, in my opinion $4-5 Million in debt free assets, then you should be looking for capital growth assets...not high yield.This article from Your Investment Property magazine, although now dated, gives a good example to illustrate my point on why capital growth is the sensible strategy during the asset building phase of your wealth creation journey: Why capital growth is still king I think the strongest reason against DHA purchases (I don't consider them investments) is points 3 and 5 mentioned above. The resale market is only to other investors that are convinced its a good investment. If you can't sell to owner occupiers, you've just removed the MAJORITY of your potential pool of people to resell to - this has a devastating effect on your ability to make any capital gain from your investment - if you're not chasing capital gain...be sure to understand why! (see article below) The marketing people will have you believe that DHA is a great investment from a yield perspective...maybe so, I haven't crunched the numbers. But in my opinion, I would wonder - who cares? Yield is important to ensure you can hold the property, but if there is no capital growth and you can't sell it for a profit or release some equity to buy the next investment, then you've just put a massive road block in your wealth building path. I am at the asset accumulation phase of my investing journey, so my opinion is skewed towards capital growth investments. Unless you have a sizable equity base already, in my opinion $4-5 Million in debt free assets, then you should be looking for capital growth assets...not high yield. This article from Your Investment Property magazine, although now dated, gives a good example to illustrate my point on why capital growth is the sensible strategy during the asset building phase of your wealth creation journey: Why capital growth is still king" }, { "docid": "331008", "title": "", "text": "\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"" }, { "docid": "344206", "title": "", "text": "I am a firm believer in the idea of limiting debt as much as possible. I would not recommend borrowing money for anything other than a reasonably sized mortgage. As a result, my recommendations are going to be geared toward that goal. The top priorities for me, then, would be to make sure, first, that we don't have to go further into debt, and second, that we eliminate the debt that we already have as soon as possible. Here is how I would rate your list: A small emergency fund, perhaps $1000 USD, is going to ensure that, while you are funding other things, you don't end up so cash poor that, if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you are forced to add to your credit card debt. Make this small fund your top priority, and it shouldn't take much more than a month or two to do it. Getting out of debt is important, but if your employer hands out free money, you have to take it. It is just too good of a deal. Get rid of this debt as fast as possible. When you are done, you'll have more income available to you than you've ever had before. Now that you have just gotten done eliminating your debt as fast as possible, don't stop there. Take the income you had been throwing at your debt, and build up your emergency fund to a few months' worth of your expenses. Finishing this fund up will enable you to withstand a small crisis without borrowing anything. You are now in a very strong position financially, and can confidently invest. Deciding which type of retirement account is best for you depends on the details of your situation. Once you are contributing a healthy amount to your retirement funds, you may want to consider paying off your mortgage early. As I said before, I recommend getting down to the last step as quickly as possible. Depending on how much debt you actually have, if you sacrifice for a year or two you could be debt free and in a position to keep all of your investment gains. If you take your time paying off debt, like many people do, you could find yourself 10 years from now still making payments on your loans, still making car payments, and still needlessly sending interest to the banks, eating away at the gains you are making in your investments. If you aren't committed to eliminating your debt quickly, and plan on having payments for a long time, then skip this advice and put retirement savings at the top." }, { "docid": "131853", "title": "", "text": "\"From your own article they attribute it more to how they handled the banking crisis. And then there's this: &gt;\"\"The lessons don't transfer directly because of the relative size of the old banks in relation to the economy. What we were left with was quite manageable,\"\" said Jon Bentsson, senior economist at Islandsbanki. Also, Iceland is an extremely small country, with just over 300k people. Lessons learned at that scale don't translate well to countries like America, with three orders of magnitude (just over 300 Million) higher numbers of people. But true enough, I did not ask that question so I am willing to admit when I am wrong. Iceland did indeed recover with austerity measures in place.\"" }, { "docid": "209349", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll take a stab at this question and offer a disclosure: I recently got in RING (5.1), NEM (16.4), ASX:RIO (46.3), and FCX (8.2). While I won't add to my positions at current prices, I may add other positions, or more to them if they fall further. This is called catching a falling dagger and it's a high risk move. Cons (let's scare everyone away) Pros The ECB didn't engage in as much QE as the market hoped and look at how it reacted, especially commodities. Consider that the ECB's actions were \"\"tighter\"\" than expected and the Fed plans to raise rates, or claims so. Commodities should be falling off a cliff on that news. While most American/Western attention is on the latest news or entertainment, China has been seizing commodities around the globe like crazy, and the media have failed to mention that even with its market failing, China is still seizing commodities. If China was truly panicked about its market, it would stop investing in other countries and commodities and just bail out its own country. Yet, it's not doing that. The whole \"\"China crisis\"\" is completely oversold in the West; China is saying one thing (\"\"oh no\"\"), but doing another (using its money to snap up cheap commodities). Capitalism works because hard times strengthen good companies. You know how many bailouts ExxonMobil has received compared to Goldman Sachs? You know who owns more real wealth? Oil doesn't get bailed out, banks do, and banks can't innovate to save their lives, while oil innovates. Hard times strengthen good companies. This means that this harsh bust in commodities will separate the winners from the losers and history shows the winners do very well in the long run. Related to the above point: how many bailouts from tax payers do you think mining companies will get? Zero. At least you're investing in companies that don't steal your money through government confiscation. If you're like me, you can probably find at least 9 people out of 10 who think \"\"investing in miners is a VERY BAD idea.\"\" What do they think is a good idea? \"\"Duh, Snapchat and Twitter, bruh!\"\" Then there's the old saying, \"\"Be greedy when everyone's fearful and fearful when everyone's greedy.\"\" Finally, miners own hard assets. Benjamin Graham used to point this out with the \"\"dead company\"\" strategy like finding a used cigarette with one more smoke. You're getting assets cheap, while other investors are overpaying for stocks, hoping that the Fed unleashes moar QE! Think strategy here: seize cheap assets, begin limiting the supply of these assets (if you're the saver and not borrowing), then watch as the price begins to rise for them because of low supply. Remember, investors are part owners in companies - take more control to limit the supply. Using Graham's analogy, stock pile those one-puff cigarettes for a day when there's a low supply of cigarettes. Many miners are in trouble now because they've borrowed too much and must sell at a low profit, or in some cases, must lose. When you own assets debt free, you can cut the supply. This will also help the Federal Reserve, who's been desperately trying to figure out how to raise inflation. The new patriotic thing to do is stimulate the economy by sending inflation up, and limiting the supply here is key.\"" }, { "docid": "402051", "title": "", "text": "(a) 5 funds for $15K is not too many or too few ? A bit high as I'd wonder if you've thought of how you'll rebalance the funds over time so you aren't investing too much in a particular market segment. I'd also question if you know what kinds of fees you may have with those funds as some of Vanguard's index funds had fees if the balance is under $10K that may change how much you'll be paying. From Vanguard's site: We charge a $20 annual account service fee for each Vanguard fund with a balance of less than $10,000 in an account. This fee doesn’t apply if you sign up for account access on Vanguard.com and choose electronic delivery of statements, confirmations, and Vanguard fund reports and prospectuses. This fee also doesn’t apply to members of Flagship®, Voyager Select®, and Voyager Services®. So, if you don't do the delivery this would be an extra $100/year that I wonder if you factored that into things here. (b) Have I diversified my portfolio too much or not enough ? Perhaps I am missing something that would be recommended for the portfolio of this kind with this goal. Both, in my opinion. Too much in the sense that you are looking at Morningstar's style box to pick a fund for this box and that which I'd consider consolidating on one hand yet at the same time I notice that you are sticking purely to US stocks and ignoring international funds. I do think taxes may be something you haven't considered too much as stocks will outgrow most of those funds and trigger capital gains that you don't mention at all. (c) If not my choice of my portfolio, where would you invest $15K under similar circumstances and similar goals. What is the goal here? You state that this is your first cash investment but don't state if this is for retirement, a vacation in 10 years, a house in 7 years or a bunch of other possibilities which is something to consider. If I consider this as retirement investments, I'd like pick 1 or 2 funds known for being tax-efficient that would be where I'd start. So, if a fund goes down 30%, that's OK? Do you have a rebalancing strategy of any kind? Do you realize what taxes you may have even if the fund doesn't necessarily have gains itself? In not stating a goal, I wonder how well do you have a strategy worked out for how you'll sell off these funds down the road at some point as something to ponder." }, { "docid": "538238", "title": "", "text": "I am in a similar situation (sw developer, immigrant waiting for green card, no debt, healthy, not sure if I will stay here forever, only son of aging parents). I am contributing to my 401k to max my employer contribution (which is 3.5%, you should find that out from your HR). I don't have any specific financial goal in my mind, so beside an emergency fund (I was recommended to have at least 6 months worth of salary in cash) I am stashing away 10% of my income which I invest with a notorious robot-adviser. The rate is 80% stocks, 20% bonds, as I don't plan to use those funds anytime soon. Should I go back to my country, I will bring with me (or transfer) the cash, and leave my investments here. The 401K will keep growing and so the investments, and perhaps I will be able to retire earlier than expected. It's quite vague I know, but in the situation we are, it's hard to make definite plans." }, { "docid": "475756", "title": "", "text": "\"As a Venezuelan who used to buy USD, I believe there is not better explanation than the one given to someone who actually lives and works here in Venezuela. Back in 1998 when Hugo Chavez took the presidency, we had a good economy. Fast forward 10 years laters and you could see how poor management, corruption and communist measurements had wreaked havoc in our Economy. It was because most of the money (USD) coming in Venezuela were not invested here but instead, given away to \"\"pimp countries\"\" like Cuba. Remember, communism lasts while you have money. Back then we had an Oil Barrel going over 100$ and crazy amounts of money were coming in the country. However, little to no money was invested in the country itself. That is why some of the richest people with bank account in Swiss are Venezuelans who stole huge amounts of Oil Money. I know this is a lot to take in, but all of this led to Venezuelan economy being the worst in The American Continent and because there is not enough money inside the country to satisfy the inner market, people would pay overprice to have anything that is bought abroad. You have to consider that only a very small amount of people can actually buy USD here in Venezuela. Back in 2013 I was doing it, I could buy about 80 usd/month with my monthly income. However, nowdays that's nearly impossible for about 99% of Venezuelans. To Illustrate. Minimum wage = 10.000 bolivares / month Black market exchange rate (As of January 2016) = 900bs per 1usd 10.000/900 = 11,11 usd. <<< that is what about 50% of Venezuelans earn every month. That's why this happens: http://i.imgur.com/dPOC2e3.jpg The guy is holding a huge stack of money of the highest Venezuelan note, which he got from exchanging only 100 usd. I am a computer science engineer, the monthly income for someone like me is about 30.000 bolivares --- so that is about 34$ a month. oh dear! So finally, answering your question Q: Why do people buy USD even at this unfavorable rate? A: There are many reasons but being the main 2 the following 1.- Inflation in Venezuela is crazy high. The inflation from 2014-2015 was 241%. Which means that having The Venezuelan currency (Bolivares) in your bank account makes no sense... in two weeks you won't be able to buy half of the things you used to with the same amount of money. 2.- A huge amount of Venezuelans dream with living abroad (me included) why, you ask? well sir, it is certain that life in this country is not the best: I hope you can understand better why people in 3rd world countries and crappy economies buy USD even at an unfavorable rate. The last question was: Q: Why would Venezuela want to block the sale of dollars? A: Centralized currency management is an Economic Measure that should last 6 months tops. (This was Argentina's case in 2013) but at this point, reverting that would take quite a few years. However, Turukawa's wikipedia link explains that very well. Regards.\"" }, { "docid": "497666", "title": "", "text": "You can call what you're asking about a 'wealth tax', or 'capital tax'. These are taxes not based on income you earned in a year, but some measure of how much you own. Some countries (Italy I believe is a prime example) tax ownership of foreign land. Some countries tax amounts owned by corporations [Canada did this until ~5-10 years ago depending on province]. Some countries strictly tax your wealth above a certain level (Switzerland, as has been mentioned, does this). One form of what you are referring to that does exist in the US is the 'Estate Tax'. This is a tax on the amount of wealth that a person owns, at the time they die. The threshold for when this tax applies has been very volatile over the last 20 years, but it is generally in the multi-millions, and I believe sits somewhere around $5M. If these taxes start to crop up more and more (and I believe they will), don't be shocked at the initial 'sticker price'. Theoretically a wealth tax could replace some of the current income tax regime in many countries without creating a strict increased tax burden on their people. ie: if you owe $10k in income tax this year, but a $2k capital tax is instituted next year, then you are still in the same position as long as your income tax is reduced to $8k. Whether these taxes are effective/preferable or not is really a question of economics, not personal finance, so I will not belabour that point. Note: if the money you have saved earns money (interest, or dividends, or maybe rent from a condo you own), then those earnings are typically taxed alongside your wage income. Any 'wealth/capital tax' as I've described it above would be in addition to income tax on investment earnings." }, { "docid": "255101", "title": "", "text": "\"(Disclaimer: I am not an accountant nor a tax pro, etc., etc.) Yes, a Canadian corporation can function as a partial income tax shelter. This is possible since a corporation can retain earnings (profits) indefinitely, and corporate income tax rates are generally less than personal income tax rates. Details: If you own and run your business through a corporation, you can choose to take income from your corporation in one of two ways: as salary, or as dividends. Salary constitutes an expense of the corporation, i.e. it gets deducted from revenue in calculating corporate taxable income. No corporate income tax is due on money paid out as salary. However, personal income taxes and other deductions (e.g. CPP) would apply to salary at regular rates, the same as for a regular employee. Dividends are paid by the corporation to shareholders out of after-tax profits. i.e. the corporation first pays income tax on taxable income for the fiscal year, and resulting net income could be used to pay dividends (or not). At the personal level, dividends are taxed less than salary to account for tax the corporation paid. The net effect of corporate + personal tax is about the same as for salary (leaving out deductions like CPP.) The key point: Dividends don't have to be paid out in the year the money was earned. The corporation can carry profits forward (retained earnings) as long as it wants and choose to issue dividends (or not) in later years. Given that, here's how would the partial income tax shelter works: At some point, for you to personally realize income from the corporation, you can have the corporation declare a dividend. You'll then have to pay personal income taxes on the income, at the dividend rates. But for as long as the money was invested inside the corporation, it was subject only to lesser corporate tax rates, not higher personal income tax rates. Hence the \"\"partial\"\" aspect of this kind of tax shelter. Or, if you're lucky enough to find a buyer for your corporation, you could qualify for the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption on proceeds up to $750,000 when you sell a qualified small business corporation. This is the best exit strategy; unfortunately, not an easy one where the business has no valuable assets (e.g. a client base, or intellectual property.) * The major sticking-point: You need to have real business revenue! A regular employee (of another company) can't funnel his personally-earned employment income into a corporation just to take advantage of this mechanism. Sorry. :-/\"" }, { "docid": "93099", "title": "", "text": "Are there any IRS regulations I should be aware of when sending money to India? None. As long as you are following the standard banking channels. You are also declaring all the accounts held outside US in your tax returns. FBAR. Is it legal to do so? Yes it is legal. do I have to declare how much I am investing and pay extra taxes? As part of FBAR. Income earned [including interest, capital gains, etc] needs to be paid in India [there are some exemptions for example interest on NRE accounts] as well as in the US [relief can be claimed under DTAA Indian version here and US here]. So if you already have paid taxes on salary and say transfer USD 10K to India; there is no tax on this 10K. If this 10K generates an income of say 2K; this 2K is taxable as per normal classification and rules." }, { "docid": "477646", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"" }, { "docid": "412965", "title": "", "text": "Although the market discussion by other answers is correct, the tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy. However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way. If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction." } ]

[ { "docid": "281500", "title": "", "text": "The tax is depended upon state where you are registered and the salary paid. More here If you employ contract you need not pay tax." } ]

[ { "docid": "528908", "title": "", "text": "Interest earned over my saving only As you are Tax resident in UK, UK taxes Global income. So the interest earned in India is taxable. Further this is taxable when the interest was paid to you in India and it is not relevant whether you kept the funds in India or repatriated to UK. It is not clear in your question as to when the interest was credited to your Indian account. If its been for few years, you are in breach of the UK tax regulation. Consult a tax advisor how this can be corrected. If it is for this year, pay taxes as per normal tax brackets." }, { "docid": "242051", "title": "", "text": "India Direct Marketing Association is a public limited company which is engaged in different kind of direct marketing activities. They strive for sharing knowledge as well as networking of direct marketing industry professionals. They help and assist prospective marketing companies which are into direct selling. It is a recognized and professional body in the marketing industry." }, { "docid": "558618", "title": "", "text": "What taxes will I have to pay to India? Income earned outside of India when your status is Non-Resident Indian, there is no tax applicable. You can repatriate the funds back to India within 7 years without any tax event. Someone else may put an answer about US taxes." }, { "docid": "55901", "title": "", "text": "Am I eligible for the tax exemption if yes then under which section. Generally Personal loans are not eligible for tax exemption. Only housing loans from qualified institutions are eligible for tax deduction. As per the income tax act; The house should be in your name. The home loans taken from recognised institutions are fully qualified under section 24B and 80C. This means you can claim Interest exemption under 24B and Principal repayment under 80C. The Act also specifies that loan can be taken from friends/relatives for construction of property and will be eligible for Interest exemption under 24B only. The principal will not be eligible for exemption under 80C. Read the FAQ from Income Tax India. There has to be certificate showing how much interest was paid on the said loan. Further there should be records/receipts on how the money was spent. There is difference of opinion amongst CA. It is best you take a professional advise." }, { "docid": "398806", "title": "", "text": "I have some more inputs to investigate: India has dual tax avoidance treaty signed with european countries so that NRIs dont pay tax in both countries. Please check if India has some agreement with Swiss Also for freelance job that is delivered from India, u need to make sure where you have to pay taxes as you are still in India so the term NRI will not hold good here. Also, if Swiss company is paying tax there, and you are a freelancer from India(resident in india) how to tax filing /rate etc has to be investigated. Also, can you apply for tax back from swiss( a portion of tax paid can be refunded eg: in Germany) but I dont know if this is true for Freelancers and also for people out side SWISS. Bip" }, { "docid": "508202", "title": "", "text": "The reality is that for labor is cheap for software startups. A couple of founders can usually take a prototype to the point where they can get the seed capital to hire labor at market rates, so why would they give up significant equity to employees? Plus, if they need cheap employees, there are always contractors and naive new grads who will gladly take below-market salary for 0.1% of the company. (in options, vested over four years, of course)" }, { "docid": "277305", "title": "", "text": "Hah, good luck getting those kind of terms. There's always another fresh-faced new grad with dollar signs in his eyes who doesn't know enough to ask about outstanding shares, dilution, or preferences. Very few startups are looking for penny-ante 'investor' employees who can only put &lt;$100k. That's what co-founders are for. Actual employees are lucky if they can properly value their options, let alone control how much it ends up being worth in the end." }, { "docid": "437880", "title": "", "text": "Digital is the buzz word everywhere and to keep pace with the changing trends, the business world has to become digital in every way. SMO Companies India is a premier digital marketing agency which recognizes the requirements of the clients and worked towards the development of strategies for them which can yield positive results. One such very effective medium to reach the target audience is through the Facebook Advertising plans in India. The professionals in the company are experienced techies who can offer remarkable solutions to connect with the target audience and promote the goods or services among them to generate profits. http://smocompaniesindia.com/facebook-marketing-plan.html" }, { "docid": "546277", "title": "", "text": "Note: This is not professional tax advice. If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000? US$100,000? I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own. Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation. Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising. Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors. Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned. Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes. BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder)." }, { "docid": "156747", "title": "", "text": "\"Equity could mean stock options. If that's the case if the company makes it big, you'll have the option to buy stocks cheap (which can then be sold at a huge profit) How are you going to buy those without income? 5% equity is laughable. I'd be looking for 30-40% if not better without salary. Or even better, a salary. To elaborate, 5% is fine, and even normal for an early employee taking a mild pay cut in exchange for a chance at return. That chance of any return on the equity is only about 1/20 (94% of startups fail) There is no reason for an employee to work for no pay. An argument could be made for a cofounder, with direct control and influence in the company to work for equity only, but it would be a /lot/ more (that 30-40%), or an advisory role (5% is reasonable) I also just noticed you mentioned \"\"investing\"\" in the startup with cash. As an angel investor, I'd still expect far more than 5%, and preferred shares at that. More like 16-20%. Read this for more info on how equity is usually split.\"" }, { "docid": "570639", "title": "", "text": "\"Transferring the money or keeping it in US does has no effect on taxes. Your residency status has. Assuming you are Resident Alien in US for tax purpose and have paid the taxes to IRS and you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" Indian for tax purposes in India as you are more than 182 outside India. How would it effect my Tax in US and India If you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" in India for tax purposes, there is no tax liability of this in India. I have transferred an amount of approx 15-20k$ to Indian Account (not NRE) By RBI regulation, if you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" then you should get your savings account converted to \"\"NRO\"\". You may not may not choose to open an NRE account. To keep the paper work clear it helps that you open an NRE account in India. Any investment needed ? Where do i need to declare if any ? These are not relevant. Note any income generated in India, i.e. interest in Savings account / FDs / Rent etc; taxes need to be paid in India and declared in US and taxes paid in US as well. There is some relief under DTAA. There are quite a few question on this site that will help you clarify what needs to be done.\"" }, { "docid": "167943", "title": "", "text": "is it a smart thing for an entry level employee with a basic pay to buy a property on debt ? This is opinion based and can't be conclusively answered by others. Only you can make the choice. Their reasoning is that, since I am paying for their house rent right now(I have been doing this ever since I got into graduate school), I could divert it to pay for the loan while getting a property in return If I understand this, you are currently NRI [as you are working in Japan], you would like to take a home loan in India and buy a property in India. In the current scenario, the EMI towards home loan do not equate to the Rent as property prices have gone up in most places. In 2002 - 2007, there was a time of low interest rates and low property prices, that along with tax breaks made it cheaper to buy than rent. Also note that since you are NRI, you do not get any income tax rebate on interest paid. If you buy please ensure that all the EMI's are paid from NRE account. This would in future help you repatriate funds out of India, if you plan to sell the house. But I am scared of getting into debt so early in my career. If I commit myself like that, it might make me less courageous in making career changes till I finish paying off that debt. This is a valid concern, if you need to pursue further studies, or take a break for a change in career, it would make it difficult. Also note there are additional costs of buying a house, apart from EMI, there property tax, if you staying in society, a monthly maintenance etc." }, { "docid": "197108", "title": "", "text": "There are quite a few things here; Edit: If you are away for 2.5 Years, you are NRE. Your situation is slightly tricky in the sense that you are getting a salary in India for doing work outside. Please consult a professional CA who can advise you better. If you were not getting an Indian salary, then whatever you earn outside India is non-taxable and you can transfer it into your NRE account. As per regulations an NRI cannot hold a savings account. Point 3 is more applicable if you are on a short visit." }, { "docid": "120899", "title": "", "text": "Since you have already paid tax to the Government of Uk, no tax will be levied on the money earned outside India. As per the Income tax act, any income received in India in all cases is taxable irrespective of the tax payer's residential status. A NRI after receiving income from outside India cannot be taxed as income because of remittance of such income to India." }, { "docid": "8762", "title": "", "text": "\"There is something to be said for government-funded high risk R&amp;D. Startups which receive SBIR grants are much more likely to reach commercial success. Also, \"\"high-tech\"\" firms receive far less of their funding from private sources since they are generally higher risk. Because much of our recent growth has been in high-tech industries and because most high-tech startups get funding from public grants we have seen an increased importance of programs like SBIR. Just to substantiate this claim, here is a [source](http://www.springerlink.com/content/a684510qk6600666/fulltext.pdf) which shows that high-tech firms with less than 1000 employees in the US receive on average between 33-39% of their funding from public grants. In comparison, in the UK it is 6-11%. It is no coincidence that America has led the world in both public R&amp;D spending and innovation.\"" }, { "docid": "106249", "title": "", "text": "For one, the startup doesn't exist yet, so until March I will get nothing on hand, though I have enough reserves to bridge that time. I would not take this deal unless the start-up exists in some form. If it's just not yet profitable, then there's a risk/reward to consider. If it doesn't exist at all, then it cannot make a legal obligation to you and it's not worth taking the deal yet. If everything else is an acceptable risk to you, then you should be asking the other party to create the company and formalize the agreement with you. As regards reserves, if you're really getting paid in shares instead of cash, then you may need them later. Shares in a start-up likely are not easy to sell (if you're allowed to sell them at all), so it may be a while before a paycheck given what you've described. For a second, who pays the tax? This is my first non-university job so I don't exactly know, but usually the employer has to/does pay my taxes and some other stuff from my brutto-income (that's what I understood). If brutto=netto, where is the tax? This I cannot answer for Germany. In the U.S. it would depend in part on how the company is organized. It's likely that some or all of the tax will be deferred until you monetize your shares, but you should get some professional advice on that before you move forward. As an example, it's likely that you'd get taxed (in part or in whole) on what we'd call capital gains (maybe Abgeltungsteuer in German?) that would only be assessed when you sell the shares. For third, shares are a risk. If I or any other in the startup screw really, my pay might be a lot less than expected. Of course, if it works out I'm rich(er). This is the inherent risk of a start-up, so there's no getting around the fact that there's a chance that the business may fail and your shares become worthless. Up to you if you think the risk is acceptable. Where you can mitigate risk is in ensuring that there's a well-written and enforceable set of documents that define what rights go with the shares, who controls the company, how profits will be distributed, etc. Don't do this by spoken agreement only. Get it all written down, and then get it checked by a lawyer representing your interests." }, { "docid": "257703", "title": "", "text": "\"How can I avoid this, so we are taxed as if we are making the $60k/yr that we want to receive? You can't. In the US the income is taxed when received, not when used. If you receive 1M this year, taking out 60K doesn't mean the other 940K \"\"weren't received\"\". They were, and are taxable. Create a pension fund in the corporation, feed it all profits, and pay out $60k/yr of \"\"pension\"\". I doubt that the corporation could deduct a million a year in pension funding. You cannot do that. You can only deposit to a pension plan up to 100% of your salary, and no more than $50K total (maybe a little more this year, its adjusted to inflation). Buy a million dollars in \"\"business equipment\"\" of some sort each year to get a deduction, then sell it over time to fund a $60k/yr salary. I doubt such a vehicle exists. If there's no real business purpose, it will be disallowed and you'll be penalized. Your only purpose is tax avoidance, meaning you're trying to shift income using your business to avoid paying taxes - that's illegal. Do crazy Section 79 life insurance schemes to tax-defer the income. The law caps this so I can only deduct < $100k of the $1 million annually, and there are other problems with this approach.\\ Yes. Wouldn't go there. Added: From what I understand, this is a term life insurance plan sponsored by the employer for the employee. This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick, storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better.\"" }, { "docid": "274927", "title": "", "text": "Top recruitment firms in India fills up the gap between the job seeker and the Company. Other than its own data source it brings together with several job sites such as Naukri, time jobs, jobs ahead and monster India and sources applicants from them for choosing professionals. This way, they support both the job hunter and the company. The reach of these professional search firms is far and wide so the information is rich and very valuable for the company." }, { "docid": "175563", "title": "", "text": "In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain!   Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice." } ]

[ { "docid": "459740", "title": "", "text": "\"There's one factor the previous posters apparently missed here: You say \"\"self-employment tax\"\"--in other words, at least some of that $16k is from self employment. In a normal employment situation the FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it's normally spot on and generally doesn't show up on your tax return. However, for the self-employed it's another matter. You pay the whole 15.3% from the first dollar and this does show up on your tax return. If it's all self employment money you would have about $2.5k in tax from this.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "264554", "title": "", "text": "\"I pay taxes on revenue. You do have the ability to deduct expenses, though it's not as comprehensive as what companies can do: These figures apply to everybody, so those that earn more get taxed more on thee additional income in each bracket (meaning the first $100,000 of taxable income is taxed the same for everybody at one rate, the next $100,000 at a different rate, etc.) So you do get to deduct personal expenses and get taxed on \"\"profit\"\" - but since the vast majority of people don't keep detailed records of what they spend, it's much simpler just to use blanket deduction amounts for everyone. Companies have much more detailed systems in place to track and categorize expenses, so it's easier to just tax on net profit. Plus, the corporate tax rate is much higher than the average individual tax rate - would you trade more deductions for a higher tax rate?\"" }, { "docid": "135219", "title": "", "text": "\"In your case, I believe the answer is that you don't owe any taxes, if your deductions exceed your income. There is something called the Alternate Minimum Tax to catch \"\"rich\"\" people, who claim \"\"too many\"\" deductions. Basically, it taxes their \"\"gross\"\" income at a lower rate, but allows them no deductions if they make $175,000 or more. You are not in that tax \"\"bracket.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "192516", "title": "", "text": "\"I am going to keep things very simple and explain the common-sense reason why the accountant is right: Also, my sister in law owns a small restaurant, where they claim their accountant informed them of the same thing, where a portion of their business purchases had to be counted as taxable personal income. In this case, they said their actual income for the year (through their paychecks) was around 40-50K, but because of this detail, their taxable income came out to be around 180K, causing them to owe a huge amount of tax (30K ish). Consider them and a similarly situated couple that didn't make these purchases. Your sister in law is better off in that she has the benefit of these purchases (increasing the value of her business and her expected future income), but she's worse off because she got less pay. Presumably, she thought this was a fair trade, otherwise she wouldn't have made those purchases. So why should she pay any less in taxes? There's no reason making fair trades should reduce anyone's tax burden. Now, as the items she purchased lose value, that will be a business loss called \"\"depreciation\"\". That will be deductible. But the purchases themselves are not, and the income that generated the money to make those purchases is taxable. Generally speaking, business gains are taxable, regardless of what you do with the money (whether you pay yourself, invest it, leave it in the business, or whatever). Generally speaking, only business losses or expenses are deductible. A purchase is an even exchange of income for valuable property -- even exchanges are not deductions because the gain of the thing purchased already fairly compensates you for the cost. You don't specify the exact tax status of the business, but there are really only two types of possibilities. It can be separately taxed as a corporation or it can be treated essentially as if it didn't exist. In the former case, corporate income tax would be due on the revenue that was used to pay for the purchases. There would be no personal income tax due. But it's very unlikely this situation applies as it means all profits taken out of the business are taxed twice and so small businesses are rarely organized this way. In the latter case, which is almost certainly the one that applies, business income is treated as self-employment income. In this case, the income that paid for the purchases is taxable, self-employment income. Since a purchase is not a deductible expense, there is no deduction to offset this income. So, again, the key points are: How much she paid herself doesn't matter. Business income is taxable regardless of what you do with it. When a business pays an expense, it has a loss that is deductible against profits. But when a business makes a purchase, it has neither a gain nor a loss. If a restaurant buys a new stove, it trades some money for a stove, presumably a fair trade. It has had no profit and no loss, so this transaction has no immediate effect on the taxes. (There are some exceptions, but presumably the accountant determined that those don't apply.) When the property of a business loses value, that is usually a deductible loss. So over time, a newly-purchased stove will lose value. That is a loss that is deductible. The important thing to understand is that as far as the IRS is concerned, whether you pay yourself the money or not doesn't matter, business income is taxable and only business losses or expenses are deductible. Investments or purchases of capital assets are neither losses nor expenses. There are ways you can opt to have the business taxed separately so only what you pay yourself shows up on your personal taxes. But unless the business is losing money or needs to hold large profits against future expenses, this is generally a worse deal because money you take out of the business is taxed twice -- once as business income and again as personal income. Update: Does the business eventually, over the course of the depreciation schedule, end up getting all of the original $2,000 tax burden back? Possibly. Ultimately, the entire cost of the item is deductible. That won't necessarily translate into getting the taxes back. But that's really not the right way to think about it. The tax burden was on the income earned. Upon immediate replacement, hypothetically with the exact same model, same cost, same 'value', isn't it correct that the \"\"value\"\" of the business only went up by the amount the original item had depreciated? Yes. If you dispose of or sell a capital asset, you will have a gain or loss based on the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and whatever you got for the asset. Wouldn't the tax burden then only be $400? Approximately, yes. The disposal of the original asset would cause a loss of the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and what you got for it (which might be zero). The new asset would then begin depreciating. You are making things a bit more difficult to understand though by focusing on the amount of taxes due rather than the amount of taxable gain or loss you have. They don't always correlate directly (because tax rates can vary).\"" }, { "docid": "134494", "title": "", "text": "\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \"\"Percentage Method\"\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \"\"base amount\"\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \"\"base amount\"\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \"\"effective\"\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \"\"wage base\"\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \"\"marriage advantage\"\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \"\"pre-tax deduction\"\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\"" }, { "docid": "545497", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you will have to file taxes. Each peson gets a standard deduction. By \"\"claiming you\"\", your parents are applying your standard deduction to their taxes, meaning that you cannot use that same deduction on your taxes. You still must pay taxes on your income. This generally works out best overall, assuming that your parents are in a higher tax bracket (have a higher income) than you.\"" }, { "docid": "556383", "title": "", "text": "First, the single worst reason to do anything is because most people are doing it. The second worst thing is to take tax advice from a non-tax pro. (Ironic, I understand, but read on) Run through your 2015 tax return. Do you itemize already? If not, there's a reason, the standard deduction for a couple is $12,600 in 2016, so a renter isn't likely to have enough deductions to itemize, even with a high state tax. For 2016, project your total interest from the mortgage, and the year's property tax, then add your state income tax, and last, any charitable donations. This total comprises the bulk of what people take on their Schedule A. Now, since your current withholding assumes the standard $12,600, subtract this number, and you're left with the amount your taxable income will be reduced for the fact that you have the house. Last, divide this number by $4000. The result is how many more withholding allowances you can claim. One personal exemption (a withholding allowance) is exactly $4050 this year. For what its worth, median home price for early 2016 was $190K. After 20% down, a $152K mortgage would cost about $6000 in interest the first year, and maybe $3000 in property tax. The average couple, making $60,000 or so won't have a state bill much over $3000, so shy of some nice donations, it's easy to have a house, yet still not itemize. Of course, if you have higher income and a more expensive home, the numbers will be different. The best you can do is to get tax software or use an online service and estimate the 2016 return based on your numbers. If you wish to post numbers via an edit to your question, I'm happy to update my answer a bit to your situation. Note - the form you'll use to adjust withholdings, the W4, offers a worksheet to perform the calculation. It asks in line 1 for your total itemized deductions, then subtract the standard deduction, then divide by $4050. Pretty much what I suggested above." }, { "docid": "358371", "title": "", "text": "\"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the \"\"save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%\"\" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars.\"" }, { "docid": "542213", "title": "", "text": "\"From the IRS perspective, there's no difference between \"\"your taxes\"\" and \"\"your sole proprietorship's taxes\"\", they're all just \"\"your taxes\"\". While I could see it being very useful and wise to track your business's activities separately, and use separate bank accounts and the like, this is just a convenience to help you in your personal accounting, and not something that needs to relate directly to how tax forms are completed or taxes are paid. When calculating your taxes, if you want to figure out how much \"\"you\"\" owe vs. how much \"\"your business\"\" owes, you'll have to do so yourself. One approach might be just to take the amount that your Schedule C puts as income on your return and multiply by your marginal tax rate. Another approach might be to have your tax software run the calculations as though you had no business income, and see what just \"\"your personal\"\" taxes would have been without the business. If you think of the business income as being \"\"first\"\" and should use up the lower brackets rather than your personal income, maybe do it the other way around and have your software run the calculations as though you had only the business income and no other personal/investment income, and see what the amount of taxes would be then. Once you've figured out a good allocation, the actual mechanics of paying some \"\"personal tax amount\"\" from your personal bank account and some \"\"business tax amount\"\" from your business bank account are up to you. I'd probably just transfer the money from my business account to my personal account and pay all the taxes from the personal account. Writing two separate checks, one from each account, that total to the correct amount, I'm sure would work just fine as well. You can probably make separate payments from each account electronically through Direct Pay or EFTPS as well. As long as all taxes are paid by the deadline, I don't think the IRS is too picky about the details of how many payments are made.\"" }, { "docid": "97852", "title": "", "text": "Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons" }, { "docid": "337876", "title": "", "text": "I think sometimes this is simply ignorance. If my marginal tax rate is 25%, then I can either pay tax deductible interest of $10K or pay income tax of $2.5K. I think most americans don't realize that paying $10K of tax deductible interest (think mortgage) only saves them $2.5K in taxes. In other words, I'd be $7.5K ahead if I didn't have the debt, but did pay higher taxes." }, { "docid": "477476", "title": "", "text": "Welcome to the wonderful but oft confusing world of self-employment. Your regular job will withhold income for you and give you a W2, which tells you and the government how much is withheld. At the end of the year uber will give you and the government a 1099-misc, which will tell you how much they paid you, but nothing will be withheld, which means you will owe the government some taxes. When it comes to taxes, you will file a 1040 (the big one, not a 1040EZ nor 1040A). In addition you will file a schedule C (self-employed income), where you will report the gross paid to you, deduct your expenses, and come up with your profit, which will be taxable. That profit goes into a line in the 1040. You need to file schedule SE. This says how much self-employment tax you will pay on your 1099 income, and it will be more than you expect. Self employment tax is SS/Medicare. There's a line for this on the 1040 as well. You can also deduct half of your self-employment tax on the 1040, there's a line for it. Now, you can pay quarterly taxes on your 1099 income by filing 1040-ES. That avoids a penalty (which usually isn't that large) for not withholding enough. As an alternative, you can have your regular W2 job withhold extra. As long as you don't owe a bunch at tax time, you won't be a fined. When you are self-employed your taxes aren't as simple. Sorry. You can either spend some time becoming an expert by studying the instructions for the 1040, pay for the expensive version of tax programs, or hire someone to do it for you. Self-employed taxes are painful, but take advantage of the upsides as well. You can start a solo 401(k) or SEP IRA, for example. Make sure you are careful to deduct every relevant business expense and keep good records in case you get audited." }, { "docid": "496433", "title": "", "text": "I do something pretty simple when figuring 1099 income. I keep track of my income and deductible expenses on a spreadsheet. Then I do total income - total expenses * .25. I keep that amount in a savings account ready to pay taxes. Given that your estimates for the quarterly payments are low then expected, that amount should be more then enough to fully fund those payments. If you are correct, and they are low, then really what does it matter? You will have the money, in the bank, to pay what you actually owe to the IRS." }, { "docid": "150862", "title": "", "text": "\"Wireless capabilities see Nikola tesla every type of communication outside of the walkie talkie really was created without the government. So the fact that i was born here against my own free will automatically gives the government the right to seize the fruits of my labor? This is where this bullshit statist logic falls apart because the only rebuttal you have is \"\"well just leave then!\"\" Which is fucking stupid and in pretty sure I already gave you 1 way but I'll say it again cuz it's clear you're incapable of following along, federal sales tax. With federal sales tax there are no deductions or coercion. Also the more money individuals have in their pocket (disposable income) the more likely they are to spend and grow the economy. That's why you see countries like Sweden with insane tax rates seeing limited growth and in a lot of cases on the verge of an economic collapse. So if people have more disposable income causing them to have more purchasing power a federal sales tax would probably do better than an income tax and the people would receive something tangible instead of just losing 25% of their pay check. Btw don't ever say my income tax pays for roads because they don't that's what a gas tax is for. A majority of our infrastructure is paid for with revenue from other taxes not income. Income taxes pay mostly into military budget and social programs ie social security\"" }, { "docid": "272851", "title": "", "text": "No, absolutely not. Income tax rates are marginal. The tax bracket's higher tax rate only applies to extra dollars over the threshold, not to dollars below it. The normal income tax does not have any cliffs where one extra dollar of income will cost more than one dollar in extra taxes. Moreover, you are ignoring the personal exemption and standard deduction. A gross salary of $72,000 is not the same as taxable income of $72,000. The deduction will generally be $12,200 and the exemptions will be $3,900 for you, your spouse, and any kids. So married-filing-jointly with the standard deduction will get an automatic $20,000 off of adjusted gross income when counting taxable income. So the appropriate taxable income is actually going to be more like $52,000. Note that getting your compensation package reshuffled may result in different tax treatment. But simply taking a smaller salary (rather than taking some compensation as stock options, health insurance, or fringe benefits), is not a money-saving move. Never do it." }, { "docid": "522619", "title": "", "text": "\"The Trustee has allowed me to act as his \"\"agent\"\", continuing to pay bills, and take care of much of the administrative affairs for my mother's estate since I did all of it for years before she passed away. I was not paid for any of this work. ... The expenses were more than $30K last year, and there is still a punch list to go this year. The trust should reimburse your expenses and deduct them on the trust tax return. Since the Trust owned the property in 2015, and I will receive ownership this month, can last year's expenses incurred for the Trust be deducted again future income for my property this year? Not exactly. The trust will file its own tax return and will report the income/loss attributed to the beneficiaries per the trust rules. What is attributed to you will flow to your Schedule E. From there you own it and if it is a passive activity where the loss is limited - you can carry it forward and offset with future gain. The trustee will have to deal with all the paperwork. Do 1099-misc forms need to be filed for the contractors who worked to get it ready for rental? It is my understanding that since 2010 (and before 2010) landlords who are not in real-estate trade or business are not required to send out 1099. But it won't hurt if you do, also. In any case - for all of these issues you should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State).\"" }, { "docid": "580747", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer is - \"\"Your employer should typically deduct enough every paycheck so you don't owe anything on April 15th, and no more.\"\" The long answer is \"\"Your employer may make an error in how much to deduct, particularly if you have more than 1 job, or have any special deductions/income. Calculate your estimated total taxes for the year by estimating all your income and deductions on a paper copy of a tax return [I say paper copy so that you become familiar with what the income and deductions actually are, whereas plugging into an online spreadsheet makes you blind to what's actually going on]. Compare that with what your employer deducts every paycheck, * the number of paychecks in the year. This tells you how much extra you will pay / be refunded on April 15th, as accurately as you can estimate your income and deductions.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "126756", "title": "", "text": "The main reasons are that investment are deducted from your gross income and earnings are not taxed until withdrawal. This applies to both traditional IRAs and 401Ks. Roth accounts have different rules but valuable benefits. My effective income tax rate is around 35%. This means that for every $1000 I earn in wage I only get to keep $650. Since my 401K contributions are deferred reductions from my income I can invest 35% more money into my 401K than I would be able to invest in a non-tax-advantaged account. Where I can invest $1000 into my 401K I would only be able to invest $650 into a non-advantaged account with the same wages. If I put $650 into an account yielding 10% then my one-year return on my income is $65 The 10% return on my $1000 is $100. Compared to what I would have been able to take home in the first place this makes my ROI $100/$650 = 15.3% Interest earned in non-advantaged accounts incurs taxes every year. Interest earned in advantaged accounts does not incur taxes until withdrawn. Compounding 10% annually for 20 years is significantly more than 6.5% compounded annually for 20 years. Imagine 10% on a 1000 investment with no additional cash flows over 20 year. The result is $6727, or 672%. Imagine your income tax rate does not reduce below 35%, your after-tax return is 4372, or %437 return. Now imagine you pay taxes every year on 10% take, so your take annually is only 6.5%... Now over 20 years you have $3523 (but you've already paid all taxes on this) and your return is %352 You have earned 24% more money because taxes were deferred until withdrawal! EDIT: Some tabular info for the commenters Your take home from the investment is $3752 because you have diligently paid your taxes every year on the earnings. Now, with the tax deferred until withdrawal! You then owe 35% tax on the withdrawal so you keep 7400 * .65 = $4810 $4810 versus $3750 means you have made an additional $1060, or 28%, from the compounding against tax-advantaged earnings. But Matthew! you say... Annual proceeds from your investments are not taxed at your income tax rate. This is true for now but the political winds are pushing this direction. However, even if you use a reduced rate in the first situation (let's say 30% instead of 35%, if you're a California resident) then the effect is $4140 rather than $3750. Less of a gain, but still a gain. In fact your capital-gains rate would have to be as low as 22% to even this difference out (versus a 35% income tax rate).... And remember that this assumes you're in the same bracket at retirement (which more people are not) You may also note that I used $1000 as the principle in both calculations. This was intentional to show the effects of compounding the taxable earnings alone. If you replace the taxable principle with $650 instead of $1000 then the effect is even more pronounced and only balanced out if your capital gains rate is actually zero!" }, { "docid": "248651", "title": "", "text": "Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents. If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A. In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount. If you are a resident of State B, then State B will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is. As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return. As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get to be deducted. At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well." }, { "docid": "242529", "title": "", "text": "\"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the \"\"riches\"\") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "184445", "title": "", "text": "No, it's not possible. Even if you had no deduction or credits, your federal tax on $16,604 would be: $9075 @ 10% = $907.50 + $7529 @ 15% = $1129.35 = $2036.85 That assumes you are filing as single. There must be more to the story. Typo in your income numbers? Also, what do you mean by a self-employment tax deduction? Maybe update your question to include a breakdown of everything you entered? Edit: As noted in Loren's answer, it seems that it is indeed possible in at least one case (self-employment taxes)." } ]

[ { "docid": "155053", "title": "", "text": "\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"" }, { "docid": "527620", "title": "", "text": "you wouldn't have to pay income taxes on the portion for health insurance. think of high deductible health plans - the employer puts the deductible into a healthcare savings account which is tax free as long as it's for medical care. right now you can also deduct the portion of your overall expenses that are medical over a portion of your income. 2 issues with your idea, though - 1. right now, there are people who can't get health insurance except through an employer. send them out into the marketplace and they will get turned down. obamacare is supposed to fix this, but if Romney is elected, it will continue. 2. healthcare inflation rises much higher than regular inflation, so if your benefits were included as part of wages and you had to buy it on your own, you would face a continually decreasing amount of money over time to purchase healthcare - a spiral. this is the issue that many have with the voucher system the republicans are proposing for medicare - the voucher will rise at inflation, while healthcare rises much higher than inflation - right now I think it's a difference of 1% versus 8-9% off the top of my head. also, for many industries, it's in the best interest of the company to have a healthy workforce." }, { "docid": "150862", "title": "", "text": "\"Wireless capabilities see Nikola tesla every type of communication outside of the walkie talkie really was created without the government. So the fact that i was born here against my own free will automatically gives the government the right to seize the fruits of my labor? This is where this bullshit statist logic falls apart because the only rebuttal you have is \"\"well just leave then!\"\" Which is fucking stupid and in pretty sure I already gave you 1 way but I'll say it again cuz it's clear you're incapable of following along, federal sales tax. With federal sales tax there are no deductions or coercion. Also the more money individuals have in their pocket (disposable income) the more likely they are to spend and grow the economy. That's why you see countries like Sweden with insane tax rates seeing limited growth and in a lot of cases on the verge of an economic collapse. So if people have more disposable income causing them to have more purchasing power a federal sales tax would probably do better than an income tax and the people would receive something tangible instead of just losing 25% of their pay check. Btw don't ever say my income tax pays for roads because they don't that's what a gas tax is for. A majority of our infrastructure is paid for with revenue from other taxes not income. Income taxes pay mostly into military budget and social programs ie social security\"" }, { "docid": "371717", "title": "", "text": "\"Document how you came to have the stuff in the first place. First to defend against potential government inquiry; and second to establish that you held the asset more than one year, so you qualify for long-term capital gains rate. I wouldn't sell it privately all at once, if you can avoid it. If you can prove you held it more than a year, you should pay the long-term capital gains tax rate, which is fairly low. You'll keep most of it. A huge windfall often goes very badly. People don't change their financial habits, burn through their winnings shockingly fast, overspend it, and wind up deep in debt. At the end of the crazy train, their lives end up worse. That wasn't your question, but you'll do better if you're on guard for that, with good planning and a desire to invest it in things which give you deferred income in the future. That's the cooler thing, when your investments mean you don't have to go to work! I don't mean donate ALL of it to charity. But feel free. If you hold a security more than one year, and donate it to charity, you get a tax deduction for the appreciated value (even though the security didn't actually cost you that). (link) Do not convert the BTC to cash then donate the cash. Donate it as BTC. Your tax deduction works against your highest tax bracket. If you are paying in a 28% tax bracket (your next $100 of income has $28 tax), then for every $100 of charitable donation, you get $28 back on Federal. It does the same to state tax, and you also avoid the 10-15% capital gains tax because you didn't sell the securities. Do your 1040 both ways and note the difference.***** Your charitable deduction of appreciated securities is capped at 30% of AGI. Any excess will carryover and becomes a tax deduction for the next year, and it can carryover for several years. ** Use a donor-advised fund. If you have are donating more than $5000, you don't need to search for a charity that will take Bitcoin, and you also don't need to pick a charity now. Instead, open a special type of giving account called a Donor-Advised Fund. The DAF, itself, is a charity. It specializes in accepting complex donations and liquidating them into cash. The cash credits to your giving account. You take the tax deduction in the year you give to the DAF. Then, when you want to give to a charity, you tell the DAF to donate on your behalf***. You can tell them to give on your behalf anonymously, or merely conceal your address so you don't get the endless charity junk mail. The DAF lets you hold the money in index funds, so your \"\"charity nest egg\"\" can grow with the market. Mine has more than doubled thanks to the market. This money is no longer yours at this point; you can't give it back to yourself, only to licensed charities. The Fidelity Donor Advised Fund makes a big thing of taking Bitcoin, and I really like them. **** I love my DAF, and it has been a charitable-giving workhorse. It turns you into a philanthropist, and that changes you life in ways I cannot describe. Certainly makes me more level-headed about money. Lottery winner syndrome is just not a risk for me (partly because I'm now on the board of charities, and oversee an endowment.) Donating generally will reduce suspicion (criminals don't do that), but donating to a DAF even moreso. Since the DAF would have to return ill-gotten gains, they're involved. Their lawyers will back you up. The prosecutor is up against a billion dollar corporation instead of just you. With Fidelity particularly, Bitcoin is a crusade for them, and their lawyers know how to defend Bitcoin. A Fidelity DAF is a good play for that reason alone IMO. ** The gory details: Presumably you are donating to regular charities or a Donor Advised Fund, and these are \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". Since it's capital gains, you have a 30% limit. If your donation is more than 30% of AGI, or if you have carryover from last year, you use Worksheet 2 in Publication 526. You plug your donations into line 4, then the worksheet grinds through all the math and shows what part you deduct this year and what part you carryover to the next year. *** I specifically asked managers at two DAFs whether they were OK with someone donating a complex asset to the DAF, and immediately giving the entire cash amount to a charity. The DAF doesn't get any fees if you do that. They said not only are they OK with it, most of their donors do exactly that and most DAF accounts are empty. They make it on the 0.6% a year custodial fee on the other accounts, and charitable giving to them. Mind you, you can only donate to 501C3 type charities, what IRS calls \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". This actually protects you from donating to organizations who lie about their status. **** I'm not with Fidelity, but I am a satisfied DAF customer. The DAF funds its overhead by deducting 0.6% per year from your giving account. If you invest the funds in a mutual fund within the DAF, that investment pays the 0.08% to 1.5% expense ratio of the fund. I can live with that. ***** I just Excel'd the value of donating $100 of appreciated security instead of taking it as capital gains income. 28% Fed tax, 15% Fed cap gains, 8% state tax on both. Take the $100 as income, pay $23 in cap gains tax. Donate $100 in securities, the $23 tax goes away since you didn't sell it. Really. The $100 charitable deduction offsets $100 in income, also saving you $36 in regular income tax. Net tax savings $59. However you lost the $100! So you are net $41 poorer. It costs you $41 to donate $100 to charity. This gets better in higher brackets.\"" }, { "docid": "223042", "title": "", "text": "The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty." }, { "docid": "533808", "title": "", "text": "\"There are way too many details missing to be able to give you an accurate answer, and it would be too localized in terms of time & location anyway -- the rules change every year, and your local taxes make the answer useless to other people. Instead, here's how to figure out the answer for yourself. Use a tax estimate calculator to get a ballpark figure. (And keep in mind that these only provide estimates, because there are still a lot of variables that are only considered when you're actually filling out your real tax return.) There are a number of calculators if you search for something like \"\"tax estimator calculator\"\", some are more sophisticated than others. (Fair warning: I used several of these and they told me a range of $2k - $25k worth of taxes owed for a situation like yours.) Here's an estimator from TurboTax -- it's handy because it lets you enter business income. When I plug in $140K ($70 * 40 hours * 50 weeks) for business income in 2010, married filing jointly, no spouse income, and 4 dependents, I get $30K owed in federal taxes. (That doesn't include local taxes, any itemized deductions you might be eligible for, IRA deductions, etc. You may also be able to claim some expenses as business deductions that will reduce your taxable business income.) So you'd net $110K after taxes, or about $55/hour ($110k / 50 / 40). Of course, you could get an answer from the calculator, and Congress could change the rules midway through the year -- you might come out better or worse, depending on the nature of the rule changes... that's why I stress that it's an estimate. If you take the job, don't forget to make estimated tax payments! Edit: (some additional info) If you plan on doing this on an ongoing basis (i.e. you are going into business as a contractor for this line of work), there are some tax shelters that you can take advantage of. Most of these won't be worth doing if you are only going to be doing contract work for a short period of time (1-2 years). These may or may not all be applicable to you. And do your research into these areas before diving in, I'm just scratching the surface in the notes below.\"" }, { "docid": "580747", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer is - \"\"Your employer should typically deduct enough every paycheck so you don't owe anything on April 15th, and no more.\"\" The long answer is \"\"Your employer may make an error in how much to deduct, particularly if you have more than 1 job, or have any special deductions/income. Calculate your estimated total taxes for the year by estimating all your income and deductions on a paper copy of a tax return [I say paper copy so that you become familiar with what the income and deductions actually are, whereas plugging into an online spreadsheet makes you blind to what's actually going on]. Compare that with what your employer deducts every paycheck, * the number of paychecks in the year. This tells you how much extra you will pay / be refunded on April 15th, as accurately as you can estimate your income and deductions.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "149954", "title": "", "text": "\"Fwiw, I don't actually put much credit in the laffer curve, but just like to point out that the argument that it justifies tax cuts is predicated on being above the peak rather than below. I'll also point out that the biggest expansions of the US economy happened under a top marginal rate of 90%. That rate was basically only on income higher than what 99.9% make. Of course explaining marginal tax rates to most people fails. If you say \"\"were lowering rates but adding more brackets at the top end. (90, 99, 99.9, 99.99 %ile, for instance). Or even doing something like \"\"lowering tax rates, but all personal income is taxed the same\"\" and possibly \"\"dividends are taxed at the income tax rate of the individual, but are deductible from the corporate income\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "337876", "title": "", "text": "I think sometimes this is simply ignorance. If my marginal tax rate is 25%, then I can either pay tax deductible interest of $10K or pay income tax of $2.5K. I think most americans don't realize that paying $10K of tax deductible interest (think mortgage) only saves them $2.5K in taxes. In other words, I'd be $7.5K ahead if I didn't have the debt, but did pay higher taxes." }, { "docid": "118878", "title": "", "text": "\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"" }, { "docid": "590775", "title": "", "text": "In Australia, any income you earn is taxable despite where it came from. Using your example your taxable income is $70,000. Keep in mind that with a business even as a sole trader any business expenses that contribute to the earning of your business income is deductible, reducing the final amount of tax you'll have to pay. The ATO website has lots of good information and examples to look at including tax rates. If your total income is pushing into a higher tax bracket over 30c tax per $1 earned, it may be worth looking at shifting your business to operate under a company structure that just has a fixed tax rate around 30c per $1. That said, for me, I don't want the paperwork overhead of a company yet so I'm running my side business as a sole trader too. I'd rather do that and keep it easy for now while my business gets profitable that waste time on admin structures for tax reasons even if in the shortterm it may mean slightly higher tax. In the end, you only pay tax on profit (income minus expenses) as opposed to raw/gross income. For more info there are good books in the bookshops or local library (to read free) on starting a business on the side while still working. They discuss these issues too." }, { "docid": "126756", "title": "", "text": "The main reasons are that investment are deducted from your gross income and earnings are not taxed until withdrawal. This applies to both traditional IRAs and 401Ks. Roth accounts have different rules but valuable benefits. My effective income tax rate is around 35%. This means that for every $1000 I earn in wage I only get to keep $650. Since my 401K contributions are deferred reductions from my income I can invest 35% more money into my 401K than I would be able to invest in a non-tax-advantaged account. Where I can invest $1000 into my 401K I would only be able to invest $650 into a non-advantaged account with the same wages. If I put $650 into an account yielding 10% then my one-year return on my income is $65 The 10% return on my $1000 is $100. Compared to what I would have been able to take home in the first place this makes my ROI $100/$650 = 15.3% Interest earned in non-advantaged accounts incurs taxes every year. Interest earned in advantaged accounts does not incur taxes until withdrawn. Compounding 10% annually for 20 years is significantly more than 6.5% compounded annually for 20 years. Imagine 10% on a 1000 investment with no additional cash flows over 20 year. The result is $6727, or 672%. Imagine your income tax rate does not reduce below 35%, your after-tax return is 4372, or %437 return. Now imagine you pay taxes every year on 10% take, so your take annually is only 6.5%... Now over 20 years you have $3523 (but you've already paid all taxes on this) and your return is %352 You have earned 24% more money because taxes were deferred until withdrawal! EDIT: Some tabular info for the commenters Your take home from the investment is $3752 because you have diligently paid your taxes every year on the earnings. Now, with the tax deferred until withdrawal! You then owe 35% tax on the withdrawal so you keep 7400 * .65 = $4810 $4810 versus $3750 means you have made an additional $1060, or 28%, from the compounding against tax-advantaged earnings. But Matthew! you say... Annual proceeds from your investments are not taxed at your income tax rate. This is true for now but the political winds are pushing this direction. However, even if you use a reduced rate in the first situation (let's say 30% instead of 35%, if you're a California resident) then the effect is $4140 rather than $3750. Less of a gain, but still a gain. In fact your capital-gains rate would have to be as low as 22% to even this difference out (versus a 35% income tax rate).... And remember that this assumes you're in the same bracket at retirement (which more people are not) You may also note that I used $1000 as the principle in both calculations. This was intentional to show the effects of compounding the taxable earnings alone. If you replace the taxable principle with $650 instead of $1000 then the effect is even more pronounced and only balanced out if your capital gains rate is actually zero!" }, { "docid": "312493", "title": "", "text": "When you itemize your deductions, you get to deduct all the state income tax that was taken out of your paycheck last year (not how much was owed, but how much was withheld). If you deducted this last year, then you need to add in any amount that you received in state income tax refunds last year to your taxes this year, to make up for the fact that you ended up deducting more state income tax than was really due to the state. If you took the standard deduction last year instead of itemizing, then you didn't deduct your state income tax withholding last year and you don't need to claim your refund as income this year. Also, if you itemized, but chose to take the state sales tax deduction instead of the state income tax deduction, you also don't need to add in the refund as income. For whatever reason, Illinois decided that you don't get a 1099-G. It might be that the amount of the refund was too small to warrant the paperwork. It might be that they screwed up. But if you deducted your state income tax withholding on last year's tax return, then you need to add the state tax refund you got last year on line 10 of this year's 1040, whether or not the state issued you a form or not. Take a look at the Line 10 instructions starting on page 22 of the 1040 instructions to see if you have any unusual situations covered there that you didn't mention here. (For example, if you received a refund check for multiple years last year.) Then check your tax return from last year to verify that you deducted your state income tax withholding on Schedule A. If you did, then this year add the refund you got from the state to line 10 of this year's 1040." }, { "docid": "284681", "title": "", "text": "Yes, this is right. It is what I am doing. In fact, I took it one step further. During my early career when I was able to deduct traditional IRA contributions, I made them and saved on taxes. When my income got high enough that I could no longer deduct those contributions, I rolled all my traditional IRA's into my 401(k). Now they are no longer subject to the pro-rata rule and I could begin with the backdoor Roths while continuing to contribute the max to my traditional 401(k). Thereafter it's pretty much the process you have described." }, { "docid": "555947", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be \"\"other than house debt\"\" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low. By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?\"" }, { "docid": "352640", "title": "", "text": "I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity." }, { "docid": "418999", "title": "", "text": "Not sure about the UK, but if it were in the US you need to realize the expenses can be claimed as much as the income. After having a mild heart attack when I did my business taxes the first time many years ago, a Small Business Administration adviser pointed it out. You are running the site from a computer? Deductible on an amortization schedule. Do you work from home? Electricity can be deducted. Do you drive at all? Did you pay yourself a wage? Any paperwork, fax communications, bank fees that you had to endure as work expenses? I am not an accountant, but chances are you legally lost quite a bit more than you made in a new web venture. Discuss it with an accountant for the details and more importantly the laws in your country. I could be off my rocker." }, { "docid": "248651", "title": "", "text": "Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents. If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A. In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount. If you are a resident of State B, then State B will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is. As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return. As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get to be deducted. At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well." }, { "docid": "559866", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking no person or program is really going to be able to help you lower your current tax burden, most tax decisions are done well before you reach the tax time. You either qualify for the deduction/credit or your don't. Where a good accountant will really be able to help you out is in planning that will limit your future tax burden. Particularly if you run a small business or are very wealthy you will probably want to consider using an accountant. I would always avoid the large scale tax prep places like HR Block they provide the same or lower quality service for a higher price than the software. I run a small business and do my own taxes using turbo tax, but my business isn't overly complex Sole prop, no employees, couple 1099's simple expenses (nothing to amortize) etc." } ]

[ { "docid": "218967", "title": "", "text": "I'm going to echo Phil and say that you should add more information. That being said, I think it is possible for you to owe the government that much. If you received a federal health insurance subsidy and live in a state that didn't expand medicaid, you could have received a subsidy through out the year that you did not end up qualifying for. It appears you are outside the medicaid limit of 133% of the poverty level($11,670) or $15,521. If you received a subsidy of $275 a month from the marketplace, you would have received $3300 worth of aid from the government that you don't qualify for. Now they are expecting you to pay it back." } ]

[ { "docid": "542213", "title": "", "text": "\"From the IRS perspective, there's no difference between \"\"your taxes\"\" and \"\"your sole proprietorship's taxes\"\", they're all just \"\"your taxes\"\". While I could see it being very useful and wise to track your business's activities separately, and use separate bank accounts and the like, this is just a convenience to help you in your personal accounting, and not something that needs to relate directly to how tax forms are completed or taxes are paid. When calculating your taxes, if you want to figure out how much \"\"you\"\" owe vs. how much \"\"your business\"\" owes, you'll have to do so yourself. One approach might be just to take the amount that your Schedule C puts as income on your return and multiply by your marginal tax rate. Another approach might be to have your tax software run the calculations as though you had no business income, and see what just \"\"your personal\"\" taxes would have been without the business. If you think of the business income as being \"\"first\"\" and should use up the lower brackets rather than your personal income, maybe do it the other way around and have your software run the calculations as though you had only the business income and no other personal/investment income, and see what the amount of taxes would be then. Once you've figured out a good allocation, the actual mechanics of paying some \"\"personal tax amount\"\" from your personal bank account and some \"\"business tax amount\"\" from your business bank account are up to you. I'd probably just transfer the money from my business account to my personal account and pay all the taxes from the personal account. Writing two separate checks, one from each account, that total to the correct amount, I'm sure would work just fine as well. You can probably make separate payments from each account electronically through Direct Pay or EFTPS as well. As long as all taxes are paid by the deadline, I don't think the IRS is too picky about the details of how many payments are made.\"" }, { "docid": "496433", "title": "", "text": "I do something pretty simple when figuring 1099 income. I keep track of my income and deductible expenses on a spreadsheet. Then I do total income - total expenses * .25. I keep that amount in a savings account ready to pay taxes. Given that your estimates for the quarterly payments are low then expected, that amount should be more then enough to fully fund those payments. If you are correct, and they are low, then really what does it matter? You will have the money, in the bank, to pay what you actually owe to the IRS." }, { "docid": "531423", "title": "", "text": "The broker that is issuing the moneys after vesting is more than likely deducting a notional amount of tax and NI based on UK income tax laws. If you are not a UK resident, then you should pay income tax on those stock options based on your own tax residency. Best thing to do is speak directly with the broker to explain the situation, ask them to not deduct anything from your stock options - but keep in mind that you will need to declare these earnings yourself and pay the correct rate of tax. From my own personal experience, the UK employer more than likely receives the net value (after the notional tax and NI have been deducted) and in usual circumstances create a tax liability on your payslip (if you were working and had earnings). If of course this deduction is being made by the employer, then you can simply ask them to correct this (most UK payroll software will automatically deduct tax and NI for payments after leaving unless manually intervened, so they probably aren't aware if it is them doing so)." }, { "docid": "212783", "title": "", "text": "\"Federal taxes are generally lower in Canada. Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire. The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%. State/provincial taxes are lower in the US. You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other \"\"bad\"\" income-tax states. But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax. Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%. Investment income taxes: Canada wins, narrowly. Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta. The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state. Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon. Sales taxes: US wins, but the gap is closing. Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister. Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax). Some provinces \"\"harmonized\"\" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000. Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650. Property taxes: too dependent on the location, hard to tell. Tax benefits for retirement savings: Canada. If you work in the US and don't have a 401(k), you get a really bad deal: your retirement is underfunded and you're stuck with a higher tax bill, because you can't get the deduction. In Canada, if you don't have an RRSP at work, you take the money to the financial company of your choice, invest it there, and take the deduction on your taxes. If you don't like the investment options in your 401(k), you're stuck with them. If you don't like them in your RRSP, contribute the minimum to get the match and put the rest of the money into your individual RRSP; you still get the same deduction. Annual 401(k) contribution limits are use-it-or-lose-it, while unused RRSP limits and deductions can be carried forward and used when you need to jump tax brackets. Canada used to lack an answer to Roth IRAs, but the introduction of TFSAs took care of that. Mortgage interest deduction: US wins here as mortgage interest is not deductible in Canada. Marriage penalty: US wins. Canadian tax returns are of single or married-filing-separately type. So if you have one working spouse in the family or a big disparity between spouses' incomes, you can save money by filing a joint return. But such option is not available in Canada (there are ways to transfer some income between spouses and fund spousal retirement accounts, but if the income disparity is big, that won't be enough). Higher education: cheaper in Canada. This is not a tax item, but it's a big expense for many families and something the government can do about with your tax dollars. To sum it up, you may face higher or lower or about the same taxes after moving from US to Canada, depending on your circumstances. Another message here is that the high-tax, socialist, investment-unfriendly Canada is mostly a convenient myth.\"" }, { "docid": "65875", "title": "", "text": "\"Taxes are a tool for achieving social policy goals. While Americans consider \"\"Socialism\"\" to be a curse, the US is in fact quite socialistic. Mostly towards corporations, but sometimes even the normal people, not only the \"\"Corporation are people, my friend\"\" (M. Romney) get some discounts. The tax deduction on mortgage interest comes as a tool to encourage Americans to own their homes. It is important, socially, for people to own their home to be independent, and in general contributes to the stability of the society. As anything, when taken to the extreme, it in fact achieves exactly the opposite, as we've seen in 2008, but when balanced - works well. Capital gain is taxed in the US, because it is income. Generally, any income is taxed. However, gain sourced from the sale of primary residence is excluded, up to a certain (quite large) amount from this tax (if lived in the residence long enough - 3 of the last 5 years prior to sale). This, again, to encourage Americans to upgrade their houses and make it easier for Americans to relocate when needed (sell one house and buy another without losing cash on taxes). As to \"\"asset producing income\"\" - that is true in the US as well. You cannot deduct your personal expenses, in general. Mortgage interest on primary residence is a notable exception, because it serves a social cause. Similarly, medical expenses are allowed as a deduction, if they're above certain limit, and many other things (for example - if a US person totals his car, and insurance doesn't cover the loss - it is tax deductible, above certain limit, the higher the income - the higher the limit). These are purely social policy breaks. Socialism, something Americans like to have, and love to hate. Many \"\"anti-socialists\"\" in the US are in fact taking advantage of these specific tax breaks the most, because for rich folks these are limited or non-existent (mortgage interest limited up to 1 million, medical expenses are allowed only above certain percentage of income, etc).\"" }, { "docid": "284681", "title": "", "text": "Yes, this is right. It is what I am doing. In fact, I took it one step further. During my early career when I was able to deduct traditional IRA contributions, I made them and saved on taxes. When my income got high enough that I could no longer deduct those contributions, I rolled all my traditional IRA's into my 401(k). Now they are no longer subject to the pro-rata rule and I could begin with the backdoor Roths while continuing to contribute the max to my traditional 401(k). Thereafter it's pretty much the process you have described." }, { "docid": "199397", "title": "", "text": "If my salary slip says that I will be paying x INR tax this financial year. Then how much minimum investment I need to do to avoid any tax? This rebate is not directly linked to investments. If your total Gross is less than Rs 5 lacs, from the total tax computed, you can claim a rebate of upto Rs 5000. Does salary slip considers this rebate amount? This depends on the company policy. Companies may already factor in the rebate and deduct less tax. However it is important to claim this when you file the Returns, else it would show up as excess tax. There is no provision in the company form 16 to show this. Further if your taxable income becomes more than Rs 5 lacs, due to say other income, you will not be eligible for this rebate and have to pay tax. Do I have to explicitly specify this claim under 87A in my ITR? Yes you have to. If you company has already factored this while deducting tax you will not get any refunds. If the company has not factored this, you will have to claim refund. If above is true, and x is not calculated by considering this rebate amount, As indicated, this is not directly linked to investments. Will this increment of tax rebate from 2000INR to 5000INR will be applicable immediately This is applicable for financial year 2016-2017 for which you would be filing returns in 2017. Edit: If you say Gross salary is say Rs 6 lacs. If you invest 1.5 lacs in 80C. Your Net taxable income is Rs 4.5 lacs. The tax on 4.5 lacs Normal individual less than 60 years will be 10% of 2 lacs. i.e. Rs 20,000. You can then claim Rs 5000 as deduction under 87A and pay only Rs 15,000 [20000-15000]. If your Gross salary is say Rs 2.8 lacs. You don't do any investments, your Net taxable income is Rs 2.8 lacs. The tax would be Rs 3000. You can claim rebate under 87A and not pay any tax." }, { "docid": "126756", "title": "", "text": "The main reasons are that investment are deducted from your gross income and earnings are not taxed until withdrawal. This applies to both traditional IRAs and 401Ks. Roth accounts have different rules but valuable benefits. My effective income tax rate is around 35%. This means that for every $1000 I earn in wage I only get to keep $650. Since my 401K contributions are deferred reductions from my income I can invest 35% more money into my 401K than I would be able to invest in a non-tax-advantaged account. Where I can invest $1000 into my 401K I would only be able to invest $650 into a non-advantaged account with the same wages. If I put $650 into an account yielding 10% then my one-year return on my income is $65 The 10% return on my $1000 is $100. Compared to what I would have been able to take home in the first place this makes my ROI $100/$650 = 15.3% Interest earned in non-advantaged accounts incurs taxes every year. Interest earned in advantaged accounts does not incur taxes until withdrawn. Compounding 10% annually for 20 years is significantly more than 6.5% compounded annually for 20 years. Imagine 10% on a 1000 investment with no additional cash flows over 20 year. The result is $6727, or 672%. Imagine your income tax rate does not reduce below 35%, your after-tax return is 4372, or %437 return. Now imagine you pay taxes every year on 10% take, so your take annually is only 6.5%... Now over 20 years you have $3523 (but you've already paid all taxes on this) and your return is %352 You have earned 24% more money because taxes were deferred until withdrawal! EDIT: Some tabular info for the commenters Your take home from the investment is $3752 because you have diligently paid your taxes every year on the earnings. Now, with the tax deferred until withdrawal! You then owe 35% tax on the withdrawal so you keep 7400 * .65 = $4810 $4810 versus $3750 means you have made an additional $1060, or 28%, from the compounding against tax-advantaged earnings. But Matthew! you say... Annual proceeds from your investments are not taxed at your income tax rate. This is true for now but the political winds are pushing this direction. However, even if you use a reduced rate in the first situation (let's say 30% instead of 35%, if you're a California resident) then the effect is $4140 rather than $3750. Less of a gain, but still a gain. In fact your capital-gains rate would have to be as low as 22% to even this difference out (versus a 35% income tax rate).... And remember that this assumes you're in the same bracket at retirement (which more people are not) You may also note that I used $1000 as the principle in both calculations. This was intentional to show the effects of compounding the taxable earnings alone. If you replace the taxable principle with $650 instead of $1000 then the effect is even more pronounced and only balanced out if your capital gains rate is actually zero!" }, { "docid": "523521", "title": "", "text": "\"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \"\"penalty\"\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \"\"need it\"\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \"\"hopeful\"\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \"\"tax\"\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\"" }, { "docid": "97852", "title": "", "text": "Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons" }, { "docid": "302049", "title": "", "text": "\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \"\"safe harbor\"\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\"" }, { "docid": "487728", "title": "", "text": "I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above." }, { "docid": "158907", "title": "", "text": "\"I wrote a brilliant guest post at Don't Mess With Taxes, titled Roth IRAs and Your Retirement Income. (Note - this article now reflects 2012 rates. Just updated) Simply put, it's an ongoing question of whether your taxes will be higher now than at any point in the future. If you are in the 25% bracket now, it would take quite of bit of money for your withdrawals to put you in that bracket at retirement. In the case of the IRA, you have the opportunity to convert in any year between now and retirement if your rate that year drops for whatever reason. The simplest case is if you are now in the 25% bracket. I say go pre-tax, and track, year by year what your withdrawal would be if you retired today. At 15%, but with a good chance for promotion to the 25% bracket, start with Roth flavor and then as you hit 25%, use a combination. This approach would smooth your marginal rate to stay at 15%. To give you a start to this puzzle, in 2012, a couple has a $11,900 standard deduction along with 2 exemptions of $3800 each. This means the first $19,500 in an IRA comes out tax free at retirement. If you believe in a 4% withdrawal rate, you need a retirement account containing $500K pretax to generate this much money. This tick up with inflation, 2 years ago, it was $18,700 and $467K respectively. This is why those who scream \"\"taxes will go up\"\" may be correct, but do you really believe the standard deduction and exemptions will go away? Edit - and as time passes, and I learn more, new info comes to my attention. The above thoughts not withstanding, there's an issue of taxation of Social Security benefits. This creates a The Phantom Tax Rate Zone which I recently wrote about. A single person with not really too high an income gets thrust into the 46% bracket. Not a typo, 46.25% to be exact.\"" }, { "docid": "240350", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't know of a situation where rejecting a raise would make sense. Often, one can be in a phaseout of some benefit, so that even though you're in a certain tax bracket, the impact of the next $100 is greater than the bracket rate alone. Taxation of social security benefits is one such anomaly. It can be high, but never over 100%. Update - The Affordable Care Act contains such an anomaly - go to the Kaiser Foundation site, and see the benefit a family of three might receive. A credit for up to $4631 toward their health care insurance cost. But, increase the income to above $78120 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and the benefit drops to zero. The fact that the next dollar of income will cost you $4631 in the lost credit is an example of a step-function in the tax code. I'd still not turn down the raise, but I'd ask that it be deposited to my 401(k). And when reconciling my taxes each April, I'd use an IRA in case I still went over a bit. Consider, it's April, and your MAGI is $80,120. Even if you don't have to cash to deposit to the IRA, you borrow it, from a 24% credit card if need be. Because the $2000 IRA will trigger not just $300 less Federal tax, but a $4631 health care credit. Note - the above example will apply to a limited, specific group who are funding their own health care expense and paying above a certain percent of income. It's not a criticism of ACA, just a mathematical observation appropriate to this question. For those in this situation, a close look at their projected MAGI is in order. Another example - the deduction for college tuition and fees. This is another \"\"step function.\"\" Go a dollar over the threshold, $130K joint, and the deduction drops from $4000 to $2000. You can claim that a $2000 deduction is a difference of 'only' $500 in tax due, but the result is a quick spike in the marginal rate. For those right at this number, it would be worth it to increase their 401(k) deduction to get back under this limit.\"" }, { "docid": "522619", "title": "", "text": "\"The Trustee has allowed me to act as his \"\"agent\"\", continuing to pay bills, and take care of much of the administrative affairs for my mother's estate since I did all of it for years before she passed away. I was not paid for any of this work. ... The expenses were more than $30K last year, and there is still a punch list to go this year. The trust should reimburse your expenses and deduct them on the trust tax return. Since the Trust owned the property in 2015, and I will receive ownership this month, can last year's expenses incurred for the Trust be deducted again future income for my property this year? Not exactly. The trust will file its own tax return and will report the income/loss attributed to the beneficiaries per the trust rules. What is attributed to you will flow to your Schedule E. From there you own it and if it is a passive activity where the loss is limited - you can carry it forward and offset with future gain. The trustee will have to deal with all the paperwork. Do 1099-misc forms need to be filed for the contractors who worked to get it ready for rental? It is my understanding that since 2010 (and before 2010) landlords who are not in real-estate trade or business are not required to send out 1099. But it won't hurt if you do, also. In any case - for all of these issues you should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State).\"" }, { "docid": "402404", "title": "", "text": "\"Take a look at IRS Publication 15. This is your employer's \"\"bible\"\" for withholding the correct amount of taxes from your paycheck. Most payroll systems use what this publication defines as the \"\"Percentage Method\"\", because it requires less data to be entered into the system in order to correctly compute the amount of withholding. The computation method is as follows: Taxes are computed \"\"piecewise\"\"; dollar amounts up to A are taxed at X%, and then dollar amounts between A and B are taxed at Y%, so total tax for B dollars is A*X + (B-A)*Y. Here is the table of rates for income earned in 2012 on a daily basis by a person filing as Single: To use this table, multiply all the dollar amounts by the number of business days in the pay period (so don't count more than 5 days per week even if you work 6 or 7). Find the range in which your pay subject to withholding falls, subtract the \"\"more than\"\" amount from the range, multiply the remainder by the \"\"W/H Pct\"\" for that line, and add that amount to the \"\"W/H Base\"\" amount (which is the cumulative amount of all lower tax brackets). This is the amount that will be withheld from your paycheck if you file Single or Married Filing Separately in the 2012 TY. If you file Married Filing Jointly, the amounts defining the tax brackets are slightly different (there's a pretty substantial \"\"marriage advantage\"\" right now; withholding for a married person in average wage-earning range is half or less than a person filing Single.). In your particular example of $2500 biweekly (10 business days/pp), with no allowances and no pre-tax deductions: So, with zero allowances, your employer should be taking $451.70 out of your paycheck for federal withholding. Now, that doesn't include PA state taxes of 3.07% (on $2500 that's $76.75), plus other state and federal taxes like SS (4.2% on your gross income up to 106k), Medicare/Medicaid (1.45% on your entire gross income), and SUTA (.8% on the first $8000). But, you also don't get a refund on those when you fill out the 1040 (except if you claim deductions against state income tax, and in an exceptional case which requires you to have two jobs in one year, thus doubling up on SS and SUTA taxes beyond their wage bases). If you claim 3 allowances on your federal taxes, all other things being equal, your taxable wages are reduced by $438.45, leaving you with taxable income of $2061.55. Still in the 25% bracket, but the wages subject to that level are only $619.55, for taxes in the 25% bracket of $154.89, plus the withholding base of $187.20 equals total federal w/h of $342.09 per paycheck, a savings of about $110pp. Those allowances do not count towards other federal taxes, and I do not know if PA state taxes figure these in. It seems odd that you would owe that much in taxes with your withholding effectively maxed out, unless you have some other form of income that you're reporting such as investment gains, child support/alimony, etc. With nobody claiming you as a dependent and no dependents of your own, filing Single, and zero allowances on your W-4 resulting in the tax withholding above, a quick run of the 1040EZ form shows that the feds should owe YOU $1738.20. The absolute worst-case scenario of you being claimed as a dependent by someone else should still get you a refund of $800 if you had your employer withhold the max. The numbers should only have gotten better if you're married or have kids or other dependents, or have significant itemized deductions such as a home mortgage (on which the interest and any property taxes are deductible). If you itemize, remember that state income tax, if any, is also deductible. I would consult a tax professional and have him double-check all your numbers. Unless there's something significant you haven't told us, you should not have owed the gov't at the end of the year.\"" }, { "docid": "318201", "title": "", "text": "Can you deduct interest paid to your father on your personal income taxes? Interest paid on passive investments can be deducted from the amount earned by that investment as an investment expense as long as the amount earned is greater than the total paid for the interest expense. Also beware if the amount of interest paid is greater than the yearly gift tax exclusion, as the IRS might interpret this as a creative way of giving gifts to your father without paying gift tax. Do you pay taxes on the interest you pay? No, because is an expense, not income, you would not count interest paid to him as taxable income. Does your father owe taxes on the interest he collects from you? Yes, that is income to him. And the last question you didn't ask, but I expect it is implied: Do you owe taxes on the quarterly profits? Yes, that is income to you. The Forbes article How To Arrange A Loan Between Family Members is a bit dated, but still a good source of information. You really should write a formal note (signed by both you and your father) indicating the amount borrowed, the interest rate you are paying on that amount, and when the loan will be repaid. If your father has set the interest rate too low, this could also be considered a gift to you, though we would really be talking about large amounts of money to hit the gift tax limit on interest alone." }, { "docid": "555947", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be \"\"other than house debt\"\" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low. By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?\"" }, { "docid": "393629", "title": "", "text": "Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't." } ]

[ { "docid": "152298", "title": "", "text": "As a CPA I can say, without a doubt, you do not owe any federal income tax. However, assuming all of you income was from your business and therefore subject to self-employment tax and you had no healthcare coverage, you would owe: $2,523 in Self-Employment Tax 645 in Healthcare Penalty $3,168 Total Amount You Should Owe. Assuming you have given us the right numbers, $3,300 sounds too high." } ]

[ { "docid": "487728", "title": "", "text": "I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above." }, { "docid": "312493", "title": "", "text": "When you itemize your deductions, you get to deduct all the state income tax that was taken out of your paycheck last year (not how much was owed, but how much was withheld). If you deducted this last year, then you need to add in any amount that you received in state income tax refunds last year to your taxes this year, to make up for the fact that you ended up deducting more state income tax than was really due to the state. If you took the standard deduction last year instead of itemizing, then you didn't deduct your state income tax withholding last year and you don't need to claim your refund as income this year. Also, if you itemized, but chose to take the state sales tax deduction instead of the state income tax deduction, you also don't need to add in the refund as income. For whatever reason, Illinois decided that you don't get a 1099-G. It might be that the amount of the refund was too small to warrant the paperwork. It might be that they screwed up. But if you deducted your state income tax withholding on last year's tax return, then you need to add the state tax refund you got last year on line 10 of this year's 1040, whether or not the state issued you a form or not. Take a look at the Line 10 instructions starting on page 22 of the 1040 instructions to see if you have any unusual situations covered there that you didn't mention here. (For example, if you received a refund check for multiple years last year.) Then check your tax return from last year to verify that you deducted your state income tax withholding on Schedule A. If you did, then this year add the refund you got from the state to line 10 of this year's 1040." }, { "docid": "248651", "title": "", "text": "Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents. If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A. In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount. If you are a resident of State B, then State B will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is. As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return. As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get to be deducted. At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well." }, { "docid": "134494", "title": "", "text": "\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \"\"Percentage Method\"\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \"\"base amount\"\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \"\"base amount\"\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \"\"effective\"\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \"\"wage base\"\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \"\"marriage advantage\"\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \"\"pre-tax deduction\"\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\"" }, { "docid": "462831", "title": "", "text": "In the US there's no significant difference between what a business can deduct and what an individual can deduct. However, you can only deduct what is an expense to produce income. Businesses are allowed to write off salaries, but individuals can't write off what they pay their gardener or maid (at least in the US) If you're a sole proprietor in the business of managing properties - you can definitely deduct payments to gardeners or maids. Business paying for a gardener on a private property not related to producing the income (like CEO's daughter's house) cannot deduct that expense for tax purposes (although it is still recorded in the business accounting books as an expense - with no tax benefit). Businesses are allowed to deduct utility expenses as overhead, individuals cannot Same thing exactly. I can deduct utility expenses for my rental property, but not for my primary residence. Food, shelter, clothing and medical care are fundamental human needs, but we still pay for them with after-tax money, and pay additional sales tax. Only interest (and not principal) on a mortgage is deductible in the US, which is great for people who take out mortgages (and helps banks get more business, I'm sure), but you're out of luck if you pay cash for your house, or are renting. Sales taxes are deductible. You can deduct sales taxes you paid during the year if you itemize your deduction. You can chose - you either deduct the sales taxes or the State income taxes, whatever is more beneficial for you. BTW in many states food and medicine are exempt from sales tax. Medical expenses are deductible if they're significant compared to your total income. You can deduct medical expenses in excess of 10% of your AGI. With the ACA kicking in - I don't see how would people even get to that. If your AGI is low you get subsidies for insurance, and the insurance keeps your expenses capped. For self-employed and employed, insurance premiums are pre-tax (i.e.: not even added to your AGI). Principle for mortgage is not deductible because it is not an expense - it is equity. You own an asset, don't you? You do get the standard deduction, even if your itemized (real) deductions are less - business don't get that. You also get an exemption amount (for your basic living needs), which businesses don't get. You can argue about the amounts - but it is there. In some States (like California) renters get tax breaks for renting, depending on the AGI. CA renters credit is phasing out at AGI of about $60K, which is pretty high." }, { "docid": "318201", "title": "", "text": "Can you deduct interest paid to your father on your personal income taxes? Interest paid on passive investments can be deducted from the amount earned by that investment as an investment expense as long as the amount earned is greater than the total paid for the interest expense. Also beware if the amount of interest paid is greater than the yearly gift tax exclusion, as the IRS might interpret this as a creative way of giving gifts to your father without paying gift tax. Do you pay taxes on the interest you pay? No, because is an expense, not income, you would not count interest paid to him as taxable income. Does your father owe taxes on the interest he collects from you? Yes, that is income to him. And the last question you didn't ask, but I expect it is implied: Do you owe taxes on the quarterly profits? Yes, that is income to you. The Forbes article How To Arrange A Loan Between Family Members is a bit dated, but still a good source of information. You really should write a formal note (signed by both you and your father) indicating the amount borrowed, the interest rate you are paying on that amount, and when the loan will be repaid. If your father has set the interest rate too low, this could also be considered a gift to you, though we would really be talking about large amounts of money to hit the gift tax limit on interest alone." }, { "docid": "68636", "title": "", "text": "It turns out that my logic was faulty. I wasn't aware that RRSP contributions and RRSP deductions are independent. There's no reason to split up my RRSP contributions across the two years. In my original plan, I was going to defer some RRSP contributions until 2017 so that they wouldn't be deducted from my 2016 income. This isn't necessary — nothing is forcing me to deduct the entire RRSP contribution on my taxes this year. I can still follow the plan I described in my question and max out my RRSP contribution this tax year by only deducting part of the contribution on this year's taxes" }, { "docid": "525149", "title": "", "text": "I'm assuming you are in the US here. From a tax perspective you don't need to take any action to start a business and deduct expenses. If you have earned income coming from a source other than a W2 paying job, then you have a business. On your taxes, this means you file a schedule C (which is where you will deduct business expenses) and schedule SE (which computes how much FICA tax you will owe on your business income). When we talk about starting a business, we usually are talking about creating a corporation or LLC. No particular tax advantage to that in your case, but there could be liability advantages, if you are concerned about that. If you file losses consistently year after year, the IRS might try and classify your business as a hobby. That's what you should worry about. I suppose incorporating might reduce the probability of that, but it might not. Keep good records in case you need to argue with the IRS. If you do have to argue with them, they will want to ensure that you only used the laptop and internet for your business. That's a big if, but it's a potentially scary one. IRS Guidelines on hobby vs. business income Note: besides deducting expenses, another advantage of self-employment is opening a solo-401(k) or SEP or SIMPLE IRA. These potentially allow you to set aside a lot more money than the typical IRA and 401(k) arrangement. Thing is, you have to have a lot more earned income to really take advantage of them, but let's hope your app gets you there." }, { "docid": "358371", "title": "", "text": "\"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the \"\"save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%\"\" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars.\"" }, { "docid": "556383", "title": "", "text": "First, the single worst reason to do anything is because most people are doing it. The second worst thing is to take tax advice from a non-tax pro. (Ironic, I understand, but read on) Run through your 2015 tax return. Do you itemize already? If not, there's a reason, the standard deduction for a couple is $12,600 in 2016, so a renter isn't likely to have enough deductions to itemize, even with a high state tax. For 2016, project your total interest from the mortgage, and the year's property tax, then add your state income tax, and last, any charitable donations. This total comprises the bulk of what people take on their Schedule A. Now, since your current withholding assumes the standard $12,600, subtract this number, and you're left with the amount your taxable income will be reduced for the fact that you have the house. Last, divide this number by $4000. The result is how many more withholding allowances you can claim. One personal exemption (a withholding allowance) is exactly $4050 this year. For what its worth, median home price for early 2016 was $190K. After 20% down, a $152K mortgage would cost about $6000 in interest the first year, and maybe $3000 in property tax. The average couple, making $60,000 or so won't have a state bill much over $3000, so shy of some nice donations, it's easy to have a house, yet still not itemize. Of course, if you have higher income and a more expensive home, the numbers will be different. The best you can do is to get tax software or use an online service and estimate the 2016 return based on your numbers. If you wish to post numbers via an edit to your question, I'm happy to update my answer a bit to your situation. Note - the form you'll use to adjust withholdings, the W4, offers a worksheet to perform the calculation. It asks in line 1 for your total itemized deductions, then subtract the standard deduction, then divide by $4050. Pretty much what I suggested above." }, { "docid": "418999", "title": "", "text": "Not sure about the UK, but if it were in the US you need to realize the expenses can be claimed as much as the income. After having a mild heart attack when I did my business taxes the first time many years ago, a Small Business Administration adviser pointed it out. You are running the site from a computer? Deductible on an amortization schedule. Do you work from home? Electricity can be deducted. Do you drive at all? Did you pay yourself a wage? Any paperwork, fax communications, bank fees that you had to endure as work expenses? I am not an accountant, but chances are you legally lost quite a bit more than you made in a new web venture. Discuss it with an accountant for the details and more importantly the laws in your country. I could be off my rocker." }, { "docid": "155053", "title": "", "text": "\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"" }, { "docid": "303078", "title": "", "text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"" }, { "docid": "590775", "title": "", "text": "In Australia, any income you earn is taxable despite where it came from. Using your example your taxable income is $70,000. Keep in mind that with a business even as a sole trader any business expenses that contribute to the earning of your business income is deductible, reducing the final amount of tax you'll have to pay. The ATO website has lots of good information and examples to look at including tax rates. If your total income is pushing into a higher tax bracket over 30c tax per $1 earned, it may be worth looking at shifting your business to operate under a company structure that just has a fixed tax rate around 30c per $1. That said, for me, I don't want the paperwork overhead of a company yet so I'm running my side business as a sole trader too. I'd rather do that and keep it easy for now while my business gets profitable that waste time on admin structures for tax reasons even if in the shortterm it may mean slightly higher tax. In the end, you only pay tax on profit (income minus expenses) as opposed to raw/gross income. For more info there are good books in the bookshops or local library (to read free) on starting a business on the side while still working. They discuss these issues too." }, { "docid": "149954", "title": "", "text": "\"Fwiw, I don't actually put much credit in the laffer curve, but just like to point out that the argument that it justifies tax cuts is predicated on being above the peak rather than below. I'll also point out that the biggest expansions of the US economy happened under a top marginal rate of 90%. That rate was basically only on income higher than what 99.9% make. Of course explaining marginal tax rates to most people fails. If you say \"\"were lowering rates but adding more brackets at the top end. (90, 99, 99.9, 99.99 %ile, for instance). Or even doing something like \"\"lowering tax rates, but all personal income is taxed the same\"\" and possibly \"\"dividends are taxed at the income tax rate of the individual, but are deductible from the corporate income\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "545497", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you will have to file taxes. Each peson gets a standard deduction. By \"\"claiming you\"\", your parents are applying your standard deduction to their taxes, meaning that you cannot use that same deduction on your taxes. You still must pay taxes on your income. This generally works out best overall, assuming that your parents are in a higher tax bracket (have a higher income) than you.\"" }, { "docid": "264554", "title": "", "text": "\"I pay taxes on revenue. You do have the ability to deduct expenses, though it's not as comprehensive as what companies can do: These figures apply to everybody, so those that earn more get taxed more on thee additional income in each bracket (meaning the first $100,000 of taxable income is taxed the same for everybody at one rate, the next $100,000 at a different rate, etc.) So you do get to deduct personal expenses and get taxed on \"\"profit\"\" - but since the vast majority of people don't keep detailed records of what they spend, it's much simpler just to use blanket deduction amounts for everyone. Companies have much more detailed systems in place to track and categorize expenses, so it's easier to just tax on net profit. Plus, the corporate tax rate is much higher than the average individual tax rate - would you trade more deductions for a higher tax rate?\"" }, { "docid": "466778", "title": "", "text": "Considering that it's common for the monthly mortgage payment to be 25% of one's income, it's an obvious advantage for that monthly burden to be eliminated. The issue, as I see it, is that this is the last thing one should do in the list of priorities: The idea of 'no mortgage' is great. But. You might pay early and have just a few years of payments left on the mortgage and if you are unemployed, those payments are still due. It's why I'd suggest loading up retirement accounts and other savings before paying the mortgage sooner. Your point, that rates are low, and your expected return is higher, is well presented. I feel no compulsion to prepay my 3.5% mortgage. As the OP is in Canada, land of no mortgage interest deduction, I ignore that, till now. The deduction simply reduces the effective rate, based on the country tax code permitting it. It's not the 'reason' to have a loan. But it's ignorant to ignore the math." }, { "docid": "160555", "title": "", "text": "\"There is nothing legal you can do in the United States to avoid the tax burden of income earned as an employee other than offsetting it with pre-tax contributions (which it sounds like you're already doing), making charitable contributions, or incurring investment losses (which is cutting off your nose to spite your face). So that $660K can't be helped. As for the $80K in stock dividends, you could move those investments into \"\"growth\"\" companies rather than \"\"value\"\" companies. Growth companies are those that pay less in dividends, where the primary increase in wealth occurs only in share price increase. This puts off your tax bill until you finally sell your shares, and (depending on how the tax laws are at that time) your tax bill will be lower on those capital gains than they are currently on these dividends. Regarding rental income I know nothing, but I think you're entitled to depreciate your property's value over time and count that against the taxes you owe on the rents. And you can deduct all the upkeep expenses. As with employment income, intentionally incurring rental losses to lower your tax bill is not logical: for every dollar you earn, you only have to give about 50 cents to the government, whereas for every dollar you lose, you've lost a dollar.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "135219", "title": "", "text": "\"In your case, I believe the answer is that you don't owe any taxes, if your deductions exceed your income. There is something called the Alternate Minimum Tax to catch \"\"rich\"\" people, who claim \"\"too many\"\" deductions. Basically, it taxes their \"\"gross\"\" income at a lower rate, but allows them no deductions if they make $175,000 or more. You are not in that tax \"\"bracket.\"\"\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "556383", "title": "", "text": "First, the single worst reason to do anything is because most people are doing it. The second worst thing is to take tax advice from a non-tax pro. (Ironic, I understand, but read on) Run through your 2015 tax return. Do you itemize already? If not, there's a reason, the standard deduction for a couple is $12,600 in 2016, so a renter isn't likely to have enough deductions to itemize, even with a high state tax. For 2016, project your total interest from the mortgage, and the year's property tax, then add your state income tax, and last, any charitable donations. This total comprises the bulk of what people take on their Schedule A. Now, since your current withholding assumes the standard $12,600, subtract this number, and you're left with the amount your taxable income will be reduced for the fact that you have the house. Last, divide this number by $4000. The result is how many more withholding allowances you can claim. One personal exemption (a withholding allowance) is exactly $4050 this year. For what its worth, median home price for early 2016 was $190K. After 20% down, a $152K mortgage would cost about $6000 in interest the first year, and maybe $3000 in property tax. The average couple, making $60,000 or so won't have a state bill much over $3000, so shy of some nice donations, it's easy to have a house, yet still not itemize. Of course, if you have higher income and a more expensive home, the numbers will be different. The best you can do is to get tax software or use an online service and estimate the 2016 return based on your numbers. If you wish to post numbers via an edit to your question, I'm happy to update my answer a bit to your situation. Note - the form you'll use to adjust withholdings, the W4, offers a worksheet to perform the calculation. It asks in line 1 for your total itemized deductions, then subtract the standard deduction, then divide by $4050. Pretty much what I suggested above." }, { "docid": "557603", "title": "", "text": "\"Employers withhold at rates specified in Circular E issued by the IR. You can request that additional money be withheld (not an issue here) or you can have reduced withholding by claiming additional allowances on a W-4 (i.e., more than just for you and spouse and dependents) if you believe that this will result in withholding that will more closely match the tax due. (Note added in edit):Page 2 of the W-4 form has worksheets that can be used to figure out how many additional allowances to request. Also, I wonder if your withholding will be 37% or final tax bill be 26% of your adjusted gross income. The tax brackets are the tax on marginal income. If you are in the 28% tax bracket, you owe 28 cents in tax for each additional dollar of income, not 28 cents in tax for every dollar of income. Your overall tax might well be less than 20% of your income. As a specific example, in 2011 a married taxpayer filing jointly would be in the (highest) 35% tax bracket if the taxable income was $379,150 or more (marginal tax rate of 35% is applicable to every dollar more than $379,150) but the tax on $379,150 itself works out to be $102,574 or 27.05% of the taxable income. So if you do expect to be earning around $350K or more in salary between now and December 31 to hit that 26% that you expect you will owe, you might want to consider paying a tax accountant for advice on how to fill out your W-4 form for your new employer rather than relying on an Internet forum such as this for free advice. Note added in edit: Your comment \"\"... it is a cocktail of ... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, health care ...\"\" on the earlier version of my answer does raise the question of whether you want your employer to withhold 26% instead of 37% and have the money go to meet all these obligations or just 26% towards your Federal income tax liability only. The Federal W-4 form affects only how much money is withheld from your paycheck and sent to the US Treasury. Some of the money that each of your employers withholds (Social Security and Medicare taxes) is not affected by what you put down on the W-4 form. Now, if you hold two jobs and the total income shown on your W-2s is larger than the SS limit, you will have had too much Social Security taxes withheld, and the excess will be a credit towards your Federal income tax liability. You have self-employment income too on which you owe Social Security and Medicare taxes and you are making estimated tax payments. The excess Social Security tax payment can count towards this too (as well as income tax on your Schedule C income). Thus, if your new employer is withholding too much, you might be able to skip making the fourth quarterly payment of estimated tax or make a reduced payment (there is no requirement that the four installments must be equal). In short, there are lots of ramifications that you need to take into account before deciding that 26% is the right number. Instead of filling out a W-4 all by yourself right away, I strongly recommend reading up a lot on income taxes, or play with a tax preparation program (last year's version will do a pretty good job of at least getting you in the right ballpark), or consult with a tax accountant.\"" }, { "docid": "65875", "title": "", "text": "\"Taxes are a tool for achieving social policy goals. While Americans consider \"\"Socialism\"\" to be a curse, the US is in fact quite socialistic. Mostly towards corporations, but sometimes even the normal people, not only the \"\"Corporation are people, my friend\"\" (M. Romney) get some discounts. The tax deduction on mortgage interest comes as a tool to encourage Americans to own their homes. It is important, socially, for people to own their home to be independent, and in general contributes to the stability of the society. As anything, when taken to the extreme, it in fact achieves exactly the opposite, as we've seen in 2008, but when balanced - works well. Capital gain is taxed in the US, because it is income. Generally, any income is taxed. However, gain sourced from the sale of primary residence is excluded, up to a certain (quite large) amount from this tax (if lived in the residence long enough - 3 of the last 5 years prior to sale). This, again, to encourage Americans to upgrade their houses and make it easier for Americans to relocate when needed (sell one house and buy another without losing cash on taxes). As to \"\"asset producing income\"\" - that is true in the US as well. You cannot deduct your personal expenses, in general. Mortgage interest on primary residence is a notable exception, because it serves a social cause. Similarly, medical expenses are allowed as a deduction, if they're above certain limit, and many other things (for example - if a US person totals his car, and insurance doesn't cover the loss - it is tax deductible, above certain limit, the higher the income - the higher the limit). These are purely social policy breaks. Socialism, something Americans like to have, and love to hate. Many \"\"anti-socialists\"\" in the US are in fact taking advantage of these specific tax breaks the most, because for rich folks these are limited or non-existent (mortgage interest limited up to 1 million, medical expenses are allowed only above certain percentage of income, etc).\"" }, { "docid": "260959", "title": "", "text": "\"Money is a token that you can trade to other people for favors. Debt is a tool that allows you to ask for favors earlier than you might otherwise. What you have currently is: If the very worst were to happen, such as: You would owe $23,000 favors, and your \"\"salary\"\" wouldn't make a difference. What is a responsible amount to put toward a car? This is a tricky question to answer. Statistically speaking the very worst isn't worth your consideration. Only the \"\"very bad\"\", or \"\"kinda annoying\"\" circumstances are worth worrying about. The things that have a >5% chance of actually happening to you. Some of the \"\"very bad\"\" things that could happen (10k+ favors): Some of the \"\"kinda annoying\"\" things that could happen (~5k favors): So now that these issues are identified, we can settle on a time frame. This is very important. Your $30,000 in favors owed are not due in the next year. If your student loans have a typical 10-year payoff, then your risk management strategy only requires that you keep $3,000 in favors (approx) because that's how many are due in the next year. Except you have more than student loans for favors owed to others. You have rent. You eat food. You need to socialize. You need to meet your various needs. Each of these things will cost a certain number of favors in the next year. Add all of them up. Pretending that this data was correct (it obviously isn't) you'd owe $27,500 in favors if you made no money. Up until this point, I've been treating the data as though there's no income. So how does your income work with all of this? Simple, until you've saved 6-12 months of your expenses (not salary) in an FDIC or NCUSIF insured savings account, you have no free income. If you don't have savings to save yourself when bad things happen, you will start having more stress (what if something breaks? how will I survive till my next paycheck? etc.). Stress reduces your life expectancy. If you have no free income, and you need to buy a car, you need to buy the cheapest car that will meet your most basic needs. Consider carpooling. Consider walking or biking or public transit. You listed your salary at \"\"$95k\"\", but that isn't really $95k. It's more like $63k after taxes have been taken out. If you only needed to save ~$35k in favors, and the previous data was accurate (it isn't, do your own math): Per month you owe $2,875 in favors (34,500 / 12) Per month you gain $5,250 in favors (63,000 / 12) You have $7,000 in initial capital--I mean--favors You net $2,375 each month (5,250 - 2,875) To get $34,500 in favors will take you 12 months ( ⌈(34,500 - 7,000) / 2,375⌉ ) After 12 months you will have $2,375 in free income each month. You no longer need to save all of it (Although you may still need to save some of it. Be sure recalculate your expenses regularly to reevaluate if you need additional savings). What you do with your free income is up to you. You've got a safety net in saved earnings to get you through rough times, so if you want to buy a $100,000 sports car, all you have to do is account for it in your savings and expenses in all further calculations as you pay it off. To come up with a reasonable number, decide on how much you want to spend per month on a car. $500 is a nice round number that's less than $2,375. How many years do you want to save for the car? OR How many years do you want to pay off a car loan? 4 is a nice even number. $500 * 12 * 4 = $24,000 Now reduce that number 10% for taxes and fees $24,000 * 0.9 = $21,600 If you're getting a loan, deduct the cost of interest (using 5% as a ballpark here) $21,600 * 0.95 = $20,520 So according to my napkin math you can afford a car that costs ~$20k if you're willing to save/owe $500/month, but only after you've saved enough to be financially secure.\"" }, { "docid": "149954", "title": "", "text": "\"Fwiw, I don't actually put much credit in the laffer curve, but just like to point out that the argument that it justifies tax cuts is predicated on being above the peak rather than below. I'll also point out that the biggest expansions of the US economy happened under a top marginal rate of 90%. That rate was basically only on income higher than what 99.9% make. Of course explaining marginal tax rates to most people fails. If you say \"\"were lowering rates but adding more brackets at the top end. (90, 99, 99.9, 99.99 %ile, for instance). Or even doing something like \"\"lowering tax rates, but all personal income is taxed the same\"\" and possibly \"\"dividends are taxed at the income tax rate of the individual, but are deductible from the corporate income\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "118878", "title": "", "text": "\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"" }, { "docid": "562957", "title": "", "text": "If you qualify for the safe harbor, you are not required to pay additional quarterly taxes. Of course, you're still welcome to do so if you're sure you'll owe them; however, you will not be penalized. If your income is over $150k (joint) or $75k (single), your safe harbor is: Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty. Generally, if you're under that level, the following reasons suggest you will not owe the tax (from the IRS publication 505): The total of your withholding and timely estimated tax payments was at least as much as your 2013 tax. (See Special rules for certain individuals for higher income taxpayers and farmers and fishermen.) The tax balance due on your 2014 return is no more than 10% of your total 2014 tax, and you paid all required estimated tax payments on time. Your total tax for 2014 (defined later) minus your withholding is less than $1,000. You did not have a tax liability for 2013. You did not have any withholding taxes and your current year tax (less any household employment taxes) is less than $1,000. If you paid one-fourth of your last year's taxes (or of 110% of your last-year's taxes) in estimated taxes for each quarter prior to this one, you should be fine as far as penalties go, and can simply add the excess you know you will owe to the next check." }, { "docid": "590775", "title": "", "text": "In Australia, any income you earn is taxable despite where it came from. Using your example your taxable income is $70,000. Keep in mind that with a business even as a sole trader any business expenses that contribute to the earning of your business income is deductible, reducing the final amount of tax you'll have to pay. The ATO website has lots of good information and examples to look at including tax rates. If your total income is pushing into a higher tax bracket over 30c tax per $1 earned, it may be worth looking at shifting your business to operate under a company structure that just has a fixed tax rate around 30c per $1. That said, for me, I don't want the paperwork overhead of a company yet so I'm running my side business as a sole trader too. I'd rather do that and keep it easy for now while my business gets profitable that waste time on admin structures for tax reasons even if in the shortterm it may mean slightly higher tax. In the end, you only pay tax on profit (income minus expenses) as opposed to raw/gross income. For more info there are good books in the bookshops or local library (to read free) on starting a business on the side while still working. They discuss these issues too." }, { "docid": "212783", "title": "", "text": "\"Federal taxes are generally lower in Canada. Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire. The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%. State/provincial taxes are lower in the US. You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other \"\"bad\"\" income-tax states. But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax. Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%. Investment income taxes: Canada wins, narrowly. Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta. The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state. Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon. Sales taxes: US wins, but the gap is closing. Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister. Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax). Some provinces \"\"harmonized\"\" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000. Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650. Property taxes: too dependent on the location, hard to tell. Tax benefits for retirement savings: Canada. If you work in the US and don't have a 401(k), you get a really bad deal: your retirement is underfunded and you're stuck with a higher tax bill, because you can't get the deduction. In Canada, if you don't have an RRSP at work, you take the money to the financial company of your choice, invest it there, and take the deduction on your taxes. If you don't like the investment options in your 401(k), you're stuck with them. If you don't like them in your RRSP, contribute the minimum to get the match and put the rest of the money into your individual RRSP; you still get the same deduction. Annual 401(k) contribution limits are use-it-or-lose-it, while unused RRSP limits and deductions can be carried forward and used when you need to jump tax brackets. Canada used to lack an answer to Roth IRAs, but the introduction of TFSAs took care of that. Mortgage interest deduction: US wins here as mortgage interest is not deductible in Canada. Marriage penalty: US wins. Canadian tax returns are of single or married-filing-separately type. So if you have one working spouse in the family or a big disparity between spouses' incomes, you can save money by filing a joint return. But such option is not available in Canada (there are ways to transfer some income between spouses and fund spousal retirement accounts, but if the income disparity is big, that won't be enough). Higher education: cheaper in Canada. This is not a tax item, but it's a big expense for many families and something the government can do about with your tax dollars. To sum it up, you may face higher or lower or about the same taxes after moving from US to Canada, depending on your circumstances. Another message here is that the high-tax, socialist, investment-unfriendly Canada is mostly a convenient myth.\"" }, { "docid": "55007", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming my math is correct and that I'm not missing something about Roth investments, it appears to me that either option will work out exactly the same if you will be in the same tax bracket in retirement. This is true only if your average tax rate in retirement is the same as your current marginal rate. I'm surprised none of the answers mention this since it is the crux of your question! If you can deduct an IRA against your income taxes, it is almost always better option than the Roth equivalent. Marginal rates should not be compared to average rates or you will form all sorts of inaccurate conclusions. \"\"If you are in a lower tax rate in retirement traditional is better\"\" really means, \"\"if your average tax rate in retirement is lower than your current marginal rate, traditional is better\"\" - which for the overwhelming majority of Americans is the case. Consider the following. Let's say your intend to contribute $1000 in one year (making $2k) and withdraw it the next that is your only income in that year. Your tax brackets look like: This is quite simplified but for this purpose will illustrate precisely why comparisons like you are making are very misleading. In this case you can put $1000 in and pay no income tax at all (because you deduct it). You then withdraw $1000 the next year. The first $500 you withdraw you pay no taxes on and the next $500 has a tax rate of 15%, for a total tax of of $75. However - this is a tax against your entire withdrawal of $1000, so your average tax rate (this is important! average is different than marginal) is only 7.5% and you are left with $925. In this case you can only contribute $850 to the IRA because you are taxed against the money at your marginal rate (15%). When you withdraw it, you don't pay any taxes and are left with the entire $850 $850. This is less than the above, because you are taxed the whole amount at your previous marginal rate. If however your tax rate in retirement was 30% for everything above $500, only then are the two scenarios equal. Your marginal tax rate in retirement has to be very high relative to your current tax rate for the Roth to ever catch up and be better. If you are able to deduct an IRA contribution, it will almost always be the best option. The average federal income tax rate on middle class families has not changed dramatically enough over the past 50 years to be above normal marginal tax rates - even at the 15% federal tax bracket, your marginal rate is still higher than the highest average tax rate for the past 50 years by at least 3% and normally significantly so. The reason I make this point about middle class marginal rates is that the majority of \"\"taxes might be higher in retirement!\"\" is very unlikely to be the case in a meaningful way given the past 50 years. However if you are in the top tax rate you are paying historic low tax rates (by a factor of nearly 3), but also observe you can't do either IRA since you must make $400k/year. The difference for middle class is no where near as noticeable. Keep in mind if you can't deduct, there is no reason to not contribute to the Roth. There are other factors contributing to the traditional/Roth decision. This answer only addresses the specifics in your question.\"" }, { "docid": "542213", "title": "", "text": "\"From the IRS perspective, there's no difference between \"\"your taxes\"\" and \"\"your sole proprietorship's taxes\"\", they're all just \"\"your taxes\"\". While I could see it being very useful and wise to track your business's activities separately, and use separate bank accounts and the like, this is just a convenience to help you in your personal accounting, and not something that needs to relate directly to how tax forms are completed or taxes are paid. When calculating your taxes, if you want to figure out how much \"\"you\"\" owe vs. how much \"\"your business\"\" owes, you'll have to do so yourself. One approach might be just to take the amount that your Schedule C puts as income on your return and multiply by your marginal tax rate. Another approach might be to have your tax software run the calculations as though you had no business income, and see what just \"\"your personal\"\" taxes would have been without the business. If you think of the business income as being \"\"first\"\" and should use up the lower brackets rather than your personal income, maybe do it the other way around and have your software run the calculations as though you had only the business income and no other personal/investment income, and see what the amount of taxes would be then. Once you've figured out a good allocation, the actual mechanics of paying some \"\"personal tax amount\"\" from your personal bank account and some \"\"business tax amount\"\" from your business bank account are up to you. I'd probably just transfer the money from my business account to my personal account and pay all the taxes from the personal account. Writing two separate checks, one from each account, that total to the correct amount, I'm sure would work just fine as well. You can probably make separate payments from each account electronically through Direct Pay or EFTPS as well. As long as all taxes are paid by the deadline, I don't think the IRS is too picky about the details of how many payments are made.\"" }, { "docid": "28172", "title": "", "text": "You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty." }, { "docid": "150862", "title": "", "text": "\"Wireless capabilities see Nikola tesla every type of communication outside of the walkie talkie really was created without the government. So the fact that i was born here against my own free will automatically gives the government the right to seize the fruits of my labor? This is where this bullshit statist logic falls apart because the only rebuttal you have is \"\"well just leave then!\"\" Which is fucking stupid and in pretty sure I already gave you 1 way but I'll say it again cuz it's clear you're incapable of following along, federal sales tax. With federal sales tax there are no deductions or coercion. Also the more money individuals have in their pocket (disposable income) the more likely they are to spend and grow the economy. That's why you see countries like Sweden with insane tax rates seeing limited growth and in a lot of cases on the verge of an economic collapse. So if people have more disposable income causing them to have more purchasing power a federal sales tax would probably do better than an income tax and the people would receive something tangible instead of just losing 25% of their pay check. Btw don't ever say my income tax pays for roads because they don't that's what a gas tax is for. A majority of our infrastructure is paid for with revenue from other taxes not income. Income taxes pay mostly into military budget and social programs ie social security\"" }, { "docid": "272851", "title": "", "text": "No, absolutely not. Income tax rates are marginal. The tax bracket's higher tax rate only applies to extra dollars over the threshold, not to dollars below it. The normal income tax does not have any cliffs where one extra dollar of income will cost more than one dollar in extra taxes. Moreover, you are ignoring the personal exemption and standard deduction. A gross salary of $72,000 is not the same as taxable income of $72,000. The deduction will generally be $12,200 and the exemptions will be $3,900 for you, your spouse, and any kids. So married-filing-jointly with the standard deduction will get an automatic $20,000 off of adjusted gross income when counting taxable income. So the appropriate taxable income is actually going to be more like $52,000. Note that getting your compensation package reshuffled may result in different tax treatment. But simply taking a smaller salary (rather than taking some compensation as stock options, health insurance, or fringe benefits), is not a money-saving move. Never do it." }, { "docid": "519123", "title": "", "text": "\"I had been pondering this recently myself too. This question motivated me to do a little research. It appears that what happens is that (take a deep breath) the capital gain does push you into the next tax bracket, but the capital gain is always interpreted as the \"\"last\"\" income you received, so that if your non-capital-gains income is less than the threshold, it will all be taxed in the lower bracket, and only your capital gain will be taxed in the higher bracket (but it will be taxed at the capital-gains rate of that higher bracket). In short, a capital gain can only push capital gains into higher capital-gains tax brackets; it cannot push ordinary income into higher ordinary-income tax brackets. In addition, the amount of the capital gain is taxed in a marginal fashion, such that any portion of the gain that will \"\"fit\"\" into a lower bracket will be taxed at a lower level, with only the topmost portion of any gain being taxed at the top rate. This site is one claiming this: Will capital gain or dividend income push my other income into a higher tax bracket? No, the tax rates apply first to your “ordinary income” (income from sources other than long-term capital gains or qualifying dividends) so these items that are taxed at special rates won’t push your other income into a higher tax bracket. If my ordinary income puts me in the 15% tax bracket, can I receive an unlimited amount of long-term capital gain at the 0% rate? No, the 0% rate applies only to the amount of long-term capital gain and dividend income needed to “fill up” the 15% tax bracket. For example, if your ordinary income is $4,000 below the figure that would put you in the 25% bracket and you have a $10,000 long-term capital gain, you’ll pay 0% on $4,000 of your capital gain and 15% on the rest. There are several Bogleheads forum threads (here, here, here and here) that also touch on the same issue. The last of those links to the IRS capital gains worksheet. I traced through the logic and I believe it confirms this. Here's how it works: (In conclusion, we now know Mitt Romney's secret.)\"" }, { "docid": "59000", "title": "", "text": "Tax Shield would be known as: A tax shield is a reduction in taxable income for an individual or corporation achieved through claiming allowable deductions such as mortgage interest, medical expenses, charitable donations, amortization and depreciation. These deductions reduce a taxpayer's taxable income for a given year or defer income taxes into future years. Tax shields lower the overall amount of taxes owed by an individual taxpayer or a business. I know of various real estate investors that will use depreciation as noted above to reduce their tax liability though others can use other deductions. Fortune has this on Buffett's taxes in 2015: Here’s the breakdown of Buffett’s income taxes for 2015, according to the statement:" }, { "docid": "248651", "title": "", "text": "Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents. If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A. In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount. If you are a resident of State B, then State B will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is. As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return. As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get to be deducted. At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well." }, { "docid": "141738", "title": "", "text": "\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of in­come. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business ex­penses as an itemized deduction on Sched­ule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\"" }, { "docid": "242529", "title": "", "text": "\"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the \"\"riches\"\") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "269447", "title": "", "text": "Credit unions are mutually-owned (i.e. customer owned) financial institutions that provide banking services. They take deposits from their members (customers) and loan them to other members. Members vote on a board of directors who manage operations. They are considered not-for-profit, but they pay interest on deposits. They get some preferential tax treatment and regulation and their deposits are insured by a separate organization if federally accredited. State-chartered credit unions don't have to maintain deposit insurance at all. Their charters specify who can join. They can be regionally based, employer based, or based on some other group with common interests. Regulators restrict them so that they don't interfere too much with banks. Otherwise their preferential tax and regulatory treatment would leave banks uncompetitive. Other organizations with similar limits have gone on to be competitive when the limits were released. For example, there used to be an insurance company just for government employees, the Government Employees Insurance Company. You may know it better as GEICO (yes, the one with the gecko advertisements). Now they offer life and auto insurance all over. Credit unions would like looser limitations (or no limitations at all), but not enough to give up their preferential tax treatment. Banks oppose looser limitations and have as much political clout as credit unions." } ]

[ { "docid": "61968", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on your definition of \"\"inactive\"\". If you have credit cards open and do not use them at all for a period of time, some lenders will not update your usage to the credit bureaus while some will close your account in which will definitely hurt your credit score. But since you use your card once in a while and pay them off, you should be good. Lenders like to see some activity rather than no activity. If there are great offers out there by credit card companies, then why not take advantage of them? The only downside may be the annual fees if there is any but with your credit score, it implies you are financially responsible so there should be no 'compelling financial reason' to not open more cards. In fact, the number of credit accounts you have open can play a role on your score. Essentially the more the better. According to Credit Karma, 0-5 credit accounts is very poor, 6-10 is poor, 11-20 is good, 21+ is excellent.\"" }, { "docid": "471163", "title": "", "text": "Conversly, then you should not enjoy the benefits privided by being in a union then right? That seems simple enough, but that's not how it works. Unions by law have the duty of fair representaion, so even if you are not a member, you still are awarded all the benefits and protections of the contract. So, it's not that simple, because how do you balance that if not for fair share? The union still has to pay to protect you, but you don't have to pay for any of the work they do. So then, if you can get all the benefits of being in the union and not pay a dime for it, why would you? Seems logical right, it's a good deal, we all want to save money. Well as everyone stops paying and the union can't afford to operate as it did, like any organization, it restructures and lays off staff. Now the union no longer has the resources to offer you good representation, which causes the dues paying members to be frustrated and to drop out and or ditch the union entirely. Now no one in your workplace has a voice, a contract, or any protections. That may turn out to be great, but you know, the company wants to save money too.. The company is also no longer obligated to offer you the same wages or benefits that your coworkers negotiated. So now the company is free to cut wages, benefits and workforce to improve thier bottom line or executive bonuses." }, { "docid": "107887", "title": "", "text": "\"the easiest thing would be to go to walmart and stock up on 1000$ money orders paying a 70 cents fee for each. your landlord would almost certainly accept money orders, but double check first just in case. i say stock up because you can't get a money order for more than 1000$ and they usually won't let you buy more than 3 per day. alternatively, you can probably open a bank account using your ssn and your passport. look for any bank offering \"\"free\"\" checking, and they should be able to give you a few \"\"starter\"\" checks on the spot when you open the account. in any case, they can certainly get you a cashier's check for free or a small fee. side note: if you want to shop around for a checking account, look for a bank or credit union offering a \"\"kasasa\"\" account.\"" }, { "docid": "180557", "title": "", "text": "I'm an engineer winding down to an early retirement thanks to saving and managing money well. &gt;why you feel differently? Because unions negotiate to keep raises coming even when the economy craps out. Public employee unions are the worst. Full benefits after retirement, etc., and double dipping. Unions have worn out their usefulness except to exploit capital (or taxpayers). The Boeing case is a pathetic example of the NLRB killing American business. The EEOC is generally a group of whack jobs. Look up EEOC and Jehovah's Witnesses. Their are so many cases where they side with the Jehovah's because they can't work on Saturdays. One case that comes to mind is 5 roommates working at a golf course and after they joined, they said they couldn't work Saturday's (when everyone is playing golf and they need to be there). The EEOC gets abusive more than it helps." }, { "docid": "498728", "title": "", "text": "Assuming you would still have a line of credit, it makes plenty of sense to pay off the loan. You're paying 16 percent for money you don't need right now. Pay it all off and you can start rebuilding your savings account. So what do you do in a future emergency? Well first off, you can use the savings you have rebuilt up to that point to fund some portion of it. The rest you can borrow again, as long as you have a line of credit somewhere. The icing on the cake though, is that once you stop carrying a balance, your credit card purchases will have grace periods again. Once that grace period kicks in, it's an effective short term free loan, and if you really wanted to, you could move money that would otherwise immediately go to purchases into savings. The difference is that you're paying in full again, and aren't charged any interest on the float. Just remember, that if you fail to pay in full by the due date, they charge retroactive interest and fees. An alternative is to find a way to consolidate your credit card bill into a collateralized loan. HELOCs for example. The rates are much cheaper than your CC bill, but require you to have some equity in the home. One thing to consider is that HELOCs are an open line of credit that can't be easily taken away. The interest is also tax deductible, unlike your credit card interest. There's also unsecured lines of credit from banks and credit unions, and if you have the credit score the can be cheaper than credit cards. I think I've shown here that there's plenty of alternatives to carrying credit card debt for the unexpected in life. Pay it off!" }, { "docid": "566234", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking personal loans have higher rates than car loans. During fairly recent times, the market for car loans has become very competitive. A local credit union offers loans as low as 1.99% which is about half the prevailing mortgage rate. In comparison personal loans are typically in the 10-14% range. Even if it made mathematical sense to do so, I doubt any bank would give you a personal loan secured by a car rather than car loan. Either the brain would not work that way; or, it would simply be against company policy. These questions always interest me, why the desire to maximize credit score? There is no correlation between credit score and wealth. There is no reward for anything beyond a sufficiently high score to obtain the lowest rates which is attained by simply paying one's bills on time. One will always be limited by income when the amount able to borrow is calculated regardless of score. I can understand wanting to maximize different aspects of personal finance such as income or investment return percentage, etc.. By why credit score? This is further complicated by a evolving algorithm. Attempts to game the score today, may not work in the future." }, { "docid": "190225", "title": "", "text": "If you have no credit history but you have a job, buying an inexpensive used car should still be doable with only a marginally higher interest rate on the car. This can be offset with a cosigner, but it probably isn't that big of a deal if you purchase a car that you can pay off in under a year. The cost of insurance for a car is affected by your credit score in many locations, so regardless you should also consider selling your other car rather than maintaining and insuring it while it's not your primary mode of transportation. The main thing to consider is that the terms of the credit will not be advantageous, so you should pay the full balance on any credit cards each month to not incur high interest expenses. A credit card through a credit union is advantageous because you can often negotiate a lower rate after you've established the credit with them for a while (instead of closing the card and opening a new credit card account with a lower rate--this impacts your credit score negatively because the average age of open accounts is a significant part of the score. This advice is about the same except that it will take longer for negative marks like missed payments to be removed from your report, so expect 7 years to fully recover from the bad credit. Again, minimizing how long you have money borrowed for will be the biggest benefit. A note about cosigners: we discourage people from cosigning on other people's loans. It can turn out badly and hurt a relationship. If someone takes that risk and cosigns for you, make every payment on time and show them you appreciate what they have done for you." }, { "docid": "424304", "title": "", "text": "I have a fair number of cards floating around some reasons I have opened multiple accounts. I am not saying that it is for everyone but there are valid scenarios where multiple credit cards can make sense." }, { "docid": "402525", "title": "", "text": "Too much work for me. I simply pay TD $109/yr. And make more than that on getting my money to work ~~with~~ for me. If I had been smart I would have opened a credit union account when I first got here, like I had in the states." }, { "docid": "42611", "title": "", "text": "Check with your bank. As of January, 2015, the following banks and credit unions are offering free credit-scores: Announced, in the pipeline: Source: Banks to offer FICO credit scores for free Personal Experience: I've been receiving free FICO score from my credit union for more than 6 months now. Advice: Most people have multiple bank/credit-union accounts. The FICO score will be the same whoever offers it. If none of your financial institutions offer you a free credit-score then you may opt for free services like creditkarma.com or other paid services. Please note that a credit-score is number summarizing your credit-report and should not be confused. In the news:" }, { "docid": "186846", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer is an attempt to answer the actual question posed. Please keep in mind that this applies specifically to the Equifax credit model that Mint uses as mentioned in the accepted answer, and that different models may react in different ways (or not at all). As mentioned in the comments, the number of total accounts you have does not have much bearing on your overall credit score. If you click on Mint's \"\"About Total Accounts\"\" link, you get the following statement: Total Accounts has a low impact on your score. Second, the way the Total Accounts score is represented is misleading. This is not a count of the total number of accounts you have open, but rather how many accounts you have in your total history. Mint's header under this metric is flat out wrong: Try to have a good mix of credit lines open. To back up the assertion that this is looking at total accounts in your credit history rather than just those that are open, my Mint report shows 2 open accounts and 7 closed accounts, for a total of 9. Under the Total Accounts metric, I am plotted smack dab in the middle of the \"\"Not Bad\"\" range, right where people with 9 would be plotted. So the proper advice here is to just let it be and only open new accounts as you need them. As you amass credit history, this metric will continue to grow naturally - it should never decrease. You may ask, then, why did your overall score decrease when you paid off your student loans? Most likely because your average age of credit dropped when you closed your loan account. If you're like most people I know, your student loan is one of your oldest accounts, so closing that account will hurt your score - credit age is measured only on your open accounts.\"" }, { "docid": "416006", "title": "", "text": "Greetings r/finance!! I have a question regarding EBIT and the company that I work for. The steel company I work for reported they made a profit of $1.3 billion profit. Here's the link with some more numbers: http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/arcelormittal-turns-billion-profit-in-second-quarter/article_606a0989-066f-5140-864d-2b04e5f4f294.html Now I am a union worker and like everyone else in my union, we get a profit sharing check based on the company's profit and with the labor agreement we have with them we get a 7.5% cut of it. So my question for you guys why did we recieve this piece of paper today? https://imgur.com/gallery/pSIG3 Why is there still a $33 million dollar loss that we don't get any profit sharing?? Any and all answers or information is appreciated. Thank you for your time in advance!" }, { "docid": "127144", "title": "", "text": "I love working for a CU. Our CRO revels in articles like this. He will post them and tell us this is why we do what we do. We would rather be financial physicians. Our job is heal financial worries and get people on the right path. I have seen our lenders convince folks to not take a loan best that is truly in their best interest. I have seen our investment group tell folks that their investment goals and personal goal don't line up and honestly they should wait. We also do crazy stuff like identifying folks who live in the flood zones and offer them 90 day loan deferment with no fees. That and a care loan for repairs. It's an insanely low interest loan (2%) to help folks get their repairs done. We also lowered our credit requirements for that to where just about every who needs it qualifies. It's also hard to get fired. If you don't hit your sales goal it's ok. You will not lose your job. Yes we are encouraged to meet our goals with incentives but we pretty much get paid something no matter what you do. Pretty much the only way to get fired is to pull a Wells Fargo. If you do something like that your ass is not only fired, the CRO will personally come down and will kick you out the door. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if if he then tied you to his car and dragged you down the street. And you know what, it's working. We are repeatedly breaking every record we set for ourselves. Record loans, record deposits, record account openings. And you better believe that is heavily audit internally and externally. We actually hire auditors to make sure this crap doesn't even start. TLDR; Wells Fargo is the devil. Credit Unions Rule!!!!!" }, { "docid": "371513", "title": "", "text": "I take it the premise of the question is that we're assuming the person isn't worried about the morals. He's a criminal out for a quick buck. And I guess we're assuming that wherever you go, they wouldn't arrest you and extradite you back to the U.S. As others have noted, you can't just walk into a bank the day you graduate high school or get out of prison or whatever and get a credit line of $100,000. You have to build up to that with an income and a pattern of responsible behavior over a period of many years. I don't have the statistics handy but I'd guess most people never reach a credit limit on credit cards of $100,000. Maybe many people could get that on a home equity line of credit, but again, you'd have to build up that equity in your house first, and that would take many years. Then, while $100,000 sounds like a lot of money, how long could you really live on that? Even in a country with low cost of living, it's not like you could live in luxury for the rest of your life. If you can get that kind of credit limit, you probably are used to living on a healthy income. Sure, you could get a similar lifestyle for less in some other countries, but not for THAT much less. If you know a place where for $10,000 a year you can live a life that would cost $100,000 per year in the U.S., I'd like to know about it. Even living a relatively frugal life, I doubt the money would last more than 4 or 5 years. And then what are you going to do? If you come back to the U.S. you'd presumably be promptly arrested. You could get a job in your new country, but you could have done that without first stealing $100,000. Frankly, if you're the sort of person who can get a $100,000 credit limit, you probably can live a lot better in the U.S. by continuing to work and play by the rules than you could by stealing $100,000 and fleeing to Haiti or Eritrea. You might say, okay, $100,000 isn't really enough. What if I could get a $1 million credit limit? But if you have the income and credit rating to get a $1 million credit limit, you probably are making at least several hundred thousand per year, probably a million or more, and again, you're better off to continue to play by the rules. The only way that I see that a scam like this would really work is if you could get a credit limit way out of proportion to any income you could earn legitimately. Like somehow if you could convince the bank to give you a credit limit of $1 million even though you only make $15,000 a year. But that would be a scam in itself. That's why I think the only time you do hear of people trying something like this is when they USED to make a lot of money but have lost it. Like someone has a multi-million dollar business that goes broke, he now has nothing, so before the bank figures it out he maxes out all his credit and runs off." }, { "docid": "593554", "title": "", "text": "The slips from your bank for your HSA account are for an account already established and thus the bank is willing to accept your deposits even if they arrive at the bank after the April 15 deadline, as long as the postmark is April 15 or earlier. The account exists in the bank, they know who you are, and that the payment is received after April 15 is just due to the normal (or even abnormal) delays in postal delivery. For the new account that you tried to establish (with appropriate notarization and timely postmark etc), the credit union could not have received the paperwork as of the close of business on April 15 (except in the very unlikely circumstance that a local letter deposited in the mailbox in the morning gets delivered the same day by USPS: don't extrapolate from stories of how mail was delivered in London in Victorian times). Ergo, you did not have an HSA account in the credit union as of April 15, and they are perfectly correct in refusing to open an account with a April 15 date and put money into it for the previous tax year. To answer the question asked: Are they allowed to ignore the postmark date? Yes, not only are they allowed to ignore the postmark date, the IRS insists that they ignore the postmark date. The credit union prefers to report only the truth: as of April 15, you had not established an HSA account as of April 15; to say otherwise would be making a false statement to the IRS." }, { "docid": "339860", "title": "", "text": "\"You make it look like the US is the leader in import taxes on vehicles. According to this [source](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/free-trade-cars-why-a-useurope-free-trade-agreement-is-a-good-idea-feature), \"\"The standard tariff for importing cars to the U.S. is 2.5 percent of their value. For pickup trucks and commercial vans, the tariff is a whopping 25 percent. Individual European countries don’t charge import duties, but the European Union charges a flat rate of 10 percent on imported automobiles.\"\" When Trump says the US has been screwed over in their trade deals, he's not (always) talking out of his ass.\"" }, { "docid": "410477", "title": "", "text": "&gt;% of GDP Well that's a start. Now: Why should we compare the government of 1900 to the government of today? Please be specific about how it makes sense to draw comparisons across vastly different technologies and monetary landscapes. Also, please supply a credible source. &gt;relative to other countries. ie soviet union, european nations, ... Well of course. The US had a higher per capita GDP than the soviet union or european nations. &gt;i was an econ minor at northwestern (pretty much all Keynesian teaching). Goes to a well known neo-classical 'freshwater' school, says it was 'pretty much all Keynesian'. &gt; i also read a lot of stuff by various austrian economists. Interesting. Tell me why they deny scientific method again? &gt;there's nothing wrong or untrue about that sentence rich = poor. However, everyone = poor. Doesn't make sense. I'm sure you have an argument. If so, please state it clearly so we don't have to go back eight times to figure out what you meant." }, { "docid": "438740", "title": "", "text": "I haven't heard of these before! (And I'm on the board of a Credit Union.) The 0.99% on loans is great. It's especially great on a used car: the steep part of the depreciation curve was paid by the first owner. The network probably have a business relationship with the credit union. Credit unions do indirect lending -- approval of loans that happens at the point of sale, which then the credit union gets as assets. Depending on the cost of that program, it probably won't hurt. Your credit union wants to keep your business, because they know that you have a lot of options for where you bank and where you get loans." }, { "docid": "449630", "title": "", "text": "\"From my experience, payments from banks and other financial entities, such as loyalty programs, generally aren't as large as payments that go the other direction from consumer to bank. Thus, keeping a bank account open simply for some reward/loyalty points may just be changing your behavior for the wrong reasons. The more important scenario is whether or not you have any automated ACH payments or whether your bank account is linked to other services. Perhaps the biggest tell that you're in the clear is when those transactions start occurring from your credit union account. For example: If you had a direct deposit to your BMO bank account, make sure you see deposits start to appear in the credit union account. If you're making automatic withdraws to an online savings or brokerage account, make sure those transfers are stopped and that you instead see them coming out of your new credit union account. You shouldn't need to move the auto loan, but you will need to make sure you can pay it from the new account. Some financial advisors, such as in this BankRate article titled, Lenders can tap bank account for mortgage, even recommend keeping liabilities and assets at different locations. If for whatever reason your financial situation turned bleak, it would be more difficult for the bank to help itself to what's in your checking account. To avoid getting nickel and dimed to death by \"\"payment processing fees\"\", I tend to pay insurance bills yearly or semi-annually. Thus, consider if there is anything that may be coming due in the next 6 months. If so, you might want to get your new account hooked up while you still have all the routing numbers and account numbers in your head. It's a pain to dig this stuff up while also rushing to not be late. If all that is in order, close the account.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "155634", "title": "", "text": "\"It's required by law. 12 USC 1759 (b) requires that membership in a credit union be limited to one or more groups with a \"\"common bond\"\", or to people within a particular geographic area. For lots more gory details on how this is interpreted and enforced, you can read the manual given to credit unions by the National Credit Union Administration, which is their regulatory agency.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "590109", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't see why not. It *could* go over fantastically. Imagine Wal-Mart firing every single solitary employee who didn't come in. Then imagine them busing in thousands of employees from all over the country, providing lodging and transportation, to keep the stores open while they train new people. \"\"Wal-Mart: Going the Extra Mile\"\" The public would eat it up with a spoon! And it would send exactly the message they intend: No unions, no collective bargaining, no negotiation.\"" }, { "docid": "402525", "title": "", "text": "Too much work for me. I simply pay TD $109/yr. And make more than that on getting my money to work ~~with~~ for me. If I had been smart I would have opened a credit union account when I first got here, like I had in the states." }, { "docid": "105828", "title": "", "text": "The bank is expected to issue you a check for the balance of your account, make sure your name and address on file is correct as that is who they will make the check to and send it. Have the credit union also contact Chase, or get a statement from the credit union, about their customer. If the check does bounce back to the credit union and the account was under his name, then you will have to deal with the state and his estate and you will have to find a different solution for the bills." }, { "docid": "578357", "title": "", "text": "\"Note that many credit unions participate in a \"\"branch exchange\"\" program, which lets you access you CU's accounts and services thru the offices of the others. My CU is two states away, but there has been only one case where I felt a need to drive back there. Find out if your has joined this network, and encourage them to do so if they haven't yet. It makes credit unions fully competitive with interstate banks. The shared-branch CU locations may not be maximally convenient, but more keep joining, and the most common transactions can be done by mail or ATM anyway. The biggest advantages of a local CU or bank are that they know the local rules for mortgages, and they may have safe deposit boxes for rent. That, and having a place to unload the pocket change that piles up, are why I've got an account with a small local bank a few blocks from my house as well. Though I keep thinking about joining my alma mater's credit union, and will if the ever get on the shared-branch system.\"" }, { "docid": "433069", "title": "", "text": "I personally spoke with a Questrade agent about my question. To make a long story short: in a margin account, you are automatically issued a loan when buying U.S. stock with a Canadian money. Whereas, in a registered account (e.g. RRSP), the amount is converted on your behalf to cover the debit balance. Me: What happens if I open an account and I place an order for U.S. stocks with Canadian money? Is the amount converted at the time of transfer? How does that work? Agent: In a margin account, you are automatically issued a loan for a currency you do not have, however, if you have enough buying power, it will go through. The interest on the overnight balance is calculated daily and is charged on a monthly basis. We do not convert funds automatically in a margin account because you can have a debit cash balance. Agent: In a registered account, the Canada Revenue Agency does not allow a debit balance and therefore, we must convert your funds on your behalf to cover the debit balance if possible. We convert automatically overnight for a registered account. Agent: For example, if you buy U.S. equity you will need USD to buy it, and if you only have CAD, we will loan you USD to cover for that transaction. For example, if you had only $100 CAD and then wanted to buy U.S. stock worth $100 USD, then we will loan you $100 USD to purchase the stock. In a margin account we will not convert the funds automatically. Therefore, you will remain to have a $100 CAD credit and a $100 USD debit balance (or a loan) in your account. Me: I see, it means the longer I keep the stock, the higher interest will be? Agent: Well, yes, however, in a registered account there will be not be any interest since we convert your funds, but in a margin account, there will be interest until the debit balance is covered, or you can manually convert your funds by contacting us." }, { "docid": "180557", "title": "", "text": "I'm an engineer winding down to an early retirement thanks to saving and managing money well. &gt;why you feel differently? Because unions negotiate to keep raises coming even when the economy craps out. Public employee unions are the worst. Full benefits after retirement, etc., and double dipping. Unions have worn out their usefulness except to exploit capital (or taxpayers). The Boeing case is a pathetic example of the NLRB killing American business. The EEOC is generally a group of whack jobs. Look up EEOC and Jehovah's Witnesses. Their are so many cases where they side with the Jehovah's because they can't work on Saturdays. One case that comes to mind is 5 roommates working at a golf course and after they joined, they said they couldn't work Saturday's (when everyone is playing golf and they need to be there). The EEOC gets abusive more than it helps." }, { "docid": "60996", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't recommend balance transfers. Like many credit card things, they distract you with shiny (\"\"0 percent interest!\"\") and ream you on a 'balance transfer fee'. If you have a decent credit score and working relationship, talk to banks about opening what's called a 'signature loan,' and use that to shift the debt to a lower rate. A local credit union advertises rates 'as low as' 9.75 percent. Which is itself a shiny that you may not qualify for. The really low loans rates you see are secured loans; if you don't pay, they can take the collateral.\"" }, { "docid": "92245", "title": "", "text": "One reason why keep my DCU account active. Free fico credit scores! https://www.dcu.org/electronic_services/index.html but specifically this page https://www.dcu.org/electronic_services/FICO.html By signing up to receive your FREE credit score in PC Branch you'll be able to monitor your credit score, receive two reasons why your credit score is not higher, and learn how to take positive steps towards improving your score. Other services such as this may cost you more than $165* annually. Through DCU you can receive your Equifax FICO Credit Score via PC Branch under Account Manager in your Inbox once a month FREE as part of your Checking Plus or Relationship Checking benefits. ... Digital Credit Union" }, { "docid": "445285", "title": "", "text": "If *everyone* earned enough credits during the summer so they don't have to pay for their energy use in the winter then who is paying the people to produce the energy in the winter? It's mathematically impossible for net metering (crediting people at the same rate they are debited for each unit of energy) to work when everyone is on it. That's why a reduced credit (the same rate wholesale energy producers receive for their energy) is inevitable." }, { "docid": "304905", "title": "", "text": "One of your credit reports said this was negatively impacting your credit. You are entitled to a free copy of your credit report once per year from each of the three major credit reporting companies in the U.S. (TRW, Equifax and one other). It is a good idea to check on these anyway, if you have credit accounts. Get copies from the other two credit reporting companies. See if they also say that your credit is negatively impacted by so many loans, even though the balances are small. If all three credit reporting companies are in consensus about negative effecting your credit, then it is true. If that IS the case, check with your subsidized loan lender about consolidation. If the unsubsidized loans are from the same lender, ask them too. If they're from different lenders, you might want to ask at your bank about getting a debt consolidation loan. You might be able to save money by refinancing (consolidating) the unsubsidized student loans as one loan, maybe even ALL the loans as one loan, particularly if you bank at a credit union." }, { "docid": "371105", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no Federal law that mandates that they must re-open a closed account. They can either refuse the transfer / return the money, or they can optionally re-open your account so they get money (makes more sense for them). It is, however, in one of your agreements that they reserve the right to re-open a closed account in order to receive the deposit. At which point, your account will become active, and the balance may be below the required minimum balance threshold, so you may have maintenance or low-balance fees charged against the account (Credit Unions are less likely to have these fees). If you want to call them out on their BS, you can ask them to cite the law which mandates the re-opening of closed accounts. They will likely fall back on your Member agreement. There may be some state laws that discuss this, but I haven't found anything. This has become such a problem for some bank customers (where they are charged fees on the money they weren't aware they had) that a law was proposed in Sept. 2013, called the Freedom and Mobility in Consumer Banking Act, which would essentially only allow the named account holder(s) to re-open a closed account. I went ahead and looked up the NACHA guidelines for ACH transfers (I got the 2013 version) 2013 Corporate Rules and Guidelines. These lines reference \"\"Article 4A\"\", which is Uniform Commercial Code Section 4A - Funds Transfer. This means that if your account is actually closed, they have an exception to the standard timeframe for issuing a Return Entry. This means that if you notify them (in writing) that you refuse any future credit Entries to the account, they MUST return them. I then went looking for the return reason codes RDFI = Receiving Depository Financial Institution From what I gather, based on these NACHA guidelines, your CU didn't actually close your account. They put it on \"\"hold\"\" or some similar state. If they actually close your account, they are required to issue a Return Entry with Code R02. In your case, your CU doesn't charge you any maintenance fees, but for those working with banks, the best bet is to notify them in writing that you refuse any future credits to the account, or go into a branch and insist on fully closing out the account.\"" }, { "docid": "424304", "title": "", "text": "I have a fair number of cards floating around some reasons I have opened multiple accounts. I am not saying that it is for everyone but there are valid scenarios where multiple credit cards can make sense." }, { "docid": "416006", "title": "", "text": "Greetings r/finance!! I have a question regarding EBIT and the company that I work for. The steel company I work for reported they made a profit of $1.3 billion profit. Here's the link with some more numbers: http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/arcelormittal-turns-billion-profit-in-second-quarter/article_606a0989-066f-5140-864d-2b04e5f4f294.html Now I am a union worker and like everyone else in my union, we get a profit sharing check based on the company's profit and with the labor agreement we have with them we get a 7.5% cut of it. So my question for you guys why did we recieve this piece of paper today? https://imgur.com/gallery/pSIG3 Why is there still a $33 million dollar loss that we don't get any profit sharing?? Any and all answers or information is appreciated. Thank you for your time in advance!" }, { "docid": "323389", "title": "", "text": "\"Ally Bank $0 - from their website (emphasis mine): To receive a wire transfer from a non-U.S. bank: Incoming wire transfers from a non-US bank are processed by our designated receiving bank, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. You'll need to provide the following information to the person or business sending the wire transfer to you: Receiving Bank: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ABA/Routing Number: 021000021 Address: 1 Chase Manhattan PLZ, New York, NY 10005 SWIFT Code or Bank Identification Code: CHASUS33 Beneficiary Account Number: 802904391 Beneficiary Name: List 'Ally Bank' since the wire is being processed by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Further Credit: Your Ally Bank Account Number and your name as it appears on your Ally Bank account. Note: We won't charge you to receive a wire transfer into your Ally account. https://www.ally.com/help/search.html?term=SWIFT&console=false&context=Help&domain=www.ally.com&section=Help+%26+FAQs Alliant Credit Union $0 - from their website (emphasis mine): Direct international wire transfers International wire transfers are handled through our correspondent bank for processing. International wires can take up to 10 business days to be credited to the receiving institution. Funds should be wired to: Northern Trust ABA# 071000152 \"\"Note: US Banks do not use SWIFT codes. This ABA # is used in place of SWIFT codes for US Banks.\"\" 50 South La Salle Street, Chicago, IL 60603 For further credit: Alliant Credit Union Account Number 35101804 11545 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60666 For final credit: Member’s name and complete address (No P.O. Box) Member’s 14-digit account number Destination of funds (checking, savings or loan number) Incoming wire transfers: Wire transfers received Monday - Friday, 7:00am - 3:00pm, CT, will be credited to your account the same day. Wire transfers received after 3:00pm, CT, Monday - Friday and on the weekend will be credited the next business day. Fees: We do not charge a fee to receive incoming wire funds. However, the financial institution wiring the funds may charge for this service. http://www.alliantcreditunion.org/help/receiving-a-wire-transfer-to-your-alliant-account\"" }, { "docid": "476913", "title": "", "text": "Keep your account with Navy Federal, once you get an account at a good credit union keep it. Look for a credit union the students can join, it may be based in the town where the campus is, or one related to the school. Look for a free ATM on campus. Many times it is near the food court or student union or bookstore. If there is none ask the university to get one. If you don't find a local credit union you should be able to deposit the checks via scanner or phone to navy federal." }, { "docid": "438740", "title": "", "text": "I haven't heard of these before! (And I'm on the board of a Credit Union.) The 0.99% on loans is great. It's especially great on a used car: the steep part of the depreciation curve was paid by the first owner. The network probably have a business relationship with the credit union. Credit unions do indirect lending -- approval of loans that happens at the point of sale, which then the credit union gets as assets. Depending on the cost of that program, it probably won't hurt. Your credit union wants to keep your business, because they know that you have a lot of options for where you bank and where you get loans." }, { "docid": "101391", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Cutting taxes to raise tax revenue is a fantasy that has never come true. Reagan tried it and the deficit skyrocketed, so he reversed it: Yet it is true when you understand economics. Texas is living proof of that. Big government overspending and trillions of dollars of extra national debt year over year is extremely wasteful, unsustainable with the threat of national bankruptcy. &gt;**[Trade Helps Explain Texas-Sized Job Growth](http://www.cato.org/blog/trade-helps-explain-texas-sized-job-growth)** &gt; By Daniel Griswold JULY 26, 2011 12:38PM &gt; As its governor, Rick Perry, weighs a run for the White House, Texas has drawn attention for its healthy job growth. Since the recession ended in June 2009, **Texas has accounted for half of the net new jobs added to the U.S. economy, according to the lead story in this morning’s USA Today.** That’s quite a record for one lone state. We’ll leave it to others for now to argue over how much credit Gov. Perry can claim. &gt; **Some credit surely goes to high oil prices, fueling job growth in a sector important to the Texas economy. Another reason for its relatively strong job growth is a friendly business climate, including no state income tax and relatively light regulations. And for those who scapegoat trade for the nation’s persistently high unemployment rate, consider that Texas is the nation’s number one trading state.** As the USA Today story notes: &gt; Overseas shipments by Texas’ strong computer, electronics, petrochemical and other industries rose 21% last year, compared with 15% for the nation, according to the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank. The state also benefits from its proximity to Latin American countries that are big importers of U.S. goods … The surge creates jobs for Texas manufacturers and ports. &gt; As I can attest from recent speaking engagements in San Antonio and Laredo, Texans have embraced their state’s position as the nation’s leading gateway for trade with NAFTA-partner Mexico and the rest of Latin America. &gt; While politicians and union bosses from other states grumble about allegedly unfair trade, the latest trade and job numbers show that the people of Texas are making the most of the opportunities created by our more open economy." }, { "docid": "107887", "title": "", "text": "\"the easiest thing would be to go to walmart and stock up on 1000$ money orders paying a 70 cents fee for each. your landlord would almost certainly accept money orders, but double check first just in case. i say stock up because you can't get a money order for more than 1000$ and they usually won't let you buy more than 3 per day. alternatively, you can probably open a bank account using your ssn and your passport. look for any bank offering \"\"free\"\" checking, and they should be able to give you a few \"\"starter\"\" checks on the spot when you open the account. in any case, they can certainly get you a cashier's check for free or a small fee. side note: if you want to shop around for a checking account, look for a bank or credit union offering a \"\"kasasa\"\" account.\"" }, { "docid": "44593", "title": "", "text": "Looking at your dates, I think I see a pattern. It appears that your statement closing date is always 17 business days before the last business day of the month. For example, if you start at May 31 and start counting backwards, skipping Saturdays, Sundays, and May 30 (Memorial Day), you'll see that May 5 is 17 business days before May 31. I cannot explain why Bank of America would do this. If you ask them, let us know what they say. If it bothers you, find another bank. I do most of my banking (checking, savings, etc.) with a local credit union. Their statements end on the last day of the month, every month without fail. (Very nice, in my opinion.) I have two credit cards with nationally known banks, and although those statements end in the middle of the month, they are consistently on the same date every month. (One of them is on the 13th; the other date I can't recall right now.) You are right, a computer does the work, and your statement date should be able to fall on a weekend without trouble. Even when these were assembled by hand, the statement date could still be on a weekend, and they just wouldn't write it up until the following Monday. You should be able to find another bank or credit union that does this." } ]

[ { "docid": "324911", "title": "", "text": "\"Suppose that I work from home, but do not qualify for a business use of home deduction. As I understand it, this means I cannot deduct trips from home to another work location (e.g., going to a client's home or office to do work there). I do not think this is true. You cannot deduct trips to your main business location, i.e.: you cannot deduct trips to your office or client's location if this is your main client and you routinely work on-site. However, if you only visit your clients on occasion for specific events while doing your routine work at home - you can definitely deduct those trips. The deduction of the home usage itself has nothing to do with it. However, there's a different reason they refer to pub 587. Your home must qualify as principal place of business (even if it doesn't qualify for deduction). The qualifications of \"\"principal place of business\"\" are described in pub 587. \"\"if for some personal reason you do not go directly from one location to the other, you cannot deduct more than the amount it would have cost you to go directly from the first location to the second.\"\" What is not clear to me is what exactly is deductible if there are significant time gaps (within a single day) between trips to different clients. You got it right. What this quote means is that if you have client A and client B, and you drive from A to B - you can only deduct the travel between A and B, nothing else. I.e.: if you have 2 hours to kill and you take a trip to the mall - you cannot deduct the mileage attributable to that trip. You only deduct the actual distance between A and B as it would be had you driven from A to B directly. The example you cite re first client being considered as the place of business is for the case where your home doesn't qualify as principal place of business. In this case you start counting miles from your first client, and only for direct trips from client to client. If you only have 1 client in that day, tough luck, nothing to deduct. Also, it's not clear whether stopoffs between clients would really be \"\"personal reasons\"\", since the appointment times are often set by the client, so it's not as if the delay between A and B was just because I felt like it; there was never the option of going directly from A to B. That's what is called \"\"facts and circumstances\"\". You can argue that you had enough time between meetings to go back to your home office to continue working. The IRS agent auditing you (and you're likely to get audited) will consider that. Maybe will accept it. Maybe not. If I had a gap like that described above, I could save on my taxes by going to the park or a hamburger stand instead of going home between A and B But then you wouldn't be at home, so why would it be \"\"principal place of business\"\" if you're not there? Boom, lost deduction for the trip to the first client. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). You're dealing with deductions that are considered \"\"red flags\"\" for the IRS. I.e.: many people believe that these deductions (business use of your home/car) trigger audits. To substantiate business use of your car you need to keep very good track of your travels (literally travel log, they sell them at Staples), and make sure to distinguish between personal travel and business travel, keep proofs that the meetings took place (although keeping a log is a requirement, it can be backdated/faked, so if audited - the IRS will want to see more than your own documentation). A good tax adviser will educate you on all these rules, and also clarify the complexities you were asking about here. I'm not a tax adviser, so don't rely on this answer when you're preparing your tax return or responding to the IRS audit. In your edit you ask this: Specifically, what I'm wondering is whether it is possible for a home to qualify as a \"\"principal place of business\"\" for purposes of deducting car expenses but not for the home office deduction. The answer is yes. Deductibility is determined by exclusivity of use, among other things. But the fact that you manage your business from your kitchen doesn't make your kitchen any less of a principal place of business. It is non-deductible because you also cook your dinners there, but it is still, nonetheless, your principal place of business. The Pub 587 which I linked to has these qualifications: Your home office will qualify as your principal place of business if you meet the following requirements. You use it exclusively and regularly for administrative or management activities of your trade or business. You have no other fixed location where you conduct substantial administrative or management activities of your trade or business. As you see, exclusivity of the usage of your home area is not a requirement here. The \"\"exclusively and regularly\"\" in the quote refers to your business not using any other location, and managing it from home regularly. I.e.: if you manage your business a day in a year - that's not enough for it to be considered principal. If you manage your business from your office and your home - you cannot consider home as principal.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "327263", "title": "", "text": "First of all, Dilip's answer explains well how the business deductions generally work. For most (big) expenses you depreciate it. However, in some cases you need to capitalize it, which is another accounting method. When you capitalize your expense, it becomes part of the basis of the product you're creating. Since you're an engineer, this might be relevant for you. Talk to your tax adviser. How exactly you deduct/depreciate/capitalize things, and what expense goes which way depends greatly on the laws and jurisdictions. Even in the US, different states have different laws, and the IRS and State laws don't have to conform (unfortunately). For example, the limitations on Sec. 179 deduction in 2010-2011 were 20 times higher on Federal level than in the State of California. This could have lead to cases where you fully deducted your expense on your Federal tax return, but need to continue and depreciate it on your State return (or vice versa). Good tax adviser is crucial to avoid or manage these cases." }, { "docid": "391619", "title": "", "text": "It would be unusual but it is possible that the expenses could be very high compared to your income. The IRS in pub 529 explains the deduction. You can deduct only unreimbursed employee expenses that are: Paid or incurred during your tax year, For carrying on your trade or business of being an employee, and Ordinary and necessary. An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense doesn't have to be required to be considered necessary. The next part lists examples. I have cut the list down to highlight ones that could be large. You may be able to deduct the following items as unreimbursed employee expenses. Damages paid to a former employer for breach of an employment contract. Job search expenses in your present occupation. Legal fees related to your job. Licenses and regulatory fees. Malpractice insurance premiums. Research expenses of a college professor. Rural mail carriers' vehicle expenses. Tools and supplies used in your work. Work clothes and uniforms if required and not suitable for everyday use. Work-related education. If the term of employment was only part of the year, one or more of the these could dwarf your income for the year. Before deducting something that large be sure you can document it. I believe the IRS computers would flag the return and I wouldn't be surprised if they ask for additional proof." }, { "docid": "51491", "title": "", "text": "You cannot deduct expenses directly. However, your employer may participate in programs to allow you to make a pretax deduction capped at $255 per month to pay for certain commuting expenses. For personal car commuters the main category is to pay for parking. IRS guidelines Qualified Transportation Benefits This exclusion applies to the following benefits. A ride in a commuter highway vehicle between the employee's home and work place. A transit pass. Qualified parking. Qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement. You may provide an employee with any one or more of the first three benefits at the same time. However, the exclusion for qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement isn't available in any month the employee receives any of the other qualified transportation benefits." }, { "docid": "329812", "title": "", "text": "This depends in part on who officially owns the account. Federally, 529 plan contributions are not tax-deductible, regardless of ownership. Anyone can contribute to a 529 plan, though; the earnings of the 529 plan are tax-deferred and are tax-free if they are used for qualified educational expenses. In the state of New York, the account owner is entitled to deduct up to 10,000 (Married filing jointly) from their state taxes; however, that's limited to the account owner only. If they're not in the state of New York, they may be able to have similar benefits from their home state; check their rules. You may have multiple accounts for one child, though, so if you and they both want to contribute for your child, that's perfectly fine. The limits are at the taxpayer level, so you can deduct $10k for all contributions to all children's accounts in sum (5k per kid if you have 2, and want to contribute equally, for example), but they can do the same. Gift tax is the other relevant thing to consider. You can contribute $14k per year without either paying gift tax or adding it to the lifetime maximum (which is currently $1.5MM, but could change at any time either up or down). You can also make a one-time contribution of 70k (5 years' worth) and have that amount exempt as if it were contributed over five years. For more information on all of this, see the New York 529 Page for more details." }, { "docid": "414288", "title": "", "text": "Congratulations for achieving an important step in the road to financial freedom. Some view extending loan payment of loans that allow the deduction of interest as a good thing. Some view the hit on the credit score by prematurely paying off an installment loan as a bad thing. Determining the order of paying off multiple loans in conjunction with the reality of income, required monthly living expense, and the need to save for emergencies is highly individualized. Keeping an artificial debt seems to make little sense, it is an expensive insurance policy to chase a diminishing tax benefit and boost to a credit score. Keep in mind it is a deduction, not a credit, so how much you save depends on your tax bracket. It might make sense for somebody to extend the loan out for an extra year or two, but you can't just assume that that advice applies in your situation. Personally I paid off my student loan early, as soon as it made sense based on my income, and my situation. I am glad I did, but for others the opposite made more sense." }, { "docid": "236122", "title": "", "text": "The answer on the Canadian Government's website is pretty clear: Most employees cannot claim employment expenses. You cannot deduct the cost of travel to and from work, or other expenses, such as most tools and clothing. However, that is most likely related to a personal vehicle. There is a deduction related to Public Transportation: You can claim cost of monthly public transit passes or passes of longer duration such as an annual pass for travel within Canada on public transit for 2016. The second sleeping residence is hard to justify as the individual is choosing to work in this town and this individual is choosing to spent the night there - it is not currently a work requirement. As always, please consult a certified tax professional in your country for any final determinations on personal (and corporate) tax laws and filings." }, { "docid": "267945", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it is stated perfectly in the question, \"\"unforeseen critical needs.\"\" You know you will need to buy new tires for your car, they are critical but not unforeseen. However, if a tree falls on your car and you need to pay the insurance deductible for the repairs it would be unforeseen. You should budget for the expenses you can plan for in advance like car maintenance and repairs. An emergency fund is for items that are out of the ordinary.\"" }, { "docid": "109455", "title": "", "text": "\"You have heard the old adage \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\", right? That sounds so obvious that you'd have to wonder why they would ever bother coining such an expression. It should rank up there with \"\"Don't walk in front of a moving car\"\" on the Duh scale of advice. Well, your question demonstrates exactly why it isn't quite so obvious in the real world and that people need to be reminded of it. So, in your example, the stock prices are currently low (relative to what they have been). So per that adage, do you sell or buy when prices are low? Hint: It isn't sell. Yes. Your gut is going to tell you the exact opposite thanks to the fact that our brains are unfortunately wired to make us susceptible to the loss aversion fallacy. When the market has undergone a big drop is the WORST time to stop contributing (buying stocks). This example might help get your brain and gut to agree a little more easily: If you were talking about any other non-investment commodity, cars for instance. Your question equates to.. I really need a car, but the prices have been dropping like crazy lately. Maybe I should wait until the car dealers start raising their prices again before I buy one. Dollar Cost Averaging As littleadv suggested, if you have an automatic payroll deduction for your retirement account, you are getting the benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging. Because you are investing the same amount on a scheduled interval, you are buying more shares when they are cheap and fewer when they are expensive. It is like an automatic buy low strategy is built into the account. The alternative, which you are implying, is a market timing strategy. Under this strategy, instead of investing regularly you try to get in and out of investments right before they go up/drop. There are two MAJOR flaws with this approach: 1) Your brain will work against you (see above) and encourage you to do the exact opposite of what you should be doing. 2) Unless you are clairvoyant, this strategy isn't much better than gambling. If you are lucky it can work, but because of #1, the odds are stacked against you.\"" }, { "docid": "114234", "title": "", "text": "\"Gross income is used because there are a lot of variables inherent in the calculation of a \"\"net income\"\", including a lot of things under your direct control that you could use to game the system. \"\"Net Income\"\", as others have inferred, is a very flexible term. For the average individual, the definition that would most easily come to mind is likely post-deduction, post-tax earnings; \"\"take-home pay\"\". It sounds reasonable, too, as the amount you take home each month can be easily demonstrated with your two most recent pay stubs (which you need to bring in anyway to verify gross earnings). However, even that simplistic definition is fraught with possibility. You have the ability to modify your pre-tax deductions, such as for retirement or healthcare, and that in turn affects your taxes and thus your net take-home pay. To assume that you won't do that is foolish for the loan officer. Other definitions of \"\"net income\"\", such as, in the case of shopping for a house, \"\"disposable income plus current rent\"\", are the result of even longer lists of deductions from gross pay. Many are also dependent on your current home; your electric bill is a function of the size, location and construction of your current home, all of which will change as soon as you move in. Your other bills, such as telecom (TV/phone/internet) are also more or less location-dependent, as even within a single city or metro area, your choice of services and service providers is dictated by the home's physical location. You may have to pay through the nose right now because your current home isn't serviced by anyone's fiber-optic network, while the home you're moving into could be in a hotly-contested area with access to multiple fiber-optic trunks. So, to simplify all this, mortgage companies simply ask for gross income, then apply a metric that makes relatively conservative assumptions about your spending habits to arrive at a final amount. The upside is simplicity, the downside being that two people both making $60,000/yr may have two completely different financial pictures behind that single number.\"" }, { "docid": "431782", "title": "", "text": "\"These cars are generally considered out of date and are less prone to be victims of car theft while being reasonably safe. Make sure you pick a model with a good reliability reputation, see what comes up at your local junk yard (the common old models have survived long enough to not end up there until now). Servicing your car takes some effort and some initial investments, but learning how to fix simple problems by yourself will save you a lot of money in the long run. Start by learning how to locate some simple faults. Diagnosing issues is a very costly process if done professionally, but some you may be able to find by yourself. All cars sold in USA from 1996 are required to have this connection below the steering rack. As a consequence most cars manufactured 1995 will have this connector world wide. If you connect your OBD2 adapter to this port your car will be able to tell you what's wrong through an app on your phone and you will be able to clear fault codes by yourself to make sure the problem really is solved. This is what you mechanic should use when servicing your car. While a new print can be expensive you can find used manuals getting thrown out of service centers or at yard sales. These will include service notes and sometimes had-written notes to help you out. The majority of parts on scrapped cars are still in working condition and may not ever see significant wear and tear. If you put some time into removing the part yourself you will have a good idea of how difficult it is to replace the part on your car and outsource the work to a professional if needed. This of course assumes you bring good parts. The main income should come from the work performed on your car, not the markup of spare parts. Generally speaking specialized mechanics working with one or few brands of cars are preferable as these will not only be familiar with your car but are also more likely to get original spare parts (not \"\"pirate\"\" parts made to be compatible at a cheaper price). This will make sure the part works as intended and not cause wear and tear of other parts. For example you'd much rather replace a broken fuse instead of cleaning up the aftermath of fried electronics. Turn off the AC when it's not needed. There should be a button labeled \"\"ECON\"\" or similar which will disable the AC compressor while keeping the rest of the systems running. The compressor is usually driven by a belt from the crankshaft and will eat up some of the power your engine produces. Just remember that while it saves gas, uncomfortable driving conditions may shorten your patience and reduces your attention. Accelerate up to speed quickly. Contrary to popular belief, this saves more gas than accelerating slowly because the time your engine is under increased load is shorter combined with higher efficiency at medium engine speeds. Allow your speed to decline on uphills, you will regain that speed once the road levels out. Unless you're in heavy traffic driving a bit slower shouldn't harm the flow. Don't let go of the gas pedal, just avoid compensating as much. Your target should be to not lose more than 20% of your speed over the entire ascent and have a constant deceleration or you will start interfering with traffic. Make sure your car is healthy. As obvious as it may sound, worn out parts may harm your mileage. Increased friction in bearings due to broken protective covers or reduced pressure from a broken exhaust are just examples if things that will ruin the efficiency of you driveline. By themselves they may not do much but they add up into both gas consumption and reliability issues. Really do read your owners manual. Nobody knows your car better than the people who built it. What's best for my car may not be best for your car and the best way to make sure your car is working as intended is to take an afternoon with your manual and a cup of your favorite beverage. Afterwards you will know how all the features of your car works. \"\"Take care of your car and it takes care of you\"\" is the principle I'm working with. A car you're happy with will make you more calm behind the wheel and leads to higher quality of your driving decisions. Both you and your fellow commuters will benefit from this, even if they may never take the time to thank you.\"" }, { "docid": "15103", "title": "", "text": "You have to sit down with HR for the school district. The options involved with with parents working for the same employer can be handled multiple ways. Unless you are a very small district, this situation has come up before. They will tell you what they allow, and then you have to determine which one saves you the most money. Also look into how the deductibles will work with the two policies. You also need to look at options for the two policies. For example if there are different levels of dental: you may not want to cover an orthodontist on the single plan." }, { "docid": "310612", "title": "", "text": "\"You should probably have a tax professional help you with that (generally advisable when doing corporation returns, even if its a small S corp with a single shareholder). Some of it may be deductible, depending on the tax-exemption status of the recipients. Some may be deductible as business expenses. To address Chris's comment: Generally you can deduct as a business on your 1120S anything that is necessary and ordinary for your business. Charitable deductions flow through to your personal 1040, so Colin's reference to pub 526 is the right place to look at (if it was a C-corp, it might be different). Advertisement costs is a necessary and ordinary expense for any business, but you need to look at the essence of the transaction. Did you expect the sponsorship to provide you any new clients? Did you anticipate additional exposure to the potential customers? Was the investment (80 hours of your work) similar to the costs of paid advertisement for the same audience? If so - it is probably a business expense. While you can't deduct the time on its own, you can deduct the salary you paid yourself for working on this, materials, attributed depreciation, etc. If you can't justify it as advertisement, then its a donation, and then you cannot deduct it (because you did receive something in return). It might not be allowed as a business expense, and you might be required to consider it as \"\"personal use\"\", i.e.: salary.\"" }, { "docid": "335857", "title": "", "text": "\"You probably want to think about pools of money separately if they have separate time horizons or are otherwise not interchangeable. A classic example is your emergency fund (which has a potentially-immediate time horizon) vs. your retirement savings. The emergency fund would be all in cash or very short-term bonds, and would not count in your retirement asset allocation. Since the emergency fund usually has a capped value (a certain amount of money you want to have for emergencies) rather than a percentage of net worth value, this especially makes sense; you have to treat the emergency fund separately or you'd have to keep changing your asset allocation percentages as your net worth rises (hopefully) with respect to the capped emergency amount. Similarly, say you are saving for a car in 3 years; you'd probably invest that money very conservatively. Also, it could not go in tax-deferred retirement accounts, and when you buy the car the account will go to zero. So probably worth treating this separately. On the other hand, say you have some savings in tax-deferred retirement accounts and some in taxable accounts, but in both cases you're expecting to use the money for retirement. In that case, you have the same time horizon and goals, and it can pay to think about the taxable and nontaxable accounts as a whole. In particular you can use \"\"asset location\"\" (put less-tax-efficient assets in tax-deferred accounts). In this case maybe you would end up with mostly bonds in the tax-deferred accounts and mostly equities in the taxable accounts, for tax reasons; the asset allocation would only make sense considering all the accounts, since the taxable account would be too equity-heavy and the tax-deferred one too bond-heavy. There can be practical reasons to treat each account separately, too, though. For example if your broker has a convenient automatic rebalancing tool on their website, it probably only works within an account. Treating each account by itself would let you use the automatic rebalancing feature on the website, while a more complicated asset location strategy where you rebalance across multiple accounts might be too hard and in practice you wouldn't get around to it. Getting around to rebalancing could be more important than tax-motivated asset location. You could also take a keep-it-simple attitude: as long as your asset allocation is pretty balanced (say 40% bonds) and includes a cash allocation that would cover emergencies, you could just put all your money in one big portfolio, and think of it as a whole. If you have an emergency, withdraw from the cash allocation and then rebuild it over time; if you have a major purchase, you could redeem some bonds and then rebuild the bond portion over time. (When I say \"\"over time\"\" I'm thinking you might start putting new contributions into the now-underallocated assets, or you might dollar-cost-average back into them by selling bits of the now-overallocated assets.) Anyway there's no absolute rule, it depends on what's simple enough to be manageable for you in practice, and what separate shorter-horizon investing goals you have in addition to retirement. You can always make things complex but remember that a simple plan that happens in real life is better than a complex plan you don't keep up with in practice (or a complex plan that takes away from activities you'd enjoy more).\"" }, { "docid": "396066", "title": "", "text": "Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored." }, { "docid": "398206", "title": "", "text": "Your question is best asked of a tax expert, not random people on the internet. Such an expert will help you ask the right questions. For example you did not point out the country or state in which you live. That matters. First point is that you will not pay tax on 60K, its expensive to transact real estate, so your net proceeds will be closer to 40K. Also you can probably the deduct the costs of improvements. You implied that you really like this rental property. If that is the case, why would you sell...ever? This home could be a central part of your financial independence plan. So keep it until you die. IIRC when it passes to your heirs, a new cost basis is formed thereby not passing the tax burden onto them. (Assuming the property is located in the US.)" }, { "docid": "156640", "title": "", "text": "\"Short answer, yes. But this is not done through the deductions on Schedule A. This can happen if the employer creates a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) for its employees. This can be created for certain approved uses like medical and transportation expenses (a separate account for each category). You can contribute amounts within certain limits to these accounts (e.g. $255 a month for transportation), with pre-tax income, deduct the contributions, and then withdraw these funds to cover your transportation or medical expenses. They work like a (deductible) IRA, except that these are \"\"spending\"\" and not \"\"retirement\"\" accounts. Basically, the employer fulfills the role of \"\"IRA\"\" (FSA, actually) trustee, and does the supporting paperwork.\"" }, { "docid": "146388", "title": "", "text": "You've got two options. Deduct the business portion of the depreciation and actual expenses for operating the car. Use the IRS standard mileage rate of $.575/mile in 2015. Multiply your business miles by the rate to calculate your deduction. Assuming you're a sole proprietor you'll include a Schedule C to your return and claim the deduction on that form." }, { "docid": "510716", "title": "", "text": "To expand a little on what littleadv said, you can only deduct what something cost you. Even if you had done volunteer work for a charity as a sole prop you could only deduct your actual costs. If you paid an employee to do charity work or to learn something related to the business that would be deductible as a normal business expense. Some common sense would show that if you could deduct something that didn't cost you anything (your time) you could deduct away all of your income and avoid paying taxes altogether. Back to your more nuanced question could 2 businesses you own bill each other for services? Yes, but you will still have to pay taxes for money earned under each of them. You will also need to be careful that the IRS does not construe the transactions as being done solely to lower your tax bill." }, { "docid": "44152", "title": "", "text": "Couple of points about being a consultant in the US: It sounds like the rules for what you can deduct may be more lax in Italy. For example, you can deduct a certain percentage of your home for work but the rules are relatively strict on your use of that space and how much is deductible. Also things like clothes, restaurants, phones, car use, etc must follow IRS guidelines to be deductible. This often means they are used exclusively for work and are required for work. A meal you eat by yourself is not generally deductible, for example. Any expense you would have had anyway if you were not working is generally not deductible. A contractor in the US can organize in various ways, including sole proprietorship, an S-corp, and a C-corp. Each has different tax and regulatory implications. In the simple case of a sole proprietorship, one must pay not only regular income tax but also self-employment tax, which is the part of social security and medicare tax normally paid for by one's employer. Estimated taxes must be paid to the government quarterly and then the actual amount due synced up at the end of the year (with the government sending you the difference or vice versa). Generally speaking contractors may set aside more money pre-tax for retirement and have better investment options. This is because solo 401(k) retirement accounts are cost-effective and flexible and the contractor can set aside the full $18K pre-tax as well as having the company contribute generously (pre-tax) to the retirement account. Contractors can also easily employ spouses and set aside even more. The details of how frequently you are paid as a contractor and how much notice (if any) the company must give you before terminating your relationship are negotiated between you and the company and are generally pretty flexible. You could get paid your whole year salary in a lump sum if you wanted. The company that is paying you will not normally give you any benefits whatsoever...in this way it is the same situation as it is in Italy. By the way the three points you mention in your edit are definitely not true in the US." } ]

[ { "docid": "66356", "title": "", "text": "In a sole proprietorship AND an LLC, the expenses can still be deducted against the profits or losses from the operations. The IRS does not even require that a profit seeking activity be incorporated under its own entity, hence why this is also applicable in a sole proprietorship. From what you've said, there is no reason to use a more complicated and costly corporate structure at all. In comparison, a sole proprietorship and single-member LLC will be completely pass through entities to the IRS and all of their earnings go to you. With the LLC you have the option of letting the LLC's earnings remain with the entity itself, or you can just treat it as your own and pay individual income taxes on it. This has nothing to do specifically with a gambling business and is largely a red herring to your profit seeking motives. Gambling in casino games and lotteries already enjoy favorable tax treatment in some regards. Gambling in capital markets also enjoy a myriad of favorable tax laws. A business entity related to this purpose should be able to deduct costs related to this trade (and pass an audit more convincingly than not having formed an LLC and business bank account)" } ]

[ { "docid": "169408", "title": "", "text": "If you want to trade to gain from short-term volatility, you can use Derivative-based ETFs that try to track the inverse of a broad index like the S&P 500. Note that these ETFs only track the index over a 1 day period, so you shouldn't hold these. If you're looking for a longer-term investment strategy, look at low-beta stocks, which often do well or produce dividend income during volatile times. Examples include McDonald's Corp and utilities like Consolidated Edison." }, { "docid": "399848", "title": "", "text": "If this activity were to generate let's say 100K of profit, and the other corporate activities also generate 100K of revenue, are there any issues tax-wise I need to be concerned about? Yes. Having 25% or more of passive income in 3 consecutive years will invalidate your S-Corp status and you'll revert to C-Corp. Can I deduct normal business expenses from the straddles (which are taxed as short term capital gains) profit? I don't believe you can. You can deduct investment expenses from the investment income. On your individual tax return it will balance out, but you cannot mix types of income/expense on the corporate return or K-1." }, { "docid": "388704", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\"" }, { "docid": "482165", "title": "", "text": "It depends on the structure of your business. Are you a sole proprietor filing Schedule C on your 1040, or an S-corp, or part of a partnership? The treatment of a home office will differ depending on business entity." }, { "docid": "59853", "title": "", "text": "This doesnt happen in Germany, why? Labor gets half the board seats. When corps cut, everyone gets cuts. Everyone shares the pain. When corps do well, EVERYONE does better. They dont chop up a corp and sell it off for parts. They dont send all the jobs to china. This is also how you get things like this [How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much](http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/) just remember it is the unions keeping american autoworkers from competeting and yet they get paid less than their german counterparts that live in an economy the fraction of our size. [If you look at gdp per person, WE are 6th on the planet, and germany 17th](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita) what does all this mean? Everyone is getting part of the economic growth and the meme that the right go off on that unions are destroying business in the US is BS. WE have a much richer country than germany. WE should be paying our workers even more than them. WE CAN AFFORD TO. They sure as shit can afford to with less money per person to go arround." }, { "docid": "249322", "title": "", "text": "I am a registered S-corp but for alot of industries that threshold is too low (I'm in housing) &gt;Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? &gt; &gt;As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. &gt; &gt;Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this. The article I posted also doesn't take into account state taxes, do example non deductible B&amp;O, end user Sales tax or impact fees... That Employees don't pay or often even know about, yet some of us small business owners are also employees, so we get double taxed..." }, { "docid": "248629", "title": "", "text": "If you have no net income or loss, you can usually get away without filing a tax return. In Illinois, the standard is: Filing Requirements You must file Form IL-1120 if you are a corporation that has net income or loss as defined under the IITA; or is qualified to do business in the state of Illinois and is required to file a federal income tax return (regardless of net income or loss). http://tax.illinois.gov/Businesses/TaxInformation/Income/corporate.htm Just keep your filing fee and any business licenses up to date, paying those fees personally and not out of business money (that would make for a net loss and trigger needing a tax return). Frankly, with how easy it is to register a new corp, especially an LLC which has many simplicity advantages from an S-corp in certain cases, you might still be better off shutting it down until that time." }, { "docid": "162884", "title": "", "text": "A great way to learn is by watching then doing. I run a very successful technical analysis blog, and the first thing I like to tell my readers is to find a trader online who you can connect with, then watch them trade. I particularly like Adam Hewison, Marketclub.com - This is a great website, and they offer a great deal of eduction for free, in video format. They also offer further video based education through their ino.tv partner which is paid. Here is a link that has their free daily technical analysis based stock market update in video format. Marketclub Daily Stock Market Update Corey Rosenblum, blog.afraidtotrade.com - Corey is a Chartered Market Technician, and runs a fantastic technical analysis blog the focuses on market internals and short term trades. John Lansing, Trending123.com - John is highly successful trader who uses a reliable set of indicators and patterns, and has the most amazing knack for knowing which direction the markets are headed. Many of his members are large account day traders, and you can learn tons from them as well. They have a live daily chat room that is VERY busy. The other option is to get a mentor. Just about any successful trader will be willing to teach someone who is really interested, motivated, and has the time to learn. The next thing to do once you have chosen a route of education is to start virtual trading. There are many platforms available for this, just do some research on Google. You need to develop a trading plan and methodology for dealing with the emotions of trading. While there is no replacement for making real trades, getting some up front practice can help reduce your mistakes, teach you a better traders mindset, and help you with the discipline necessary to be a successful trader." }, { "docid": "494880", "title": "", "text": "Your question mixes up different things. Your LLC business type is determined by how you organize your business at the state level. Separately, you can also elect to be treated in one of several different status for federal taxation. (Often this automatically changes your tax status at the state level too, but you need to check that with your state tax authority.) It is true that once you have an EIN, you can apply to be taxed as a C Corp or S Corp. Whether or not that will result in tax savings will depend on the details of your business. We won't be able to answer that for you. You should get a professional advisor if you need help making that determination." }, { "docid": "138691", "title": "", "text": "The reason your scheme fails is because you're attempting to make all bonds trade at their face value plus interest, regardless of the credit of the issuer. In all of your examples, you're suggesting I can pay my bill to the electric company using bonds from XYZ corp. Does my electric company have a right to refuse XYZ Corp bonds as payment and demand other payment? If they do have a right to refuse payment, it is almost a certainty my electric company will have no interest in poring over the books of XYZ Corp or MomAndPop's Country Diner in order to decide whether they accept or reject the payment. They will simply reject it and demand cash. If they can NOT refuse to accept the payment, then you will immediately have all sorts of shell corps who's only purpose is to accumulate debt and act as a free money printing press for some other shadowy entity. In both cases, your plan fails." }, { "docid": "29835", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't stress out too much about what you call the category. As long as it makes sense to you and your tax accountant it should be fine. Besides, it's usually pretty easy to rename a category in the future. Just for reference, my accountant set up my categories (also for S-Corp) like this (though this was 8 years ago but I still use them today):" }, { "docid": "15112", "title": "", "text": "Neither site offers index futures or options pricing. Your best best is likely to get the quote from a broker who supports trading those vehicles. Free sites usually limit themselves to stocks and sometimes to options chains -- the exception is Reuters where just about any security for which you have the reuters formatted trading symbol can be quoted." }, { "docid": "477603", "title": "", "text": "How is the business organized? If as a General Partnership or LLC that reports as a partnership, you will be getting distributed to you each year your % ownership of the earnings or loss. But note, this is a paperwork transfer on the form K-1, which must then carryover to your tax return, it does not require the transfer of cash to you. If organized as an S-Corp, you should be holding shares of the company that you may sell back to the S-Corp, generally as outlined in the original articles of incorporation. The annual 'dividend' (earnings remaining after all expenses are paid) should be distributed to you in proportion to the shares you hold. If a C-Corp and there is only one class of stock that you also hold a percentage of, the only 'profits' that must be distributed proportionally to you are declared dividends by the board of directors. Most family run business are loosely formed with not much attention paid to the details of partnership agreements or articles of incorporation, and so don't handle family ownership disputes very well. From my experience, trying to find an amicable settlement is the best...and least expensive....approach to separation from the business. But if this can't be done or there is a sizable value to the business, you may have to get your own legal counsel." }, { "docid": "385073", "title": "", "text": "It's whatever you decide. Taking money out of an S-Corp via distribution isn't a taxable event. Practically speaking, yes, you should make sure you have enough money to afford the distribution after paying your expenses, lest you have to put money back a few days later in to pay the phone bill. You might not want to distribute every penny of profit the moment you book it, either -- keeping some money in the business checking account is probably a good idea. If you have consistent cash flow you could distribute monthly or quarterly profits 30 or 60 days in arrears, for example, and then still have cash on hand for operations. Your net profit is reflected on the Schedule K for inclusion on your personal tax return. As an S-Corp, the profit is passed through to the shareholders and is taxable whether or not you actually distributed the money. You owe taxes on the profit reported on the Schedule K, not the amounts distributed. You really should get a tax accountant. Long-term, you'll save money by having your books set up correctly from the start rather than have to go back and fix any mistakes. Go to a Chamber of Commerce meeting or ask a colleague, trusted vendor, or customer for a recommendation." }, { "docid": "311192", "title": "", "text": "\"Bit hesitant to put this in an answer as I don't know if specific investment advice is appropriate, but this has grown way too long for a comment. The typical answer given for people who don't have the time, experience, knowledge or inclination to pick specific stocks to hold should instead invest in ETFs (exchange-traded index funds.) What these basically do is attempt to simulate a particular market or stock exchange. An S&P 500 index fund will (generally) attempt to hold shares in the stocks that make up that index. They only have to follow an index, not try to beat it so are called \"\"passively\"\" managed. They have very low expense ratios (far below 1%) and are considered a good choice for investors who want to hold stock without significant effort or expense and who's main goal is time in the market. It's a contentious topic but on average an index (and therefore an index fund) will go even with or outperform most actively managed funds. With a sufficiently long investment horizon, which you have, these may be ideal for you. Trading in ETFs is also typically cheap because they are traded like stock. There are plenty of low-fee online brokers and virtually all will allow trading in ETFs. My broker even has a list of several hundred popular ETFs that can be traded for free. The golden rule in investing is that you should never buy into something you don't understand. Don't buy individual stock with little information: it's often little more than gambling. The same goes for trading platforms like Loyal3. Don't use them unless you know their business model and what they stand to gain from your custom. As mentioned I can trade certain funds for free with my broker, but I know why they can offer that and how they're still making money.\"" }, { "docid": "205341", "title": "", "text": "\"Am I on crack, or do the perceived tax savings via S-Corp distributions really not matter at a certain level of business income? You're not on crack. Generally, if all the income is generated by your own personal services - this is the outcome. The benefit of S-Corp is when you have employees who generate your income, and you distribute to yourself profits that come out of other's personal services. In this case your distributions are exempt from FICA since it is not in fact a self-employment income. You'd still have to pay yourself a reasonable salary for your position (as a manager/officer), but it wouldn't have to cover all of the available profits. So if the IRS takes a position against you it would be that your salary should be to include the whole profits, since it is the compensation to you for the personal services that produced the income to the corporation (you). In many cases they might agree that a salary at the SS maximum limit would be reasonable - but that's only a speculation of mine. In that case you might gain some portion of the medicare tax (with the recent law changes at the levels you're talking about you'll pay some medicare anyway). There are a lot of accountants who take more aggressive position saying that not all of the distributions are liable for SE taxes, even if you're the sole employee of the corporation. These cases often end up in the Tax Court, and whatever the outcome, your legal fees become higher than the FICA savings. What is probably missing in your picture is the SS limit of (currently $112K) above which you don't pay social security tax, so whether you get it as a salary or as a distribution - that limit is the same. That is why you don't see a significant difference. I know there are a lot of accountants who'd disagree, but I would argue that for a sole employee of your company, S-Corp doesn't provide significant benefits over the disregarded LLC taxation, but has some additional overhead that adds to your expenses. Here's a link to a lawyer's blog where he suggests (and says many accountants follow) 60/40 division between salary and distributions. I.e.: his take, similarly to mine, is that most of the earnings have to be treated as salary. In your case, when the total is about 300K - you indeed will not get any FICA savings with such a division other than some of the medicare. Unusually low wages when compared to distributions can draw unwanted IRS scrutiny and an audit. An unfavorable audit will likely result in some portion of the distributions being reclassified as earned income for federal income tax purposes, which results in a deficiency assessment (i.e., a tax bill), interest on those unpaid taxes, and IRS penalties. The article also talks about the Watson case (one of the Tax Court cases I referred to), which can be used as the guidelines for determining the \"\"reasonable\"\" compensation. Talk to your tax adviser. I'm neither a tax adviser nor a tax professional. For a tax advice contact a CPA/EA licensed in your state. This is not a tax advice, just my personal opinion.\"" }, { "docid": "386349", "title": "", "text": "PocketSmith is another tool you might like to consider. No personal banking details are required, but you can upload your transactions in a variety of formats. Pocketsmith is interesting because it really focus on your future cash flow, and the main feature of the interface is around having a calendar(s) where you easily enter one off or repetitive expenses/income. http://www.pocketsmith.com/" }, { "docid": "64598", "title": "", "text": "When in doubt, you should always seek the advice of a professional tax preparer or your accountant. (Many agents/accountants will gladly review your tax preparations to ensure you haven't missed something. That's quicker and cheaper than paying them to do it all.) Having said that... This Illinois resource has detailed information about S-corps: Of relevance to your situation:" }, { "docid": "396968", "title": "", "text": "Basically, no. You have retirement plan options and can either go with a Roth option, which won't change your current tax burden, or go with a traditional plan, which is tax deductible but won't change your business deductions or self-employment taxes. This article has an explanation of options for setting up SEP or Solo 401k plans. Key quote for all the pre-tax retirement plans: Because pre-tax employer and employee contributions are deducted in the same way, neither one is more tax-efficient than the other. The article goes on to say that if you were an S Corp or LLC that elected to be taxed as an S Corp, a Solo 401(k) plan would allow the business to make an employer contribution to your 401(k) and even then there's no tax advantage to the employer contribution. Conclusion for S-corps: [Employer contributions] would reduce the amount of income from the S-corporation that would be passed through to you as the owner, thereby reducing your income tax. But, because this income is not subject to payroll taxes in the first place, these contributions will not reduce your payroll taxes." } ]

[ { "docid": "70452", "title": "", "text": "\"You probably don't need S-Corp. There's no difference between what you can deduct on your Schedule C and what you can deduct on 1120S, it will just cost you more money. Since you're gambling yourself, you don't need to worry about liability - but if you do, you should probably go LLC route, much cheaper and simpler. The \"\"reasonable salary\"\" trick to avoid FICA won't work. Don't even try. Schedule C for professional gamblers is a very accepted thing, nothing extraordinary about it.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "84422", "title": "", "text": "\"OneTwoTrade is a binary option seller, and they are officially licensed by the Malta Gaming Authority. They are not in any way licensed or regulated as an investment, because they don't do actual investing. Is your money safe? If you mean will they take your money and run off with it, then no they probably won't just take your deposit and refuse to return any money to you for nothing - that would be a terrible way to make money for the long-term. If you mean \"\"will I lose my money?\"\" - oh yeah, you probably will! Binary options - outside of special sophisticate financial applications - are for people who think day trading has too little risk, or who would prefer online poker with a thin veneer of \"\"it's an investment!\"\" In the words of Forbes, Don't Gamble On Binary Options: If people want to gamble, that’s their choice. But let’s not confuse that with investing. Binary options are a crapshoot, pure and simple. These kinds of businesses run like a casino - there's a built-in house advantage, you are playing odds (which are against you), and the fundamental product is trying to bet on short-term volatility in financial markets. This is often ridiculously short-terms, measured in minutes. It's often called \"\"all or nothing options\"\", because if you bet wrong you lose almost everything - they give you a little bit of the money you bet back (so you will bet again, preferably with more of your own money). If you bet correctly you get a pay-out, just like in craps or roulette. If you are looking to gamble online, this is one method to do it. But this isn't investing, you are as mathematically likely to lose your money and/or become addicted as any other form of money-based gambling, and absolutely treat it the same way you would a casino: decide how much money you are willing to spend on the adventure before you start, and expect you'll likely not get much or any of that money back. However, I will moralize on this point - I really hate being lied to. Casinos, sports betting, and poker all generally have the common decency to call it what it is - a game where you are playing/betting. These sorts of \"\"investment\"\" providers are woefully dishonest: they say it's an exciting financial market, a new type of investment, investors are moving to this to secure their futures, etc. It's utterly deceptive and vile, and it's all about as up-front and honest as penny auction websites. If you are going to gamble, I'd urge you to do it with people who have the decency to to call it gambling and not lie to you and ask for a \"\"minimum investment\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "107536", "title": "", "text": "Supposedly this also means that I am free from having to pay California corporate taxes? Not in the slightest. Since you (the corporate employee) reside in CA - the corporation is doing business in CA and is liable for CA taxes. Or, does this mean I am required to pay both CA taxes and Delaware fees? (In this case, minimal, just a paid agent from incorporate.com) I believe DE actually does have corporate taxes, check it out. But the bottom line is yes, you're liable for both CA and DE costs of doing corporate business (income taxes, registered agents, CA corp fee, etc). Is there any benefit at all for me to be a Delaware C-Corp or should I dissolve and start over. Or just re-incorporate as California LLC Unless you intend to go public anytime soon or raise money from VCs/investors - there's no benefit whatsoever in incorporating in DE. You should seek a legal advice with an attorney, of course, since benefits are legal issues (usually related to choosing jurisdiction for litigation etc). If you're a one-person freelancer, doing C-Corp was not the best decision as well. Tax-wise you'd be much better off with a S-Corp, or a LLC - both pass-through and have no (Federal) entity-level taxes. Corporate rates are generally higher than individual rates, and less deductions can be taken. In California, check with a CPA/EA licensed in the State, since both S-Corp and LLC would be taxed, and taxed differently." }, { "docid": "310612", "title": "", "text": "\"You should probably have a tax professional help you with that (generally advisable when doing corporation returns, even if its a small S corp with a single shareholder). Some of it may be deductible, depending on the tax-exemption status of the recipients. Some may be deductible as business expenses. To address Chris's comment: Generally you can deduct as a business on your 1120S anything that is necessary and ordinary for your business. Charitable deductions flow through to your personal 1040, so Colin's reference to pub 526 is the right place to look at (if it was a C-corp, it might be different). Advertisement costs is a necessary and ordinary expense for any business, but you need to look at the essence of the transaction. Did you expect the sponsorship to provide you any new clients? Did you anticipate additional exposure to the potential customers? Was the investment (80 hours of your work) similar to the costs of paid advertisement for the same audience? If so - it is probably a business expense. While you can't deduct the time on its own, you can deduct the salary you paid yourself for working on this, materials, attributed depreciation, etc. If you can't justify it as advertisement, then its a donation, and then you cannot deduct it (because you did receive something in return). It might not be allowed as a business expense, and you might be required to consider it as \"\"personal use\"\", i.e.: salary.\"" }, { "docid": "510441", "title": "", "text": "The only possibility that I've seen in the past is if some of the income is for deferred services which are to be delivered in the following tax year, a portion of the income can be deferred. Also, agree that you should be an S-corp and talk to another CPA if yours hasn't told you that yet." }, { "docid": "477603", "title": "", "text": "How is the business organized? If as a General Partnership or LLC that reports as a partnership, you will be getting distributed to you each year your % ownership of the earnings or loss. But note, this is a paperwork transfer on the form K-1, which must then carryover to your tax return, it does not require the transfer of cash to you. If organized as an S-Corp, you should be holding shares of the company that you may sell back to the S-Corp, generally as outlined in the original articles of incorporation. The annual 'dividend' (earnings remaining after all expenses are paid) should be distributed to you in proportion to the shares you hold. If a C-Corp and there is only one class of stock that you also hold a percentage of, the only 'profits' that must be distributed proportionally to you are declared dividends by the board of directors. Most family run business are loosely formed with not much attention paid to the details of partnership agreements or articles of incorporation, and so don't handle family ownership disputes very well. From my experience, trying to find an amicable settlement is the best...and least expensive....approach to separation from the business. But if this can't be done or there is a sizable value to the business, you may have to get your own legal counsel." }, { "docid": "399848", "title": "", "text": "If this activity were to generate let's say 100K of profit, and the other corporate activities also generate 100K of revenue, are there any issues tax-wise I need to be concerned about? Yes. Having 25% or more of passive income in 3 consecutive years will invalidate your S-Corp status and you'll revert to C-Corp. Can I deduct normal business expenses from the straddles (which are taxed as short term capital gains) profit? I don't believe you can. You can deduct investment expenses from the investment income. On your individual tax return it will balance out, but you cannot mix types of income/expense on the corporate return or K-1." }, { "docid": "28347", "title": "", "text": "@littleadv is right, this depends on your country. Furthermore, this is likely to depend on the type of business you own (in the US: LLC, S-corp, C-corp). In some countries you have to provide yourself a minimum wage if you are classified as a major shareholder and work for the company. When there is a minimum level of wage you have to pay yourself the tax rate on wages is typically higher than on dividends. The wage you then receive is taxed in line with normal wage taxation rules. Above the minimum wage you can pay yourself in dividends." }, { "docid": "151023", "title": "", "text": "An LLC is a very flexible company when it comes to taxation. You have three basic tax options: There are other good reasons to create an LLC (mainly to protect your personal assets) so even if you decide that you don't want to deal with the complications of an S-Corp LLC, you should still consider creating a sole proprietorship LLC." }, { "docid": "384850", "title": "", "text": "\"My Broker and probably many Brokers provide this information in a table format under \"\"Course of Sale\"\". It provides the time, price and volume of each trade on that day. You could also view this data on a chart in some charting programs. Just set the interval to \"\"Tick by Tick\"\" and look at the volume. \"\"Tick by Tick\"\" will basically place a mark for every trade that is taken and then the volume will tell you the size of that trade.\"" }, { "docid": "423074", "title": "", "text": "There are many aspects to consider in deciding what sort of company you want to form. Instead of an S-corporation, you should determine whether it would be better to form a Limited Liability Company (LLC), Limited Partnership (LP) or even a professional company (PC). Littleadv is correct: There is minimal benefit in forming an S-corp with you and your wife as the shareholders, if you will be the only contributor-worker. There are costs associated with an S-corporation, or any corporation, that might outweigh benefits from more favorable tax treatment, or personal protection from liability: Filing fees and disclosure rules vary from state to state. For example, my father was a cardiologist who had no employees, other than my grandmother (she worked for free), in a state with income taxes (NM). He was advised that a PC was best in New Mexico, while an S-Corp was better in Florida (there are no personal income taxes in Florida). The only way to know what to do requires that you consult an accountant, a good one, for guidance." }, { "docid": "370976", "title": "", "text": "Everything in life is a combination of luck and skill. Startups are no different. The risks are higher and most sensible people know and understand that. You know why we worship the successes? Because against all odds, those startups stood up to your salaried buddies who work for faceless large corporations and have tons of people and kicked their asses. At some point, they deserve it. You see startups as gambling, others see it as betting on yourself. Especially founding or joining an early stage startup. It's also taking on huge responsibility. In a mega-corp your failures and shortcomings will be covered and almost certainly won't tank the company. Your creativity probably won't flourish and their is an incentive to do just well enough. Why should you work your ass off for a company that you're not invested in other than a paycheck? Startups aren't for everyone. Hell, startups probably aren't for most people. But there are some people, those select few, who simply can't imagine not working for themselves, creating things, tinkering, trying to change the world. It's not even gambling to them, it's a way of life." }, { "docid": "592606", "title": "", "text": "No, Las Vegas works because its an entertainment destination that also has gambling. Steve Wynn tried to explain this to AC back in the 1980's and the city and state didnt listen to him so he got out of that market completely." }, { "docid": "121187", "title": "", "text": "An S-corp doesn't pay income tax -- taxation is pass-through. This being the case, there are no tax deductions it could take for charitable giving. The solution would be for you to make the contribution out of your own pocket and then personally claim the deduction on your own taxes." }, { "docid": "150496", "title": "", "text": "EDIT: I think it's a fairly straightforward cause &amp; effect. You tax the transactions, it lowers the incentive to do frequent trading. So yes, I do think it would limit it effectively. I'm under no illusion that speculating will end. But I think we need to dial it back a bit so that investment is the primary driver in the market, not gambling. I'm not anti speed, but the markets serve a real purpose: They allow for liquidity &amp; for useful capital allocation. And liquidity is nothing if all the machines are set to sell, sell, sell. This is what caused some of the crashes. Also, we had liquidity prior to all this High Frequency trading. I'm unsure that the added liquidity makes up for the cons of turning an investment engine into a gambling engine. You dont' even have to believe me. There are a few big time investors that say they are out of the market because it is no longer governed by reason." }, { "docid": "150219", "title": "", "text": "\"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are \"\"we\"\"? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the policy of our company. For example: \"\"Every two months profits get divided 50/50\"\" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean. Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc.\"" }, { "docid": "453961", "title": "", "text": "\"Is it possible if (After getting EIN) I change my LLC type (disregarded entity or C type or S type or corporation or change in number of members) for tax saving ? You marked your question as \"\"real-estate\"\", so I'm guessing you're holding rental properties in your LLC. That means that you will not be able to qualify for S-Corp, only C-Corp treatment. That in turn means that you'll be subject to double taxation and corporate tax rate. I fail to see what tax savings you're expecting in this situation. But yes, you can do it, if you so wish. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) before you make any changes, because it will be nearly impossible to reverse the check-the-box election once made (for at least 5 years).\"" }, { "docid": "40276", "title": "", "text": "Hey, sole proprietorships called (don't those comprise roughly 50% of all businesses?) they want to know what corporate tax is. Hell, most of them want to know what payroll tax is. They just know it's not fun paying both halves of it. From my perspective over on the incorporated side: Oh HEY, I'm incorporated as an S-Corp or and LLC -remember those?- and they're going to suck out five percent MORE of my GROSS. I'll fax you my cash flows statement. It's going to look like a severed artery. For those lucky enough to be joining us from the C-Corp world, enjoy trying to retain your key employees without seeing your payroll costs go through the roof. If you have all your employees by the balls because they don't have the skills to easily transfer [if you think you do, hint: you don't] then I hope you have the stomach to watch them all falling further and further behind and into debt. I don't." }, { "docid": "572242", "title": "", "text": "I did not file taxes on last season winnings as I’ve received conflicting advise (particularly regarding self-employment taxes). I have all my documentation to support my winnings should I file as a professional gambler. Oh dear. Get a GOOD tax adviser (licensed as EA, CPA or Attorney in Nevada) who's specializing in providing services to people like you and have it resolved ASAP. You're in major non-compliance. If you earned by gambling more than you earned by working in years, and you haven't reported that on your taxes - you may very well find yourself in jail. As to your original question - why on earth would you have a corporation for gambling? Or LLC... Why? What's the liability that you want to shield yourself of? It's your money that you're risking, and the risk is that you lose it, how is LLC or Corp going to help you in any way? Gambling winnings are reported as miscellaneous income (whether you're professional or just got lucky once with a slot machine - no matter), and if you're a pro (and it sounds like that since you're doing it systematically and in order to make profits), then yes, you pay SE taxes on it. Whoever told you anything else told you to break the law. Which you did, unfortunately." }, { "docid": "519619", "title": "", "text": "I made upwards of 3M from 200K by trading stocks, which I made from a business that I invested 20K in. HOWEVER, DO NOT use trading stocks as a source of income, you're gambling with your precious cash. There are safer alternatives." } ]

[ { "docid": "333954", "title": "", "text": "Normally, incorporation is for liability reasons. Just file your taxes as a business. This just means adding a T2125 to your personal return. There's no registering, that's for GST if over a certain threshold. There's even a section in the instructions for internet businesses. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4002/t4002-e.html#internet_business_activities This is the form you have to fill out. Take note that there is a place to include costs from using your own home as well. Those specific expenses can't be used to create or increase a loss from your business, but a regular business loss can be deducted from your employment income. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t2125/t2125-15e.pdf" } ]

[ { "docid": "308938", "title": "", "text": "\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \"\"write check\"\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \"\"make deposit\"\" in its QB file. (In QB you \"\"write check\"\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \"\"negative expense\"\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\"" }, { "docid": "341220", "title": "", "text": "\"No, there are no issues. When you form the corp in DE, you pick a business there to serve as your \"\"agent\"\" (essentially someone who knows to get in contact with you). The \"\"agent\"\" will notify you about taxes and any mail you get, but besides the fee they charge you for being the agent, you should file all the taxes directly with DE (franchise tax is easy to file on the web) instead of going through the agent and paying a surcharge. When your LLC files taxes, you'll do so in DE and then the LLC will issue you a federal and state K1. You'll file taxes where you reside and use the federal K1, but I think you might have to file DE state taxes (unsure about this part, feel free to edit or comment and I'll correct).\"" }, { "docid": "65095", "title": "", "text": "As an individual freelancer, you would need to maintain a book of accounts. This should show all the income you are getting, and should also list all the payments incurred. This can not only include the payments to other professionals, but also any hardware purchased, phone bills, any travel and entertainment bills directly related to the service you are offering. Once you arrive at a net profit figure, you would need to file this as your income. Consult a tax professional and he can help with how to keep the records of income and expenses. i.e. You would need to create invoices for payments, use checks or online transfers for most payments, segregate the accounts, one account used for this professional stuff, and another for your personal stuff, etc. In a normal course the Income Tax Department does not ask for these records, however whenever your tax returns get scrutinized on a random basis, they would ask for all the relevant documentations." }, { "docid": "318388", "title": "", "text": "According to the government website, the answer appears to be no in terms of personal income. However you may want to anyway to start creating RRSP contribution room as well as possibly qualify for GST/HST credit. If your business is registered you are going to be required to file a tax return for it (and if it is a sole proprietorship then you would be required to file a T1 regardless). When all is said and done, it seems that it's probably better to file rather than not file; even if you pay no income tax at least you are sure you won't receive a nasty letter from Revenue Canada in the future :)" }, { "docid": "491528", "title": "", "text": "\"Disclaimer: I work in life insurance, but I am not an agent. First things first, there is not enough information here to give you an answer. When discussing life insurance, the very first things we need to fully consider are the illustration of policy values, and the contract itself. Without these, there is no way to tell if this is a good idea or not. So what are the things to look for? A. Risk appetite. People love to discuss projections of the market, like for example, \"\"7-8% a year compounded annually\"\". Go look at the historical returns of the stock market. It is never close to that projection. Life insurance, however, can give you a GUARANTEED return (this would be show in the 'Guaranteed' section of the life insurance illustration). As long as you pay your premiums, this money is guaranteed to accrue. Now most life insurance companies also show 'Non-Guaranteed' elements in their illustrations - these are non-guaranteed projections based on a scale at this point in time. These columns will show how your cash value may grow when dividends are credited to your policy (and used to buy paid-up additional insurance, which generates more dividends - this can be compared to the compounding nature of interest). B. Tax treatment. I am definitely not an expert in this area, but life insurance does have preferential tax treatment, particularly to your beneficiaries. C. Beneficiaries. Any death benefit (again, listed as guaranteed and maybe non-guaranteed values) is generally completely tax free for the beneficiary. D. Strategy. Tying all of this together, what exactly is the point of this? To transfer wealth, to accrue wealth, or some combination thereof? This is important and unstated in your question. So again, without knowing more, there is no way to answer your question. But I am surprised that in this forum, so many people are quick to jump in and say in general that whole life insurance is a scam. And even more surprising is the fact the accepted answer has already been accepted. My personal take is that if you are just trying to accrue wealth, you should probably stick to the market and maybe buy term if you want a death benefit component. This is mostly due to your age (higher risk of death = higher premiums = lower buildup) and how long of a time period you have to build up money in the policy. But if a 25 year old asked this same question, depending on his purposes, I may suggest that a WL policy is in fact a good idea.\"" }, { "docid": "555102", "title": "", "text": "\"Allowances are calculated as your total deductions divided by the tax year's personal exemptions. As mentioned above it is a multiplier. For 2015 the standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is $12,600 and each of you gets 1 personal exemption ($4,000 in 2015). That's a total of $12,600 + 2*($4,000) or $20,600. Divide this by the personal exemption and you get roughly 5 allowances. Now say your employer offers health insurance and a 401(k) plan. Your total health insurance (or \"\"cafeteria\"\" contributions) are $2,000 for the year, and your total 401(k) plan contributions are $6,000 for the year. This would give an additional $2,000 + $6,000 = $8,000 divided by $4,000 = 2 allowances. Thus you would file with 7 allowances. Note that tax credits are not included in the allowance calculation. That is because they do not affect your taxable income but rather directly reduce your taxes due.\"" }, { "docid": "351925", "title": "", "text": "\"1 - in most cases, the difference between filing joint or married filing single is close to zero. When there is a difference you're better off filing joint. 2 - The way the W4 works is based on how many allowances you claim. Unfortunately, even in the day of computers, it does not allow for a simple \"\"well my deduction are $xxx, don't tax that money.\"\" Each allowance is equal to one exemption, same as you get for being you, same as the wife gets, same as each kid. 3 people X $3800 = $11,400 you are telling the employer to take off the top before calculating your tax. She does this by using Circular E and is able to calculate your tax as you request. If one is in the 15% bracket, one more exemption changes the tax withheld by $570. So if you were going to owe $400 in April, one few exemption will have you overpay $170. i.e. in this 15% bracket, each exemption changes annual withholding by that $570. For most people, running the W4 numbers will get them very close, and only if they are getting back or owing over $500, will they even think of adjusting. 3 - My recently published Last Minute Tax Moves offers a number of interesting ideas to address this. The concept of grouping deductions in odd years is worth noting. 4 - I'm not sure what this means, 2 accounts each worth $5000 should grow at the same rate if invested the same. The time it makes sense to load one person's account first is if they have better matching. You say you are not sure what percent your wife's company matches. You need to change this. For both of your retirement plans you need to know every detail, exact way to maximize matching, expense ratios for the investments you choose, any other fees, etc. Knowledge is power, and all that. In What is an appropriate level of 401k fees or expenses in a typical plan? I go on to preach about how fees can wipe out any tax benefit over time. For any new investor, my first warning is always to understand what you are getting into. If you can't explain it to a friend, you shouldn't be in it. Edit - you first need to understand what choices are within the accounts. The 4% and 6% are in hindsight, right? These are not fixed returns. You should look at the choices and more heavily fund the account with the better selection. Deposit to her account at least to grab the match. As far as the longer term goals, see how the house purchase goes. Life has a way of sending you two kids and forcing you to tighten the budget. You may have other ideas in three years. (I have no P2P lending experience, by the way.) Last - many advise that separate finances are a bad path for a couple. It depends. Jane and I have separate check books, and every paycheck just keep enough to write small checks without worry, most of the money goes to the house account. Whatever works for you is what you should do. We've been happily married for most of the 17 years we've been married.\"" }, { "docid": "453257", "title": "", "text": "No, there is no special leniency given to first time tax payers. In general, this shouldn't be an issue. The IRS collects your taxes out of every one of your paychecks throughout the entire year in what is called a Withholding Tax. The amount that the IRS withholds is calculated on your W-4 Form that you file with your employer whenever you take a new job. The form helps you calculate the right number of allowances to claim (usually this is the number of personal exemptions, but depending upon if you work a second job, are married and your spouse works, or if you itemize, the number of allowances can be increased. WITHHOLDING TAX Withholding tax (also known as “payroll withholding”) is essentially income tax that is withheld from your wages and sent directly to the IRS by your employer. In other words, it’s like a credit against the income taxes that you must pay for the year. By subtracting this money from each paycheck that you receive, the IRS is basically withholding your anticipated tax payment as you earn it. In general, most people overestimate their tax liability. This is bad for them, because they have essentially given the IRS an interest free loan (and weren't able to use the money to earn interest themselves.) I haven't heard of any program targeted at first time tax payers to tell them to file a return, but considering that most tax payers overpay they should or they are giving the government a free grant." }, { "docid": "276411", "title": "", "text": "This is a complicated question that relies on the US-India Tax Treaty to determine whether the income is taxable to the US or to India. The relevant provision is likely Article 15 on Personal Services. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/india.pdf It seems plausible that your business is personal services, but that's a fact-driven question based on your business model. If the online training is 'personal services' provided by you from India, then it is likely foreign source income under the treaty. The 'fixed base' and '90 days' provisions in Article 15 would not apply to an India resident working solely outside the US. The question is whether your US LLC was a US taxpayer. If the LLC was a taxpayer, then it has an obligation to pay US tax on any worldwide income and it also arguably disqualifies you from Article 15 (which applies to individuals and firms of individuals, but not companies). If you were the sole owner of the US LLC, and you did not make a Form 8832 election to be treated as subject to entity taxation, then the LLC was a disregarded entity. If you had other owners, and did not make an election, then you are a partnership and I suspect but cannot conclude that the treaty analysis is still valid. So this is fact-dependent, but you may be exempt from US tax under the tax treaty. However, you may have still had an obligation to file Forms 1099 for your worker. You can also late-file Forms 1099 reporting the nonemployee compensation paid to your worker. Note that this may have tax consequences on the worker if the worker failed to report the income in those years." }, { "docid": "440506", "title": "", "text": "I have researched this question extensively in previous years as we have notoriously high taxes in California, while neighboring a state that has zero corporate income tax and personal income tax. Many have attempted pull a fast one on the California taxation authorities, the Franchise Tax Board, by incorporating in Nevada or attempting to declare full-year residence in the Silver State. This is basically just asking for an audit, however. California religiously examines taxpayers with any evidence of having presence in California. If they deem you to be a resident in California, and they likely will based on the fact that you live in California (physical presence), you will be subject to taxation on your worldwide income. You could incorporate in Nevada or Bangladesh, and California will still levy its taxation on any business income (Single Member LLCs are disregarded as separate corporate entities, but still taxed at ordinary income rates on the personal income tax basis). To make things worse, if California examines your Single Member LLC and finds that it is doing business in California, based on the fact that its sole owner is based in California all year long, you could feasibly end up with additional penalties for having neglected to file your LLC in California (California LLCs are considered domestic, and only file in California unless they wish to do business in other states; Nevada LLCs are considered foreign to California, requiring the owner to file a domestic LLC organization in Nevada and then a foreign LLC organization in California, which still gets hit with the minimum $800 franchise fee because it is a foreign LLC doing business in California). Evading any filing responsibility in California is not advisable. FTB consistently researches LLCs, S-Corporations and the like to determine whether they've been organized out-of-state but still principally operated in California, thus having a tax nexus with California and the subsequent requirement to be filed in California and taxed by California. No one likes paying taxes, and no one wants to get hit with franchise fees, especially when one is starting a new venture and that minimum $800 assessment seems excessive (in other words, you could have a company that earns nothing, zero, zip, nada, and still has to pay the $800 minimum fee), but the consequences of shirking tax laws and filing requirements will make the franchise fee seem trivial in comparison. If you're committed to living in California and desire to organize an LLC or S-Corp, you must file with the state of California, either as a domestic corporation/LLC or foreign corporation/LLC doing business in California. The only alternatives are being a sole proprietor (unincorporated), or leaving the state of California altogether. Not what you wanted to hear I'm sure, but that's the law." }, { "docid": "576985", "title": "", "text": "How long you need to keep tax records will depend on jurisdiction. In general, if you discard records in a period of time less than your tax authority recommends, it may create audit problems down the road. ie: if you make a deduction supported by business expense receipts, and you discard those receipts next year, then you won't be able to defend the deduction if your tax authority audits you in 3 years. Generally, how long you keep records would depend on: (a) how much time your tax authority has to audit you; and (b) how long after you file your return you are allowed to make your own amendments. In your case (US-based), the IRS has straight-forward documentation about how long it expects you to keep records: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/how-long-should-i-keep-records Period of Limitations that apply to income tax returns Keep records for 3 years if situations (4), (5), and (6) below do not apply to you. Keep records for 3 years from the date you filed your original return or 2 years from the date you paid the tax, whichever is later, if you file a claim for credit or refund after you file your return. Keep records for 7 years if you file a claim for a loss from worthless securities or bad debt deduction. Keep records for 6 years if you do not report income that you should report, and it is more than 25% of the gross income shown on your return. Keep records indefinitely if you do not file a return. Keep records indefinitely if you file a fraudulent return. Keep employment tax records for at least 4 years after the date that the tax becomes due or is paid, whichever is later. Note that the above are the minimum periods to keep records; for your own purposes you may want to keep them for longer periods than that. For example, you may be in a position to discover that you would like to refile a prior tax return, because you forgot to claim a tax credit that was available to you. If you would have been eligible to refile in that period but no longer have documentation, you are out of luck." }, { "docid": "412855", "title": "", "text": "\"Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! You will have to submit on your income from the business. The term \"\"partnership\"\" refers to a specific business entity type in the U.S. I'm not sure if you're using it the same way. In a partnership in the U.S. you pay income tax on your share of the partnership's income whether or not you actually receive income in your personal account. There's not enough information here to know if that applies in your case. (In the U.S., the partnership itself does not pay income tax - It is a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" for tax purposes, with the tax liability passed through to the partners as individuals.) Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? As regards language, you will file a tax return on a U.S. form presumably in English. You will not have to submit your account information on any other form, so the fact that your documentation is in German does not matter. The only exception that comes to mind is that you could potentially get audited (just like anyone else filing taxes in the U.S.) in which case you might need to produce your documentation. That situation is rare enough that I wouldn't worry about it though. I'm not sure if they'd take it in German or force you to get a translation. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? Q) Is this correct!? The long-term capital gains rate is 15% for most people. (At very high incomes it is 20%.) It sounds like you would qualify for long-term (held for greater than 1 year) capital gains in this case, although the details might matter. There is a foreign tax credit, but I'm not completely sure if it would apply in this case. (If forced to guess, I would say that it does.) If you search for \"\"foreign tax credit\"\" and \"\"IRS\"\" you should get to the information that you need pretty quickly. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Even in this case you will not need to submit any of your paperwork to the IRS, unless you get audited. See earlier comments.\"" }, { "docid": "495980", "title": "", "text": "\"ASSUMING a person knows how to use and invest their money wisely, would it still be a bad idea to entirely disregard a 401k plan? Yes. A 401k, like an IRA, is a \"\"qualified plan\"\" and as such enjoys certain legal protections. For a Roth 401k, the taxes are paid now and the interest accumulates tax free, and withdrawals will be tax-free. Doing it on your own means that your own savings will have interest taxed as you earn it. For a traditional 401k, current savings are deducted from current earnings, and the withdrawals will be taxed. Doing it on your own loses the deferral of tax at this time. Generally, 401ks and IRAs are highly resistant to judgements in civil lawsuits. If you file for bankruptcy protection at any time in your working career, the assets in these accounts are immune (in most states) from being used to pay off your creditors. If you do it on your own, that savings account will be emptied to pay off creditors in bankruptcy and also will be assets that can be taken from you in civil judgements (for example, you get in a car accident and they sue you). You might never be sued, nor file bankruptcy in your entire life, but you are unnecessarily exposing yourself to risks: anything might happen in the next 50 years. What you will lose in such circumstances far outweighs any perceived benefits you could possibly earn by rolling your own. If you are the sort of person who can max out your 401k and IRA contributions each year, and still have a significant sum to set aside for savings, you should contact an investment advisor and attorney to see about protecting your assets.\"" }, { "docid": "228445", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you have to file a tax return in Canada. Non residents that have earned employment income in Canada are required to file a Canadian personal income tax return. Usually, your employer will have deducted sufficient taxes from your pay-cheques, resulting in a tax refund upon filing your Canadian tax return. You will also receive a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid in Canada." }, { "docid": "291749", "title": "", "text": "No, thanks to the principle of corporate personhood. The legal entity (company C) is the owner and parent of the private company (sub S). You and C are separate legal entities, as are C and S. This principle helps to legally insulate the parties for purposes such as liability, torts, taxes, and so forth. If company C is sued, you may be financially at stake (i.e. your investment in C is devalued or made worthless) but you are not personally being sued. However, the litigant may attach you as an additional litigant if the facts of the suit merit it. But without legal separateness of corporations, then potentially all owners and maybe a number of the employees would be sued any time somebody sued the business - which is messy for companies and messy for litigants. It's also far cleaner for lenders to lend to unified business entities rather than a variety of thousands of ever-shifting shareholders. Note that this is a separate analysis that assumes the companies are not treated as partnerships or disregarded entities (tax nothings) for tax purposes, in which case an owner may for some purposes be imputed to own the assets of C. I've also ignored the consolidated tax return, which would allow C and S to file a type of corporate joint return that for some purposes treats them similarly to common entity. For the simplest variation of your question, the answer is no. You do not own the assets of a corporation by virtue of owning a few of its shares. Edit: In light of your edit to include FB and Whatsapp, and the wrinkle about corporate books. If sub S is 100% owned by company C, then you do not have any inspection rights to S because you are not a shareholder. You also do not have virtual corporation inspection rights through company C. However, if a person has inspection rights to company C, and sub S appears on the books and financial records of C, then your C rights will do the job of seeing S information. However, Facebook is a public company, so they will make regular public filings and disclosures that should at least partly cover Whatsapp. So I hedge and clear my throat by averring that my securities training is limited, but I believe that the SEC filings of a public company will as a practical matter (maybe a matter of law?) moot the inspection rights. At the very least, I suspect you'd need a proper purpose (under DGCL, for example), to demand the inspection, and they will have already made extensive disclosures that I believe will be presumptively sufficient. I defer to more experienced securities experts on that question, but I don't believe inspection rights are designed for public companies." }, { "docid": "568255", "title": "", "text": "Welcome to the working world. I will answer these a bit out of order. C) Your withholding has almost zero chance of being correct. Just about everyone has to pay or gets a refund. I typically shoot for +- of $1000, and that is tough. A) Your W-2 is where you adjust the amount of tax that is withheld. You should fill out a new one as soon as possible. You can use a paycheck calculator to figure out the proper tax that should be withheld. B) No. D) Yes you will owe Utah state tax. See this site. The rub of this all is that you may have to pay Idaho tax prior to being refunded your Federal. If you want to avoid this file your federal return as soon as possible (Goal: File by 7 Feb). You should have the return in 3 weeks or less (presuming you are owed one). That will give you plenty of time to file and pay any Idaho tax owed. I say all of this because you may be tempted to go to a tax preparation shop and take an advance on your income tax return. Those loans are for people that hate money and are designed to tempt the foolish. They are only slightly better than payday loans." }, { "docid": "594652", "title": "", "text": "The only way you will incur underpayment penalties is if you withhold less than 90% of the current year's tax liability or 100% of last years tax liability (whichever is smaller). So as long as your total tax liability last year (not what you paid at filing, but what you paid for the whole year) was more than $1,234, you should not have any penalty. What you pay (or get back) when you file will be your total tax liability less what was withheld. For example, you had $1,234 withheld from your pay for taxes. If after deduction and other factors, your tax liability is $1,345, you will owe $111 when you file. On the other hand, if your tax liability is only $1,000, you'll get a refund of $234 when you file, since you've had more withheld that what you owe. Since your income was only for part of the year, and tax tables assume that you make that much for the whole year, I would suspect that you over-withheld during your internship, which would offset the lack of withholding on the other $6,000 in income." }, { "docid": "198532", "title": "", "text": "Since you're a US citizen, submitting W8-BEN was wrong. If you read the form carefully, when you signed it you certified that you are not a US citizen, which is a lie and you knew it. W9 and W8 are mutually exclusive. You're either a US person for tax purposes or you're not, you cannot be both. As a US citizen - you are a US person for tax purposes, whether you have any other citizenship or not, and whether you live in (or have ever been to) the US or not. You do need to file tax returns just like any other US citizen. If you have an aggregate of $10K or more on your bank accounts outside of the US at any given day - you need to file FBAR. FATCA forms may also be applicable, depending on your balances. From foreign banks' perspective you're a US person, with regard to their FATCA obligations. Whether or not you'll be punished is hard to tell. Whether or not you could be punished is easy to tell: you could. You knowingly broke the law by certifying that you're not a US citizen when you were. That is in addition to un-filed tax returns, FBAR, etc etc. The fact that you were born outside of the US and have never lived there is technically irrelevant. Not knowing the law is not a reasonable cause for breaking it. Get a US-licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) to help you sort it out." }, { "docid": "34887", "title": "", "text": "\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "227757", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't know what you mean by \"\"claim for taxes,\"\" I think you mean pay taxes. I'm not sure how corps function in Canada but in the US single owner limited liability entities typically pass the net income through to the owner to be included in their personal tax return. So it seems all of this is more or less moot, because really you should probably already be including your income sourced from this project on your personal taxes and that's not really likely to change if you formed something more formal. The formal business arrangements really exist to limit the liability of the business spilling over in to the owner's assets. Or trouble in the owner's life spilling over to interrupt the business operation. I don't know what kind of business this is, but it may make sense to set up one of the limited liability arrangements to ensure that business liability doesn't automatically mean personal liability. A sole proprietorship or in the US we have DBA (doing business as) paperwork will get you a separate tax id number, which may be beneficial if you ever have to provide a tax ID and don't want to use your individual ID; but this won't limit your liability the way incorporating does.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "576985", "title": "", "text": "How long you need to keep tax records will depend on jurisdiction. In general, if you discard records in a period of time less than your tax authority recommends, it may create audit problems down the road. ie: if you make a deduction supported by business expense receipts, and you discard those receipts next year, then you won't be able to defend the deduction if your tax authority audits you in 3 years. Generally, how long you keep records would depend on: (a) how much time your tax authority has to audit you; and (b) how long after you file your return you are allowed to make your own amendments. In your case (US-based), the IRS has straight-forward documentation about how long it expects you to keep records: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/how-long-should-i-keep-records Period of Limitations that apply to income tax returns Keep records for 3 years if situations (4), (5), and (6) below do not apply to you. Keep records for 3 years from the date you filed your original return or 2 years from the date you paid the tax, whichever is later, if you file a claim for credit or refund after you file your return. Keep records for 7 years if you file a claim for a loss from worthless securities or bad debt deduction. Keep records for 6 years if you do not report income that you should report, and it is more than 25% of the gross income shown on your return. Keep records indefinitely if you do not file a return. Keep records indefinitely if you file a fraudulent return. Keep employment tax records for at least 4 years after the date that the tax becomes due or is paid, whichever is later. Note that the above are the minimum periods to keep records; for your own purposes you may want to keep them for longer periods than that. For example, you may be in a position to discover that you would like to refile a prior tax return, because you forgot to claim a tax credit that was available to you. If you would have been eligible to refile in that period but no longer have documentation, you are out of luck." }, { "docid": "205719", "title": "", "text": "First, yes, your LLC has to file annual taxes to the US government. All US companies do, regardless of where their owners live. Second, you will also probably be liable to personally file a return in the US and unless the US has a tax treaty with India (which I don't believe it does) you may end up paying taxes on your same income to both countries. Finally, opening a US bank account as a foreign citizen can be very tricky. You need to talk to a US accountant who is familiar with Indian & US laws." }, { "docid": "568255", "title": "", "text": "Welcome to the working world. I will answer these a bit out of order. C) Your withholding has almost zero chance of being correct. Just about everyone has to pay or gets a refund. I typically shoot for +- of $1000, and that is tough. A) Your W-2 is where you adjust the amount of tax that is withheld. You should fill out a new one as soon as possible. You can use a paycheck calculator to figure out the proper tax that should be withheld. B) No. D) Yes you will owe Utah state tax. See this site. The rub of this all is that you may have to pay Idaho tax prior to being refunded your Federal. If you want to avoid this file your federal return as soon as possible (Goal: File by 7 Feb). You should have the return in 3 weeks or less (presuming you are owed one). That will give you plenty of time to file and pay any Idaho tax owed. I say all of this because you may be tempted to go to a tax preparation shop and take an advance on your income tax return. Those loans are for people that hate money and are designed to tempt the foolish. They are only slightly better than payday loans." }, { "docid": "453257", "title": "", "text": "No, there is no special leniency given to first time tax payers. In general, this shouldn't be an issue. The IRS collects your taxes out of every one of your paychecks throughout the entire year in what is called a Withholding Tax. The amount that the IRS withholds is calculated on your W-4 Form that you file with your employer whenever you take a new job. The form helps you calculate the right number of allowances to claim (usually this is the number of personal exemptions, but depending upon if you work a second job, are married and your spouse works, or if you itemize, the number of allowances can be increased. WITHHOLDING TAX Withholding tax (also known as “payroll withholding”) is essentially income tax that is withheld from your wages and sent directly to the IRS by your employer. In other words, it’s like a credit against the income taxes that you must pay for the year. By subtracting this money from each paycheck that you receive, the IRS is basically withholding your anticipated tax payment as you earn it. In general, most people overestimate their tax liability. This is bad for them, because they have essentially given the IRS an interest free loan (and weren't able to use the money to earn interest themselves.) I haven't heard of any program targeted at first time tax payers to tell them to file a return, but considering that most tax payers overpay they should or they are giving the government a free grant." }, { "docid": "594652", "title": "", "text": "The only way you will incur underpayment penalties is if you withhold less than 90% of the current year's tax liability or 100% of last years tax liability (whichever is smaller). So as long as your total tax liability last year (not what you paid at filing, but what you paid for the whole year) was more than $1,234, you should not have any penalty. What you pay (or get back) when you file will be your total tax liability less what was withheld. For example, you had $1,234 withheld from your pay for taxes. If after deduction and other factors, your tax liability is $1,345, you will owe $111 when you file. On the other hand, if your tax liability is only $1,000, you'll get a refund of $234 when you file, since you've had more withheld that what you owe. Since your income was only for part of the year, and tax tables assume that you make that much for the whole year, I would suspect that you over-withheld during your internship, which would offset the lack of withholding on the other $6,000 in income." }, { "docid": "198532", "title": "", "text": "Since you're a US citizen, submitting W8-BEN was wrong. If you read the form carefully, when you signed it you certified that you are not a US citizen, which is a lie and you knew it. W9 and W8 are mutually exclusive. You're either a US person for tax purposes or you're not, you cannot be both. As a US citizen - you are a US person for tax purposes, whether you have any other citizenship or not, and whether you live in (or have ever been to) the US or not. You do need to file tax returns just like any other US citizen. If you have an aggregate of $10K or more on your bank accounts outside of the US at any given day - you need to file FBAR. FATCA forms may also be applicable, depending on your balances. From foreign banks' perspective you're a US person, with regard to their FATCA obligations. Whether or not you'll be punished is hard to tell. Whether or not you could be punished is easy to tell: you could. You knowingly broke the law by certifying that you're not a US citizen when you were. That is in addition to un-filed tax returns, FBAR, etc etc. The fact that you were born outside of the US and have never lived there is technically irrelevant. Not knowing the law is not a reasonable cause for breaking it. Get a US-licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) to help you sort it out." }, { "docid": "65095", "title": "", "text": "As an individual freelancer, you would need to maintain a book of accounts. This should show all the income you are getting, and should also list all the payments incurred. This can not only include the payments to other professionals, but also any hardware purchased, phone bills, any travel and entertainment bills directly related to the service you are offering. Once you arrive at a net profit figure, you would need to file this as your income. Consult a tax professional and he can help with how to keep the records of income and expenses. i.e. You would need to create invoices for payments, use checks or online transfers for most payments, segregate the accounts, one account used for this professional stuff, and another for your personal stuff, etc. In a normal course the Income Tax Department does not ask for these records, however whenever your tax returns get scrutinized on a random basis, they would ask for all the relevant documentations." }, { "docid": "228445", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you have to file a tax return in Canada. Non residents that have earned employment income in Canada are required to file a Canadian personal income tax return. Usually, your employer will have deducted sufficient taxes from your pay-cheques, resulting in a tax refund upon filing your Canadian tax return. You will also receive a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid in Canada." }, { "docid": "34887", "title": "", "text": "\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"" }, { "docid": "549767", "title": "", "text": "This should be posted in /r/Personalfinance. Also, do not do what /u/BlitheCalamity is suggesting. 1. If it is an IRA, simply do an ACAT transfer. No taxes will be incurred if the paperwork is filed correctly. Additionally, there is a 60 rollover provision for IRA accounts... another way to get out of a tax penalty for an IRA account. 2. Check the internal fees for your mutual funds. You may have purchased A shares, which I am guessing is the case since your advisor was an Ed Jones advisor. The ongoing internal expense ratio should be rather low so you might want to consider keeping these funds. An ACAT will allow you to transfer your investments to your new account if you want to keep them. (A shares have a onetime high upfront charge, but low ongoing fee. If you've already paid for the fund, why ditch it for another fund that charges a higher ongoing fee but not an upfront fee? Evaluate your costs.) 3. If this is a non-IRA account, still file an ACAT. It is the easiest way to transfer your account. Edit: Silly me, this is clearly a question regarding an IRA. In that case, there is no tax penalty for selling anything and buying within your IRA as long as you do not take the money out. Like I said, please file an ACAT with the new company otherwise you will have to prove to the IRS that you completed the rollover in 60 days. If not, you will pay income tax and a 10% penalty." }, { "docid": "84310", "title": "", "text": "After that I moved to the Middle East on March 23rd, 2015 As an NRI, one should not hold any Savings account. Please have this converted to NRO Account. Additionally it is advised that you open an NRE account. Both these can be done remotely. If I transfer money from here to a non NRE/NRO account then is it taxable? Assuming its income earned when you are NRI, it is not taxable. However if there is audit enquiry you would need to have sufficient proof to back that this income is earned during your period as NRI and hence not taxable. As indicate above, holding a savings account when you are NRI is a breach of FEMA regulation. I have been getting mail from myITreturns.com to file income tax returns. Since I am considered as NRI, do I have to fill any non return form online? If there is a source of income in India, interest on savings account etc, it is taxable and you would need to file appropriate returns. Even if you have zero income, it is safe to file a NIL return. For the year 2014 do I have to file income tax returns? For the financial year 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015, you are still a resident Indian for tax purposes. You should have filed the return by June 2015 if there was tax due, else by March 2016. If you have not done so, please do this ASAP and regularise it." }, { "docid": "308938", "title": "", "text": "\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \"\"write check\"\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \"\"make deposit\"\" in its QB file. (In QB you \"\"write check\"\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \"\"negative expense\"\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\"" }, { "docid": "88477", "title": "", "text": "This is wrong. It should be or Now, to get back to self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is weird. It's a business tax. From the IRS perspective, any self-employed person is a business. So, take your income X and divide by 1.0765 (6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare). This gives your personal income. Now, to calculate the tax that you have to pay, multiply that by .153 (since you have to pay both the worker and employer shares of the tax). So new calculation or they actually let you do which is better for you (smaller). And your other calculations change apace. And like I said, you can simplify Q1se to and your payment would be Now, to get to the second quarter. Like I said, I'd calculate the income through the second quarter. So recalculate A based on your new numbers and use that to calculate Q2i. or Note that this includes income from both the first and second quarters. We'll reduce to just the second quarter later. This also has you paying for all of June even though you may not have been paid when you make the withholding payment. That's what they want you to do. But we aren't done yet. Your actual payment should be or Because Q2ft and Q2se are what you owe for the year so far. Q1ft + Q1se is what you've already paid. So you subtract those from what you need to pay in the second quarter. In future quarters, this would be All that said, don't stress about it. As a practical matter, so long as you don't owe $1000 or more when you file your actual tax return, they aren't going to care. So just make sure that your total payments match by the payment you make January 15th. I'm not going to try to calculate for the state. For one thing, I don't know if your state uses Q1i or Q1pi as its base. Different states may have different rules on that. If you can't figure it out, just use Q1i, as that's the bigger one. Fix it when you file your annual return. The difference in withholding is going to be relatively small anyway, less than 1% of your income." }, { "docid": "72209", "title": "", "text": "\"1099's and other official tax forms are often reported to the IRS by the issuer, whether or not you include a copy in your return. You should not neglect to include this income in your 2016 return in an attempt to balance out the two tax years. It's up to you whether or not you feel like filing an amended 2015 return to recover over-payment of taxes from that tax year. You have up to three years to amend tax returns using form 1040X. Since you couldn't have furnished a 1099 for this when you filed your 2015 return (otherwise you wouldn't be in receipt of it for tax year 2016), I'm assuming you reported it simply as \"\"Other Income\"\" and therefore would have been [over] taxed your marginal rate on it. From irs.gov: When to amend a return. You should file an amended return if you need to correct your filing status, number of dependents, total income, tax deductions or tax credits. The instructions for Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, list additional reasons to amend a return.\"" }, { "docid": "102287", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"" }, { "docid": "303078", "title": "", "text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"" }, { "docid": "564475", "title": "", "text": "\"You can file an LLC yourself in most states, although it might be helpful to use a service if you're not sure what to do to ensure it is correct. I filed my LLC here in Colorado online with the Secretary of State's office, which provided the fill-in-the-blank forms and made it easy. In the U.S., taxation of an LLC is \"\"pass-through\"\", meaning the LLC itself does not have any tax liability. Taxes are based on what you take out of the LLC as distributions to yourself, so you pay personal income tax on that. There are many good books on how to form and then operate an LLC, and I personally like NoLo (link to their web site) because they cater to novices. As for hiring people in India, I can't speak to that, so hopefully someone else can answer that specific topic. As for what you need to know about how to run it, I'll refer back to the NoLo books and web site.\"" }, { "docid": "81150", "title": "", "text": "Form 8288 is to report to the IRS withholding of capital gains tax that may be due from the seller. Foreign nationals don't always file tax returns, so they often didn't pay capital gains tax on properties that they sold. Congress decided to make the buyers responsible for this tax so that they would have a better chance of collecting it. There is a penalty against the buyer if that tax is not withheld. Your attorney should have filed this form on your behalf as part of the closing papers. I think your first step is to look at your copy of the closing papers and see if money was withheld from the sale. There definitely should be disclosure of these requirements before the sale. You should also follow up with your attorney to see whether he has already filed the forms 8288 and 8288-A on your behalf. If you had purchased for less than $300,000 (and were purchasing for your primary residence), you would not have to file that form, but since the property was under $1,000,000 the withholding rate is only 10% (rather than 15%)." }, { "docid": "84528", "title": "", "text": "\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) &gt;If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "113776", "title": "", "text": "There are two reasons for incorporating a business in Canada - limiting liability and providing some freedom in structuring your taxes. Since you are asking about taxes, I will restrict myself to that topic. First of all, remember that if you don't make much money, there isn't much tax to save by clever structuring of your affairs. And if you do incorporate, you will pay taxes as a corporation, and pay taxes again on your salary paid from that corporation. It can still be advantageous, because the small business tax rate is less that the higher tax brackets of personal taxes, and you don't have to pay out all of the profit as salary. If you don't incorporate, you still must pay taxes on your net income from the business. (See brian's answer.) Definitely keep track of your income and expenses, even if you don't plan on making money, in case you get audited. If the CRA wants to call your hobby a business, you will need to show that you haven't made any profit. I am just giving you a few bits of advice because this subject is complicated. Too complicated for an answer on this site. If you are still interested, go to your local library and get some books on the subject." } ]

[ { "docid": "413438", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying \"\"Oops, we made a mistake last year\"\". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while \"\"I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do\"\" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway. Note to readers preparing to down-vote: this answer is prolix and says things that are far too \"\"well-known to everybody\"\" (and especially to you), but please remember that they might not be quite so well-known to the OP.\"" }, { "docid": "202019", "title": "", "text": "Your wife doesn't need to file a 2014 tax return because she's a nonresident and she didn't have any U.S. income. Her visa is irrelevant; it only matters what her status was (if she was in the U.S., but she wasn't) and if she had U.S. income. Your child doesn't need to file a tax return because she didn't have any income. There's a certain income threshold below which she doesn't have to file. Children generally never file their own tax returns. I don't know who told you otherwise. You may have to file if you had income (maybe including fellowship income and stuff like that) in the U.S. during the year? Did you? If you didn't then you probably don't need to file a tax return. Also, you said you're nonresident for the year. Are you sure about that? Students are generally nonresident for the first 5 calendar years, and resident thereafter. So if you came in 2009 or before, you would be resident for all of 2014; but if you came in 2010 or after, you would be nonresident for all of 2014. If you were in the first 5 calendar years of being a student, you also need to file Form 8843 regardless of whether you need to file a tax return. Nonresidents generally can't claim dependents. Residents can, however. A dependent will provide you with an exemption (it reduces your taxable income by a certain amount). You can also get the Child Tax Credit if your income is low enough. There is a U.S.-Sweden tax treaty. It has a section covering students. It may exempt some or all of your income from U.S. tax. Most universities provide free international tax programs for their international students and scholars. You should look to see if your school offers this. Don't go to outside tax filing places because those generally don't know anything about how to file for nonresidents." }, { "docid": "501686", "title": "", "text": "Are these PFIC rules new? No, PFIC rules are not new, they've been around for a very long time. what would that mean if a person owned a non-US company stock, like a company in Europe that makes chocolate? Is that considered assets that produces passive income? No. But if a person owned a non-US company stock like a company that holds a company that makes chocolate - that would be passive income. this is non-US mutual funds that hold foreign shares, like a mutual fund in India, not a US fund which owns Indian stocks? Non-US fund. For those of you who are tax advisors, is the time length (30 hours) true for filing form 8621? I would suggest not to fill this form on your own. Find a tax adviser specializing on providing services to expats, and have her do this. 30 hours for a person who has never dealt with taxes on this level before is probably not enough to learn all about PFIC, the real number is closer to 300 hours. While ZeroHedge article may be a sales pitch, PFIC rules should frighten you if they apply to your investments. Do not take them lightly, as penalties are steep and if you don't plan ahead you may end up paying way too much taxes than you could have." }, { "docid": "308938", "title": "", "text": "\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \"\"write check\"\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \"\"make deposit\"\" in its QB file. (In QB you \"\"write check\"\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \"\"negative expense\"\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\"" }, { "docid": "291749", "title": "", "text": "No, thanks to the principle of corporate personhood. The legal entity (company C) is the owner and parent of the private company (sub S). You and C are separate legal entities, as are C and S. This principle helps to legally insulate the parties for purposes such as liability, torts, taxes, and so forth. If company C is sued, you may be financially at stake (i.e. your investment in C is devalued or made worthless) but you are not personally being sued. However, the litigant may attach you as an additional litigant if the facts of the suit merit it. But without legal separateness of corporations, then potentially all owners and maybe a number of the employees would be sued any time somebody sued the business - which is messy for companies and messy for litigants. It's also far cleaner for lenders to lend to unified business entities rather than a variety of thousands of ever-shifting shareholders. Note that this is a separate analysis that assumes the companies are not treated as partnerships or disregarded entities (tax nothings) for tax purposes, in which case an owner may for some purposes be imputed to own the assets of C. I've also ignored the consolidated tax return, which would allow C and S to file a type of corporate joint return that for some purposes treats them similarly to common entity. For the simplest variation of your question, the answer is no. You do not own the assets of a corporation by virtue of owning a few of its shares. Edit: In light of your edit to include FB and Whatsapp, and the wrinkle about corporate books. If sub S is 100% owned by company C, then you do not have any inspection rights to S because you are not a shareholder. You also do not have virtual corporation inspection rights through company C. However, if a person has inspection rights to company C, and sub S appears on the books and financial records of C, then your C rights will do the job of seeing S information. However, Facebook is a public company, so they will make regular public filings and disclosures that should at least partly cover Whatsapp. So I hedge and clear my throat by averring that my securities training is limited, but I believe that the SEC filings of a public company will as a practical matter (maybe a matter of law?) moot the inspection rights. At the very least, I suspect you'd need a proper purpose (under DGCL, for example), to demand the inspection, and they will have already made extensive disclosures that I believe will be presumptively sufficient. I defer to more experienced securities experts on that question, but I don't believe inspection rights are designed for public companies." }, { "docid": "412855", "title": "", "text": "\"Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! You will have to submit on your income from the business. The term \"\"partnership\"\" refers to a specific business entity type in the U.S. I'm not sure if you're using it the same way. In a partnership in the U.S. you pay income tax on your share of the partnership's income whether or not you actually receive income in your personal account. There's not enough information here to know if that applies in your case. (In the U.S., the partnership itself does not pay income tax - It is a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" for tax purposes, with the tax liability passed through to the partners as individuals.) Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? As regards language, you will file a tax return on a U.S. form presumably in English. You will not have to submit your account information on any other form, so the fact that your documentation is in German does not matter. The only exception that comes to mind is that you could potentially get audited (just like anyone else filing taxes in the U.S.) in which case you might need to produce your documentation. That situation is rare enough that I wouldn't worry about it though. I'm not sure if they'd take it in German or force you to get a translation. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? Q) Is this correct!? The long-term capital gains rate is 15% for most people. (At very high incomes it is 20%.) It sounds like you would qualify for long-term (held for greater than 1 year) capital gains in this case, although the details might matter. There is a foreign tax credit, but I'm not completely sure if it would apply in this case. (If forced to guess, I would say that it does.) If you search for \"\"foreign tax credit\"\" and \"\"IRS\"\" you should get to the information that you need pretty quickly. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Even in this case you will not need to submit any of your paperwork to the IRS, unless you get audited. See earlier comments.\"" }, { "docid": "102287", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"" }, { "docid": "397059", "title": "", "text": "California and New York are very aggressive when it comes to revenue and taxes. As such, mere having an employee in these States creates a nexus and tax/filing liability for the company. @Adam Wood mentioned sales tax - that is correct. Having an employee in the State of California will require collecting sales tax for CA, and if until now your employer didn't have to - that would be a good enough reason to refuse your request. In addition to sales taxes, there's also the issue of corporate filings (they will now have to file paperwork in CA and pay CA franchise taxes just because of you) and payroll taxes (which are pretty high in CA and NY). It will also subject the to CA/NY/WA labor laws, which are more liberal than in most of the other States. Washington doesn't have personal income tax, but does have corporate income tax and sales tax, so I'm guessing the reasons to exclude this State are the same." }, { "docid": "435883", "title": "", "text": "I am not a tax professional, only an investment professional, so please take the following with a grain of salt and simply as informational guidance, not a personal recommendation or solicitation to buy/sell any security or as personal tax or investment advice. As Ross mentioned, you need to consult a tax advisor for a final answer concerning your friend's personal circumstances. In my experience advising hundreds of clients (and working directly with their tax advisors) the cost basis is used to calculate tax gain or loss on ordinary investments in the US. It appears to me that the Edward Jones description is correct. This has also been the case for me personally in the US with a variety of securities--stocks, options, futures, bonds, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds. From the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/uac/about-form-1099b Form 1099-B, Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions A broker or barter exchange must file this form for each person: Edward Jones should be able to produce a 1099b documenting the gains/losses of any investments. If the 1099b document is confusing, they might have a gain/loss report that more clearly delineates proceeds, capital returns, dividends, and other items related to the purchase and sale of securities." }, { "docid": "88477", "title": "", "text": "This is wrong. It should be or Now, to get back to self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is weird. It's a business tax. From the IRS perspective, any self-employed person is a business. So, take your income X and divide by 1.0765 (6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare). This gives your personal income. Now, to calculate the tax that you have to pay, multiply that by .153 (since you have to pay both the worker and employer shares of the tax). So new calculation or they actually let you do which is better for you (smaller). And your other calculations change apace. And like I said, you can simplify Q1se to and your payment would be Now, to get to the second quarter. Like I said, I'd calculate the income through the second quarter. So recalculate A based on your new numbers and use that to calculate Q2i. or Note that this includes income from both the first and second quarters. We'll reduce to just the second quarter later. This also has you paying for all of June even though you may not have been paid when you make the withholding payment. That's what they want you to do. But we aren't done yet. Your actual payment should be or Because Q2ft and Q2se are what you owe for the year so far. Q1ft + Q1se is what you've already paid. So you subtract those from what you need to pay in the second quarter. In future quarters, this would be All that said, don't stress about it. As a practical matter, so long as you don't owe $1000 or more when you file your actual tax return, they aren't going to care. So just make sure that your total payments match by the payment you make January 15th. I'm not going to try to calculate for the state. For one thing, I don't know if your state uses Q1i or Q1pi as its base. Different states may have different rules on that. If you can't figure it out, just use Q1i, as that's the bigger one. Fix it when you file your annual return. The difference in withholding is going to be relatively small anyway, less than 1% of your income." }, { "docid": "475115", "title": "", "text": "Per the IRS instructions on filing as Head of Household as a Citizen Living Abroad, if you choose to file only your own taxes, and you qualify for Head of Household without them, the IRS does not consider you married: If you are a U.S. citizen married to a nonresident alien you may qualify to use the head of household tax rates. You are considered unmarried for head of household purposes if your spouse was a nonresident alien at any time during the year and you do not choose to treat your nonresident spouse as a resident alien. However, your spouse is not a qualifying person for head of household purposes. You must have another qualifying person and meet the other tests to be eligible to file as a head of household. As such, you could file as Married Filing Separately (if you have no children) or Head of Household (if you have one or more children, a parent, etc. for whom you paid more than half of their upkeep - see the document for more information). You also may choose to file as Married Filing Jointly, if it benefits you to do so (it may, if she earns much less than you). See the IRS document Nonresident Spouse Treated As Resident for more information. If you choose to treat her as a resident, then you must declare her worldwide income. In some circumstances this will be beneficial for you, if you earn substantially more than her and it lowers your tax rate overall to do so. Married Filing Separately severely limits your ability to take some deductions and credits, so it's well worth seeing which is better." }, { "docid": "198532", "title": "", "text": "Since you're a US citizen, submitting W8-BEN was wrong. If you read the form carefully, when you signed it you certified that you are not a US citizen, which is a lie and you knew it. W9 and W8 are mutually exclusive. You're either a US person for tax purposes or you're not, you cannot be both. As a US citizen - you are a US person for tax purposes, whether you have any other citizenship or not, and whether you live in (or have ever been to) the US or not. You do need to file tax returns just like any other US citizen. If you have an aggregate of $10K or more on your bank accounts outside of the US at any given day - you need to file FBAR. FATCA forms may also be applicable, depending on your balances. From foreign banks' perspective you're a US person, with regard to their FATCA obligations. Whether or not you'll be punished is hard to tell. Whether or not you could be punished is easy to tell: you could. You knowingly broke the law by certifying that you're not a US citizen when you were. That is in addition to un-filed tax returns, FBAR, etc etc. The fact that you were born outside of the US and have never lived there is technically irrelevant. Not knowing the law is not a reasonable cause for breaking it. Get a US-licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) to help you sort it out." }, { "docid": "454537", "title": "", "text": "\"It might be best to step back and look at the core information first. You're evaluating an LLC vs a Corporation (both corporate entities). Both have one or more members, and both are seen similarly (emphasis on SIMILAR here, they're not all the same) to the IRS. Specifically, LLC's can opt for a pass-through tax system, basically seen by the IRS the same way an S-Corp is. Put another way, you can be taxed as a corporate entity, or it's P/L statements can \"\"flow through\"\" to your personal taxes. When you opt for a flow-through, the business files and you get a separate schedule to tie into your taxes. You should also look at filing a business expense schedule (Schedule C) on your taxes to claim legitimate business expenses (good reference point here). While there are several differences (see this, and this, and this) between these entities, the best determination on which structure is best for you is usually if you have full time employ while you're running the business. S corps limit shares, shareholders and some deductions, but taxes are only paid by the shareholders. C corps have employees, no restrictions on types or number of stock, and no restrictions on the number of shareholders. However, this means you would become an employee of your business (you have to draw monies from somewhere) and would be subject to paying taxes on your income, both as an individual, and as a business (employment taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, etc). From the broad view of the IRS, in most cases an LLC and a Corp are the same type of entity (tax wise). In fact, most of the differences between LLCs and Corps occur in how Profits/losses are distributed between members (LLCs are arbitrary to a point, and Corps base this on shares). Back to your question IMHO, you should opt for an LLC. This allows you to work out a partnership with your co-worker, and allows you to disburse funds in a more flexible manner. From Wikipedia : A limited liability company with multiple members that elects to be taxed as partnership may specially allocate the members' distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit via the company operating agreement on a basis other than the ownership percentage of each member so long as the rules contained in Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) 1.704-1 are met. S corporations may not specially allocate profits, losses and other tax items under US tax law. Hope this helps, please do let me know if you have further questions. As always, this is not legal or tax advice, just what I've learned in setting several LLCs and Corporate structures up over the years. EDIT: As far as your formulas go, the tax rate will be based upon your personal income, for any pass through entity. This means that the same monies earned from and LLC or an S-corp, with the same expenses and the same pass-through options will be taxed the same. More reading: LLC and the law (Google Group)\"" }, { "docid": "5762", "title": "", "text": "\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"" }, { "docid": "352838", "title": "", "text": "\"If you start an LLC with you as the sole member it will be considered a disregarded entity. This basically means that you have the protection of being a company, but all your revenues will go on your personal tax return and be taxed at whatever rate your personal rate calculates to based on your situation. Now here is the good stuff. If you file Form 2553 you can change your sole member LLC to file as an S Corp. Once you have done this it changes the game on how you can pay out what your company makes. You will need to employ yourself and give a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary. This will be reported to the IRS and you will file your normal tax returns and they will be taxed based on your situation. Now as the sole member you can then pay yourself \"\"distribution to share holders\"\" from your account and this money is not subject to normal fica and social security tax (check with your tax guy) and MAKE SURE to document correctly. The other thing is that on that same form you can elect to have a different fiscal year than the standard calendar IRS tax year. This means that you could then take part of profits in one tax year and part in another so that you don't bump yourself into another tax bracket. Example: You cut a deal and the company makes 100,000 in profit that you want to take as a distribution. If you wrote yourself a check for all of it then it could put you into another tax bracket. If your fiscal year were to end say on sept 30 and you cut the deal before that date then you could write say 50,000 this year and then on jan 1 write the other check.\"" }, { "docid": "491528", "title": "", "text": "\"Disclaimer: I work in life insurance, but I am not an agent. First things first, there is not enough information here to give you an answer. When discussing life insurance, the very first things we need to fully consider are the illustration of policy values, and the contract itself. Without these, there is no way to tell if this is a good idea or not. So what are the things to look for? A. Risk appetite. People love to discuss projections of the market, like for example, \"\"7-8% a year compounded annually\"\". Go look at the historical returns of the stock market. It is never close to that projection. Life insurance, however, can give you a GUARANTEED return (this would be show in the 'Guaranteed' section of the life insurance illustration). As long as you pay your premiums, this money is guaranteed to accrue. Now most life insurance companies also show 'Non-Guaranteed' elements in their illustrations - these are non-guaranteed projections based on a scale at this point in time. These columns will show how your cash value may grow when dividends are credited to your policy (and used to buy paid-up additional insurance, which generates more dividends - this can be compared to the compounding nature of interest). B. Tax treatment. I am definitely not an expert in this area, but life insurance does have preferential tax treatment, particularly to your beneficiaries. C. Beneficiaries. Any death benefit (again, listed as guaranteed and maybe non-guaranteed values) is generally completely tax free for the beneficiary. D. Strategy. Tying all of this together, what exactly is the point of this? To transfer wealth, to accrue wealth, or some combination thereof? This is important and unstated in your question. So again, without knowing more, there is no way to answer your question. But I am surprised that in this forum, so many people are quick to jump in and say in general that whole life insurance is a scam. And even more surprising is the fact the accepted answer has already been accepted. My personal take is that if you are just trying to accrue wealth, you should probably stick to the market and maybe buy term if you want a death benefit component. This is mostly due to your age (higher risk of death = higher premiums = lower buildup) and how long of a time period you have to build up money in the policy. But if a 25 year old asked this same question, depending on his purposes, I may suggest that a WL policy is in fact a good idea.\"" }, { "docid": "381753", "title": "", "text": "Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and I have not 100% researched the law. Take any advise from an online forum with a grain of salt. Please consult an attorney, tax specialist, or the IRS directly for any concrete answers. AFAIK there isn't anything that would prevent you from starting a business. Simply owing back taxes shouldn't make a difference on how you make money, whether that is working for yourself or someone else. All the IRS is concerned about at this point is that you still owe them. When going through the process of forming an LLC a couple of years back, I don't recall any personal tax information being brought up except when we were discussing possible loan options. Regarding loan options, one important issue you may come into is if the IRS has filed a lien against you: A federal tax lien is the government’s legal claim against your property when you neglect or fail to pay a tax debt. The lien protects the government’s interest in all your property, including real estate, personal property and financial assets. A lien will exist on your credit report for 7 years after it is released: The IRS releases your lien within 30 days after you have paid your tax debt. With a lien, it will be very difficult to get a loan or other financing for your small business. If this ends up being the case, you can try to get a discharge or subordination on specific property that would allow lenders a claim on your property ahead of the IRS. Otherwise, you may find yourself relying solely on what money you currently have. A big point is the IRS's threshold on filing a lien is $10,000: The Fresh Start Initiative increased the IRS Notice of Federal Tax Lien filing threshold from $5,000 to $10,000; however, Notices of Federal Tax Liens may still be filed on amounts less than $10,000 when circumstances warrant. Since you currently owe ~$8,000 over the past 3 years, it is possible that adding another year in back taxes will cause the IRS to file a lien if they have not yet already done so. So it may be something to keep an eye on if you do plan on taking out a loan for your business." }, { "docid": "228445", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you have to file a tax return in Canada. Non residents that have earned employment income in Canada are required to file a Canadian personal income tax return. Usually, your employer will have deducted sufficient taxes from your pay-cheques, resulting in a tax refund upon filing your Canadian tax return. You will also receive a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid in Canada." }, { "docid": "65095", "title": "", "text": "As an individual freelancer, you would need to maintain a book of accounts. This should show all the income you are getting, and should also list all the payments incurred. This can not only include the payments to other professionals, but also any hardware purchased, phone bills, any travel and entertainment bills directly related to the service you are offering. Once you arrive at a net profit figure, you would need to file this as your income. Consult a tax professional and he can help with how to keep the records of income and expenses. i.e. You would need to create invoices for payments, use checks or online transfers for most payments, segregate the accounts, one account used for this professional stuff, and another for your personal stuff, etc. In a normal course the Income Tax Department does not ask for these records, however whenever your tax returns get scrutinized on a random basis, they would ask for all the relevant documentations." } ]

[ { "docid": "346444", "title": "", "text": "What I should have done in the first place was just ask them. From their customer support team: Thanks for writing in and for your interest in Square. It is perfectly acceptable to use Square for personal business, such as a yard sale. You do not need to have a registered business to take advantage of Square and the ability to accept credit cards. Just please note that it is against our Terms of Service to process prepaid cards, gift cards or your own credit card using your own Square account. Additionally, you may not use Square as a money transfer system. For every payment processed through Square, you must provide a legitimate good or service. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns." } ]

[ { "docid": "487621", "title": "", "text": "So my advice for your financial situation depends on your aims. Are you aiming to: - Completely clear your debt - Clear one card to free up more monthly income. - Clear some debt to allow further controlled spending - Clear one card and focus on just using one, having 2nd as emergency. There are other things you may wish to do but you said to pay off some / all of 2 credit card bills. If you want to contact me I can plan this more precisely. Some seem the same but other factors can come into play as well. Differing rates of interest make the options clearer. My first advice would be to call the card companies and see if you can get better rates first. SCENARIO (some figures made up for visual) Credit Card Debts 8,000 8,000 Monthly payment 100 100 APR % 10 10 Ignoring APR this will be 80 months to repay (otherwise 140 months using my example amounts above) £28,000 repaid over 11 years 8 months. Your Suggestion As per your suggestion originally, paying off cards equally will allow smaller debt on both cards. Credit Card Debt 3,000 3,000 Monthly payment 100 100 APR % 10 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 2 years 6 months. Cards are available to get free balance transfers, need to look into this. With the 10% APR this would take 3 years 1 month. £10,000 lump and £7,400 repaid over 3 years 1 month (saving £10,600 and 8 years 7 months) AIM: To clear debt completely. My advice here is to use the £10,000 lump sum to pay off one credit card, the remaining £2,000 can then come off the other card. This will free up your outgoings (was 2 x £100) by £100. But then use this £100 to pay off the card, this will result in the following: Credit Card Debt 6,000 Monthly payment 200 APR % 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 2 years 6 months. Cards are available to get free balance transfers, need to look into this. With 10% APR this would take roughly 3 years 1 month. £10,000 lump and £7,400 repaid over 3 years 1 month (saving £10,600 and 8 years 7 months). This option is the same as above, but you have the options on the odd tight month to reduce payments to £100. This also will allow the 2nd card to be used interest free for an emergency purchase (to be paid off without any interest charge) If rates are different, pay of the one with the higher APR AIM: Clear one card to free up more monthly income. AIM: Clear one card and focus on just using one, having 2nd as emergency. Same as above, but don’t increase to £200, leave monthly payment at £100. Credit Card Debt 6,000 Monthly payment 100 APR % 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 5 years. With the 10% APR this would take 88 months (7 years 4 months) £10,000 lump and £8,800 repaid over 7 years and 4 months (saving £9,200 and 4 years 4 months). This also allows for some extra spending (even racking back up the debt – although not advised) AIM: Clear some debt to allow further controlled spending As above apart from this will allow you to spend to get back up to full £16,000 debt. NOTE My figures are theoretical, paying off £500 (£250x2) a month instead of the £100 (10%APR) would take: Lump sum 10,000, remaining 6,000 – 14 months (£17,000 paid) Lump sum 5,000, remaining 2 x 5,500 – 26 months (£18,000 paid) Lump Sum 0, remaining 2 x 8,000 – 40 months (£20,000 paid) Now I have finished waffling, I hope you have an idea on what you are aiming to achieve and a better idea of what to do when you receive the income  Stephen." }, { "docid": "190635", "title": "", "text": "Credit card limits are, for the most part, soft limits; sometimes, a credit card will allow you to charge a little over your limit. The large amount they allowed you to go over your limit is unusual, but not unheard of. It is your responsibility to keep track of how much you charge on your credit card, not the bank. Just like with a checking account, you are supposed to keep track of everything you charge so that you always know how much you have spent and can pay it off. Raising your limit will not help your problem; it would only make it worse. You have already charged more than you can afford, and they have already effectively raised your limit by $1200. I realize that this situation is tough, but fortunately, you have a learning opportunity here. I recommend you resolve to stop using the credit card in this way, and work toward paying off your debt to zero. At that point, treat your credit card as if it was a debit card, and only charge what you already have in the bank to pay off right away. (Or, just use a debit card and get rid of the credit card.) Learning to do this now will save you lots of money in interest. If you don't learn to do this, you will find yourself in even more debt in the future, and it will be even harder to dig yourself out. If you need some more help on getting out of debt and learning to budget your money, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey." }, { "docid": "172305", "title": "", "text": "How would you respond to these cases: Limited card options - If someone has a bad credit record the cards available may only be those with an annual fee. Not everyone will have your credit record and thus access to the cards you have. Some annual fees may be waived in some cases - Thus, someone may have a card with a fee that could be waived if enough transactions are done on the card. Thus, if someone gives enough business to the credit card company, they will waive the fee. On the point of the rewards, if the card is from a specific retailer, there could be a 10% discount for using that card and if the person purchases more than a couple thousand dollars' worth from that store this is a savings of $200 from the retail prices compared to what would happen in other cases that more than offsets the annual fee. If someone likes to be a handyman and visits Home Depot often there may be programs to give rewards in this case. Credit cards can be useful for doing on-line purchases, flight reservations, rental cars and a few other purchases that to with cash or debit can be difficult if not close to impossible. Some airline cards have a fee, but presumably the perks provide a benefit that outweigh that fee over the year. I'm thinking of the Citibank cards tied to American Airlines, first year free, then an $85 fee." }, { "docid": "5203", "title": "", "text": "I have credit card debt of about $5000 That's the answer right there. You told us the 401(b) has no match. The next highest priority would be credit card debt that's costing you interest. You didn't mention the rate on the card, I'm assuming it's 8% or more. As far as your balance sheet (the 'bottom line') is concerned, pay off a 10% debt is the same as earning 10% on your money. If anyone promises you a higher return with a different investment, I'd run the other way. We hope the market, i.e. the US stock market, as measured by a broad index, say the S&P 500, will return 8-10%/yr over the long term, but this isn't guaranteed. Paying off that credit card will save you the interest every year, and free up the payments to invest elsewhere. In response to Marlene's comment - Crazy? No. Human nature and emotion is what it is. I honestly don't know how to address some of it. Years ago, I was in a similar situation with a reader who had a $5000 'emergency' account, yet had $5000 in credit card debt. I had a tough time getting my head around why it wasn't obvious this made no sense. In your case, I might suggest you pay the card down to below $1000 and have the credit line reduced. Paying high interest on $5K makes no sense at any point in one's life. At least a 20-something can dig his way out and learn a lesson. A pre-retiree shouldn't be throwing this money away." }, { "docid": "277210", "title": "", "text": "ATM to ATM transfer is not possible. Do you mean to say account to account transfer using an ATM machine? Online transfer between account or between an account and credit card is possible. Almost every Bank offers Online transfers using Internet Banking. The person wishing to initiate a Debit must subscribe to Internet Banking. Once you login to Internet Banking, you would need to add beneficiary Account [account where you need to transfer funds]. Adding of Beneficiary at times takes a Day for the Beneficiary to be activated. Once the Beneficiary is activated, you can transfer funds. The funds are credited to Beneficiary account within 2 hrs. If the both the accounts are in same bank, then some Bank's ATM's [HDFC / Citi etc] allow you to transfer funds between account using the Bank's ATM." }, { "docid": "25906", "title": "", "text": "\"To avoid nitpicks, i state up front that this answer is applicable to the US; Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc may well have quite different systems and rules. You have nothing to worry about if you pay off your credit-card statement in full on the day it is due in timely fashion. On the other hand, if you routinely carry a balance from month to month or have taken out cash advances, then making whatever payment you want to make that month ASAP will save you more in finance charges than you could ever earn on the money in your savings account. But, if you pay off each month's balance in full, then read the fine print about when the payment is due very carefully: it might say that payments received before 5 pm will be posted the same day, or it might say before 3 pm, or before 7 pm EST, or noon PST, etc etc etc. As JoeTaxpayer says, if you can pay on-line with a guaranteed day for the transaction (and you do it before any deadline imposed by the credit-card company), you are fine. My bank allows me to write \"\"electronic\"\" checks on its website, but a paper check is mailed to the credit-card company. The bank claims that if I specify the due date, they will mail the check enough in advance that the credit-card company will get it by the due date, but do you really trust the USPS to deliver your check by noon, or whatever? Besides the bank will put a hold on that money the day that check is cut. (I haven't bothered to check if the money being held still earns interest or not). In any case, the bank disclaims all responsibility for the after-effects (late payment fees, finance charges on all purchases, etc) if that paper check is not received on time and so your credit-card account goes to \"\"late payment\"\" status. Oh, and my bank also wants a monthly fee for its BillPay service (any number of such \"\"electronic\"\" checks allowed each month). The BillPay service does include payment electronically to local merchants and utilities that have accounts at the bank and have signed up to receive payments electronically. All my credit-card companies allow me to use their website to authorize them to collect the payment that I specify from my bank account(s). I can choose the day, the amount, and which of my bank accounts they will collect the money from, but I must do this every month. Very conveniently, they show a calendar for choosing the date with the due date marked prominently, and as mhoran_psprep's comment points out, the payment can be scheduled well in advance of the date that the payment will actually be made, that is, I don't need to worry about being without Internet access because of travel and thus being unable to login to the credit-card website to make the payment on the date it is due. I can also sign up for AutoPay which takes afixed amount/minimum payment due/payment in full (whatever I choose) on the date due, and this will happen month after month after month with no further action necessary on my part. With either choice, it is up to the card company to collect money from my account on the day specified, and if they mess up, they cannot charge late payment fees or finance charge on new purchases etc. Also, unlike my bank, there are no fees for this service. It is also worth noting that many people do not like the idea of the credit-card company withdrawing money from their bank account, and so this option is not to everyone's taste.\"" }, { "docid": "547835", "title": "", "text": "For those who are looking to improve credit for the sake of being able to obtain future credit on better terms, I think a rewards credit card is the best way to do that. I recommend that you only use as many cards as you need to gain the best rewards. I have one card that gives 6% back on grocery purchases, and I have another card that gives 4% back on [petrol] and 2% back on dining out. Both of those cards give only 1% back on all other purchases, so I use a third card that gives 1.5% back across the board for my other purchases. I pay all of the cards in full each month. If there was a card that didn't give me an advantage in making my purchases, I wouldn't own it. I'm generally frugal, so I know that there is no psychological disadvantage to paying with a card. You have to consider your own spending discipline when deciding whether paying with cards is an advantage for you. In the end, you should only use debt when you can pay low interest rates (or as in the case of the cards above, no interest at all). In the case of the low interest debt, it should be allowing you to make an investment that will pay you more by having it sooner than the cost of interest. You might need a car to get to work, but you probably don't need a new car. Borrow as little as you can and repay your loans as quickly as you can. Debt can be a tool for your advantage, but only if used wisely. Don't be lured in by the temptation of something new and shiny now that you can pay for later." }, { "docid": "176284", "title": "", "text": "The term business credit normally refers to one or more credit cards which can be used to make purchases on behalf of a business. A business credit card will usually have both the business name and the card holder's name printed or embossed on the card. In most cases the cardholder will have provided a personal guarantee when applying for the card. A personal guarantee ultimately makes the card holder liable for all charges made on the card." }, { "docid": "195207", "title": "", "text": "Do you have a separate bank account for your business? That is generally highly recommended. I have a credit card for my single-member LLC. I prefer it this way because it makes the separation of personal and business expenses very clear. Using a personal credit card, but using it for only business expenses seems to be a reasonable practice. You may be able to do one better though... For your sole proprietorship, you can file a DBA which establishes the business name. The details of this depend on your state. With a DBA, I believe you can open a bank account in the name of your business and you may also be able to open a credit card account in the name of the business. I'm not sure what practical difference it makes, but it does make the personal/business distinction clearer. Though, at that point, you might as well just do the LLC..." }, { "docid": "566607", "title": "", "text": "I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form." }, { "docid": "375153", "title": "", "text": "Square does not care if you run a $10 transaction to test the system. They are concerned with its use to move meaningful amounts of money. The only people who do this will be the Dunning-Kruger gang, who only think they are clever. Because of course Square will hunt them down, sue, garnish and/or prosecute them! But the expense of doing so is all on Square, making it a total lose. The cheapest resolution is to not let it happen in the first place. The ~3% cash advance fees, lack of rewards points, and the higher interest rate are not just for profiteering. They reflect, and pay for, the higher risk of loaning money via cash advance: to put it indelicately, the risk of default. Cash advance credit limits are often much lower than purchase limits. If a merchant is selling himself phantom merchandise to get easy cash advances, it means he is not using regular ways of borrowing money. Perhaps because he can't, because he has exhausted his other opportunities to borrow, risk managers have cut him off. Square has no reason to care either way; but the issuing bank does, and through Visa etc., they will disallow this behavior. ** PayPal Here's rate used here instead of Square's, to simplify math." }, { "docid": "204288", "title": "", "text": "I am not aware of a version of Interac available in the U.S., but there are alternative ways to receive money: Cheque. The problem with mailed cheques is that they take time to deliver, and time to clear. If you ship your wares before the cheque has cleared and the cheque is bad, you're out the merchandise. COD. How this works is you place a COD charge on your item at the post office in the amount you charge the customer. The post office delivers the package on the other end when the customer pays. The post office pays you at the time you send the package. There is a fee for this, talk to your local post office or visit the Canada Post website. Money order. Have your U.S. customers send an International Money Order, not a Domestic Money Order. Domestic money orders can only be cashed at a U.S. post office. The problem here is again delivery time, and verifying your customer sent an International Money Order. It can be a pain to have to send back a Domestic Money Order to a customer explaining what they have to do to pay you, even more painful if you don't catch the error before shipping your wares. Credit Card. There are a number of companies offering credit card processing that are much cheaper than a bank. PayPal, Square, and Intuit are three such companies offering these services. After I did my investigations I found Square to be the best deal for me. Please do your own research on these companies (and banks!) and find out which one makes the most sense for you. Some transaction companies may forbid the processing of payment for e-cig materials as they my be classed as tobacco." }, { "docid": "226590", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you did. To give an example of the contract terms that allow this, the [Capital One credit card agreement](https://www.capitalone.com/media/doc/credit-cards/Credit-Card-Agreement-for-Consumer-Cards-in-Capital-One-N.A.pdf) states: &gt; Credit Reports &gt; &gt; We may report information about your Account to credit bureaus and others. Late payments, missed payments, or other defaults on your Account may be reflected in your credit report. Information we provide may appear on your and the Authorized Users’ credit reports. &gt; &gt; If you believe that we have reported inaccurate information about your Account to a credit bureau or other consumer reporting agency, notify us in writing at PO Box 30281, Salt Lake City, UT 84130-0281. When you write, tell us the specific information that you believe is incorrect and why you believe it is incorrect. &gt; &gt; We may obtain and use credit, income and other information about you from credit bureaus and others as the law allows." }, { "docid": "264809", "title": "", "text": "It depends on the business. Some ask for ID and check against the signature (rare); some ask for ID but barely glance at it; some check just that it's signed (also rare); some ask for me to input my ZIP code on the card reader (KMart); and some don't do anything (most common). What they do doesn't seem connected to whether I put the card in the reader myself, or hand it to the cashier for them to scan. It does seem silly to check IDs, etc., as there are places such as gas stations where I never even see an employee, and can spend just as much there as at WalMart, KMart, or the grocery store, all places that tend to do more checking." }, { "docid": "318239", "title": "", "text": "Another one to alert consumers: [RFID Credit Cards Are Easy Prey for Hackers](http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/249138/rfid_credit_cards_are_easy_prey_for_hackers_demo_shows.html) If you have a paypass capable card, then you have a RF chip in it. All it takes is someone to walk around with a RF reader to pull your credit card info and then use it. ($350 in equipment)" }, { "docid": "299840", "title": "", "text": "\"You are correct. Credit card companies charge the merchant for every transaction. But the merchant isn't necessarily going to give you discount for paying in cash. The idea is that by providing more payment options, they increase sales, covering the cost of the transaction fee. That said, some merchants require a minimum purchase for using a credit card, though this may be against the policies of some issuers in the U.S. (I have no idea about India.) Also correct. They hope that you'll carry a balance so that they can charge you interest on it. Some credit cards are setup to charge as many fees as they possibly can. These are typically those low limit cards that are marketed as \"\"good\"\" ways to build up your credit. Most are basically scams, in the fact that the fees are outrageous. Update regarding minimum purchases: Apparently, Visa is allowing minimum purchase requirements in the U.S. of $10 or less. However, it seems that MasterCard still does not allow them, for the most part. Moral of the story: research the credit card issuers' policies. A further update regarding minimum purchases: In the US, merchants will be allowed to require a minimum purchase of up to $10 for credit card transactions. (I am guessing that prompted the Visa rule change mentioned above.) More detail can be found here in this answer, along with a link to the text of the bill itself.\"" }, { "docid": "506985", "title": "", "text": "That's the RFID readers. We're talking about the cards with the chip on the surface of them, kinda like a SIM card but on a credit card. So far, use is still contained pretty exclusively to Europe. Another European thing that I'd love to see in the US, why the hell in the 21st century the waiter/waitress has to take my CC back to the cashier station? Europe's had wireless card swipers/receipt printers for YEARS. Swipe the card, print the receipt, server goes away so you can put in your tip in privacy, and everyone goes home a little faster." }, { "docid": "354716", "title": "", "text": "Credit card fees on a credit card used for personal expenses are not tax deductible. Credit card fees on a business credit card are deductible on schedule C (or whatever form you're using to report business income and expenses). If you are using the same card for both business and personal ... well, for starters, this is a very bad idea, because it creates exactly the question you're asking. If that's what you're doing, stop, and get separate business and personal cards. If you have separate business and personal cards -- and use the business card only for legitimate business expenses -- then the answer is easy: You can claim a schedule C deduction for any service charges on the business card, and you cannot claim any deduction for any charges on the personal card. In general, though, if you have an expense that is partly business and partly personal, you are supposed to figure out what percentage is business, and that is deductible. In an admittedly brief search, I couldn't find anything specifically about credit cards, but I did find this similar idea on the IRS web site: Generally, you cannot deduct personal, living, or family expenses. However, if you have an expense for something that is used partly for business and partly for personal purposes, divide the total cost between the business and personal parts. You can deduct the business part. For example, if you borrow money and use 70% of it for business and the other 30% for a family vacation, you can deduct 70% of the interest as a business expense. The remaining 30% is personal interest and is not deductible. Refer to chapter 4 of Publication 535, Business Expenses, for information on deducting interest and the allocation rules. (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/deducting-business-expenses) So, PROBABLY, you could add up all the charges you made on the card, figure out how much was for business and how much for personal, calculate the business percentage, and then deduct this percentage of the service fees. If the amount involved is not trivial, you might want to talk to an accountant or a lawyer." }, { "docid": "533933", "title": "", "text": "My view is from the Netherlands, a EU country. Con: Credit cards are more risky. If someone finds your card, they can use it for online purchases without knowing any PIN, just by entering the card number, expiration date, and security code on the back. Worse, sometimes that information is stored in databases, and those get stolen by hackers! Also, you can have agreed to do periodic payments on some website and forgot about them, stopped using the service, and be surprised about the charge later. Debit cards usually need some kind of device that requires your PIN to do online payments (the ones I have in the Netherlands do, anyway), and automated periodic payments are authorized at your bank where you can get an overview of the currently active ones. Con: Banks get a percentage of each credit card payment. Unlike debit cards where companies usually pay a tiny fixed fee for each transaction (of, say, half a cent), credit card payments usually cost them a percentage and it comes to much more, a significant part of the profit margin. I feel this is just wrong. Con: automatic monthly payment can come at an unexpected moment With debit cards, the amount is withdrawn immediately and if the money isn't there, you get an error message allowing you to pay some other way (credit card after all, other bank account, cash, etc). When a recent monthly payment from my credit card was due to be charged from my bank account recently, someone else had been paid from it earlier that day and the money wasn't there. So I had to pay interest, on something I bought weeks ago... Pro: Credit cards apparently have some kind of insurance. I've never used this and don't know how it works, but apparently you can get your money back easily after fraudulent charges. Pro: Credit cards can be more easily used internationally for online purchases I don't know how it is with Visa or MC-issued debit cards, but many US sites accept only cards that have number/expiration date/security code and thus my normal bank account debit card isn't useable. Conclusion: definitely have one, but only use it when absolutely necessary." } ]

[ { "docid": "482332", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes. From their TOS: \"\"By creating a Square Account, you confirm that you are either a legal resident of the United States, a United States citizen, or a business entity...\"\".\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "456098", "title": "", "text": "\"The credit card may have advantages in at least two cases: In some instances (at least in the US), a merchant will put a \"\"hold\"\" on a credit card without charging it. This happens a lot at hotels, for example, which use the hold as collateral against damages and incidental charges. On a credit card this temporarily reduces your credit limit but never appears on your bill. I've never tried to do it on a debit card, but my understanding is that they either reject the debit card for this purpose or they actually make the withdrawal and then issue a refund later. You'll actually need to account for this in your cash flow on the debit card but not on the credit card. If you get a fraudulent charge on your credit card, it impacts that account until you detect it and go through the fraud resolution process. On a debit card, the fraudulent charge may ripple through the rest of your life. The rent payment that you made by electronic transfer or (in the US) by check, for example, is now rejected because your bank account is short by the amount of the fraud even if you didn't use the debit card to pay it. Eventually this will probably get sorted out, but it has potential to create a bigger mess than is necessary. Personally, I never use my debit card. I consider it too risky with no apparent benefit.\"" }, { "docid": "307767", "title": "", "text": "I would like to establish credit history - have heard it's useful to gain employment and makes it easy to rent an apartment? Higher credit scores will make it easier with landlords, that's true. As to employment - they do background checks, which means that they usually won't like bad things, but won't care about the good things or no things (they'll know you're a foreigner anyway). Is it safe to assume that this implies I have no history whatsoever? Probably, but you can verify pulling through AnnualCreditReport, don't go around giving your personal information everywhere. Is taking out a secured loan the only way for me? No, but it's one of the easiest. Better would be getting a secured Credit Card, not loan. For loan you'll have to pay interest, for a credit card (assuming you pay off all your purchases immediately) you will only pay the credit card fees (for secured credit cards they charge ~$20-100 yearly fees, so do shop around, the prices vary a lot!). If you're using it wisely, after a year it will be converted to a regular credit card and the collateral will be returned to you with interest (which is actually very competitive, last I heard it was around 2%, twice as much as the online savings accounts). As to a secured loan - you'll be paying 4% to CU for your own money. Doesn't make any sense at all for me. For credit cards you'll at least get some value for your money - convenience, additional fraud protection, etc. The end result will be the same. Usually the credit starts to build up after ~6-12 months (that's why after a year your secured CC will be converted to a regular one). Make sure to have the statement balance in the range of 10-30% of your credit limit, to get the best results. Would it make much better sense to wait till I get a job (then I would have a fixed monthly salary and can apply for a regular CC directly) You can apply, but you'll probably be rejected. As I mentioned in another answer elsewhere, the system in the US is such that you're unable to get credit if you don't already have credit. Which is kindof a magic circle, which you can break with the secured credit card as the least costly solution." }, { "docid": "562993", "title": "", "text": "The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's. However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged. Why? Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even. In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer. However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued. If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it. However I would call and check and get their answer in writing. Why? Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms. Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this. The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero. The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high. This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees. Credit card company wins! I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them. I would also require them to have some financial accountability. Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere." }, { "docid": "391422", "title": "", "text": "Yea I think a lot of this article is poorly written stats mashed together to make a weak statement. 4% for a card present merchant is way expensive. For someone with an average ticket of above ~$25 I'd say 2-2.5% is more the norm. But saying interchange fees are generating more revenue than overdraft could be attributed to so many things, like people just using credit cards instead of debit cards. Note there's no data here (that I saw at least) about the volume spent on cards overall either, for example was the volume just transferred from debit to credit or did the volume actually go up even? Overall pretty garbage article imo that provides no real value to the reader." }, { "docid": "484261", "title": "", "text": "Generally most businesses will not, but it's not uncommon. Not sure about other countries, but in Australia merchants here generally have to pay VISA or Mastercard a commission if the consumer chooses to use credit. So even if they don't levy a charge, they may have a minimum purchase amount which you can use credit cards for. Amongst some of the ones who do include... Pretty much all of the budget airlines like (Virgin) airlines. I think there's been some outrage with them cause they charge $4.50 per person per trip which in some cases is greater than the transaction cost they have to pay to the credit card companies. Aldi Supermarket link they're kind of a budget supermarket. You got to pay for shopping bags and also charge 1% more for credit card. On a side note, we also have a thing called EFTPOS here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTPOS) which is a debit card network. I think this network charges less commission because generally, a lof of businesses that charge for credit may not charge for EFTPOS. I also feel EFTPOS is also more secure as it requires a pin number, unlike a credit card which requires a signature." }, { "docid": "115712", "title": "", "text": "fine because the application was declined anyway. No it isn't fine. Credit card applications generally need a hard pull, so get it rectified. Firstly check if an application was really made on your behalf. Some companies use this ploy to pull you into a scheme of making you apply for a credit card. Secondly call up the credit card company and ask them about the details of who had made the application as you haven't done so and inform them that it was a fraudulent application. It might be somebody is using your personal details to do a identity theft in your name. Thirdly get in touch with the credit rating firms and see if a check has been made on your credit report. Dispute it if you see a check in your record and have it removed from your report. If you subscribe to credit agency, get the identity theft protection, helps you in such cases. And finally keep a diligent eye on your credit records from now on. Once bitten, twice shy." }, { "docid": "153729", "title": "", "text": "\"One advantage of the chip cards is that the card information needed to make purchases can't be easily skimmed or \"\"stolen\"\". Another is that it is more difficult to create a fake physical card. These advantages still exist regardless of what form of verification is used (or even if no verification is used). The type of fraud you're describing, in which your card is physically lost or stolen, is a relatively small proportion of total fraud (14% according to this site). One reason this is not as big a problem is that often, if you lose your card or get robbed, you know the card is compromised and you can cancel it. (Even if it takes you a while to do this, at least you are on the alert.) The real danger comes when your card info is stolen without your knowledge, and this is harder to do with a chip card. It's also worth noting that there are more ways for a fraudster to get nabbed than being caught red-handed entering the wrong PIN at the point of sale. The credit card companies are still tracking card usage and watching for unusual purchases that might indicate fraud. Also, sometimes fraudsters do surprisingly dumb stuff, like use the card to buy something online and mail it to themselves. So it's not correct to say that there is \"\"zero risk of getting caught\"\". With both stripe and chip cards, you can catch the person by tracking them via their usage of the card. The biggest security risk with the new cards is that many vendors don't actually require use of the chip at all -- they still let you swipe. However, with changes to credit card liability policies, this is a risk for the vendors, not for you.\"" }, { "docid": "176284", "title": "", "text": "The term business credit normally refers to one or more credit cards which can be used to make purchases on behalf of a business. A business credit card will usually have both the business name and the card holder's name printed or embossed on the card. In most cases the cardholder will have provided a personal guarantee when applying for the card. A personal guarantee ultimately makes the card holder liable for all charges made on the card." }, { "docid": "547835", "title": "", "text": "For those who are looking to improve credit for the sake of being able to obtain future credit on better terms, I think a rewards credit card is the best way to do that. I recommend that you only use as many cards as you need to gain the best rewards. I have one card that gives 6% back on grocery purchases, and I have another card that gives 4% back on [petrol] and 2% back on dining out. Both of those cards give only 1% back on all other purchases, so I use a third card that gives 1.5% back across the board for my other purchases. I pay all of the cards in full each month. If there was a card that didn't give me an advantage in making my purchases, I wouldn't own it. I'm generally frugal, so I know that there is no psychological disadvantage to paying with a card. You have to consider your own spending discipline when deciding whether paying with cards is an advantage for you. In the end, you should only use debt when you can pay low interest rates (or as in the case of the cards above, no interest at all). In the case of the low interest debt, it should be allowing you to make an investment that will pay you more by having it sooner than the cost of interest. You might need a car to get to work, but you probably don't need a new car. Borrow as little as you can and repay your loans as quickly as you can. Debt can be a tool for your advantage, but only if used wisely. Don't be lured in by the temptation of something new and shiny now that you can pay for later." }, { "docid": "403934", "title": "", "text": "An activity which can help improve your credit score and actually make you money is stoozing. It's a little complicated but can be beneficial to do. Using either a credit card which allows fee free money withdrawals from cashpoints or building up debt using your credit card gives you access to your credit amount. You then use a long term 0% balance transfer card to transfer the debt which you pay off at the minimum rate. It's 0% so no costs are associated except for the initial fee paid for the balance transfer amount. The money that would have been used to pay off the credit amount (or money withdrawn from a cashpoint) can then be deposited in a savings account so you are now earning interest on the credit balance. Continuing to make monthly minimum payments via direct debit will help improve your credit rating and the savings money will earn interest. (it is also available if you suddenly need to pay off the 0% card)" }, { "docid": "444590", "title": "", "text": "I was hoping to comment on the original question, but it looks to me like the asker lives in the EU, where credit cards are a lot less common and a lot of the arguments (car rental, building up of credit etc) brought forward by people living in the US just don't apply. In fact especially airlines (and other merchants) will charge you extra when using a credit card instead of a debit card and this can add up fairly quickly. I hold a credit card purely for travelling outside the EU and occasionally I will travel for work and make my own arrangements, then it can come in handy as I am able to reclaim my expenses before I have to pay my credit card bill (in this case I will also claim the extra credit card fees from my employer). This however is for my personal convenience and not strictly necessary. (I could fill out a bunch of paperwork and claim the costs from my employer as an advance.) In the EU I find that if my VISA debit card will not work in a shop, neither will my credit card, so on that note it's pretty pointless. So to answer the asker question: If you live (and travel) in the EU you don't need a credit card, ever. If you travel to the US, it would be advantageous to get one. Occasionally banks will offer you a credit card for free and there's no harm in taking it (apart from the fact that you have one more card to keep track off), but if you do, set up a direct debit to pay it off automatically. And as other people have said: Don't spend money you don't have. If you are not absolutely sure you can't do this, don't get a credit card." }, { "docid": "251561", "title": "", "text": "Chip and Pin cards are popular in Europe, however in the US we don't have them. Visa/MC and Amex can issue chip and pin cards but no merchants or machines are set up here to take them. Only certain countries in Europe use them and since you could possibly have a US visitor or a non-chip and pin person using your machine or eating at your restaurant they usually allow you to sign or just omit the pin if the card doesn't have a chip. It is definitely less secure, but the entire credit card industry in the US is running right now without it, so I don't think the major credit card companies care too much (they just pass the fraud on to the merchants anyway)." }, { "docid": "483441", "title": "", "text": "If you keep going over budget with your credit card, then stop using the credit card. If you plan to pay off the card every month, then your balance should always be under whatever your budget is. For example, if you budget to spend $500, then even though your card has a limit of $5,000 you will never carry a balance of over $500. Most banks have an option to email and / or text message you when you pass a certain balance threshold; in this instance, you would set two notices, one when your balance exceeds $400 (warning you that you're close & need to start paying closer attention), and one when you exceed $500. Additionally, maybe you aren't ready to pay for everything with your credit card. I prefer to use mine just for groceries, and then pay it off at the end of the month. Whatever rewards you get for putting all of your purchases on the card are more than paid for when you cross your budget limit, costing you more in interest and fees. Perhaps starting with just one type of purchase (groceries or gas are good choices, as most consumers are fairly consistent in their purchases of both) would allow you to ease into using the card until you get used to managing your budget with it. Personal finances are all about behavior, not knowledge. Don't worry too much about slipping up right now and making a mistake; just keep practicing good behavior with your credit card, and soon managing your budget with it will be as natural for you as when you only used cash." }, { "docid": "60261", "title": "", "text": "\"You do not say what country you are in. This is an answer for readers in the UK. Most normal balance transfer deals are only for paying off other credit cards. However there are \"\"money transfer\"\" deals that will pay the money direct to your bank account. The deals aren't as good as balance transfer deals but they are often a competitive option compared to other types of borrowing. Another option depending on how much you need to borrow and your regular spending habits is to get a card with a \"\"0% for purchases\"\" deal and use that card for your regular shopping, then put the money you would have spent on your regular shopping towards the car.\"" }, { "docid": "376987", "title": "", "text": "The minimum amount is set by the merchant services provider based on the kind of business, its location and the history. It mostly has nothing to do with you personally. However, the minimum amount differs based on the kind of credit cards being used. For example, foreign credit cards will require signatures on much lower amounts than domestic. In my local Safeway (NoCal analog of Ralph's) the limit for domestic credit cards is set at $50. If your credit limit is $5000, you might think that its a 1% of your limit. But if your limit is $50000 or $500 - it will still be $50. You cannot deduce anything about a specific person's credit situation based on whether or not they are required to sign the receipt. It has no affect on the decision." }, { "docid": "533933", "title": "", "text": "My view is from the Netherlands, a EU country. Con: Credit cards are more risky. If someone finds your card, they can use it for online purchases without knowing any PIN, just by entering the card number, expiration date, and security code on the back. Worse, sometimes that information is stored in databases, and those get stolen by hackers! Also, you can have agreed to do periodic payments on some website and forgot about them, stopped using the service, and be surprised about the charge later. Debit cards usually need some kind of device that requires your PIN to do online payments (the ones I have in the Netherlands do, anyway), and automated periodic payments are authorized at your bank where you can get an overview of the currently active ones. Con: Banks get a percentage of each credit card payment. Unlike debit cards where companies usually pay a tiny fixed fee for each transaction (of, say, half a cent), credit card payments usually cost them a percentage and it comes to much more, a significant part of the profit margin. I feel this is just wrong. Con: automatic monthly payment can come at an unexpected moment With debit cards, the amount is withdrawn immediately and if the money isn't there, you get an error message allowing you to pay some other way (credit card after all, other bank account, cash, etc). When a recent monthly payment from my credit card was due to be charged from my bank account recently, someone else had been paid from it earlier that day and the money wasn't there. So I had to pay interest, on something I bought weeks ago... Pro: Credit cards apparently have some kind of insurance. I've never used this and don't know how it works, but apparently you can get your money back easily after fraudulent charges. Pro: Credit cards can be more easily used internationally for online purchases I don't know how it is with Visa or MC-issued debit cards, but many US sites accept only cards that have number/expiration date/security code and thus my normal bank account debit card isn't useable. Conclusion: definitely have one, but only use it when absolutely necessary." }, { "docid": "299840", "title": "", "text": "\"You are correct. Credit card companies charge the merchant for every transaction. But the merchant isn't necessarily going to give you discount for paying in cash. The idea is that by providing more payment options, they increase sales, covering the cost of the transaction fee. That said, some merchants require a minimum purchase for using a credit card, though this may be against the policies of some issuers in the U.S. (I have no idea about India.) Also correct. They hope that you'll carry a balance so that they can charge you interest on it. Some credit cards are setup to charge as many fees as they possibly can. These are typically those low limit cards that are marketed as \"\"good\"\" ways to build up your credit. Most are basically scams, in the fact that the fees are outrageous. Update regarding minimum purchases: Apparently, Visa is allowing minimum purchase requirements in the U.S. of $10 or less. However, it seems that MasterCard still does not allow them, for the most part. Moral of the story: research the credit card issuers' policies. A further update regarding minimum purchases: In the US, merchants will be allowed to require a minimum purchase of up to $10 for credit card transactions. (I am guessing that prompted the Visa rule change mentioned above.) More detail can be found here in this answer, along with a link to the text of the bill itself.\"" }, { "docid": "487621", "title": "", "text": "So my advice for your financial situation depends on your aims. Are you aiming to: - Completely clear your debt - Clear one card to free up more monthly income. - Clear some debt to allow further controlled spending - Clear one card and focus on just using one, having 2nd as emergency. There are other things you may wish to do but you said to pay off some / all of 2 credit card bills. If you want to contact me I can plan this more precisely. Some seem the same but other factors can come into play as well. Differing rates of interest make the options clearer. My first advice would be to call the card companies and see if you can get better rates first. SCENARIO (some figures made up for visual) Credit Card Debts 8,000 8,000 Monthly payment 100 100 APR % 10 10 Ignoring APR this will be 80 months to repay (otherwise 140 months using my example amounts above) £28,000 repaid over 11 years 8 months. Your Suggestion As per your suggestion originally, paying off cards equally will allow smaller debt on both cards. Credit Card Debt 3,000 3,000 Monthly payment 100 100 APR % 10 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 2 years 6 months. Cards are available to get free balance transfers, need to look into this. With the 10% APR this would take 3 years 1 month. £10,000 lump and £7,400 repaid over 3 years 1 month (saving £10,600 and 8 years 7 months) AIM: To clear debt completely. My advice here is to use the £10,000 lump sum to pay off one credit card, the remaining £2,000 can then come off the other card. This will free up your outgoings (was 2 x £100) by £100. But then use this £100 to pay off the card, this will result in the following: Credit Card Debt 6,000 Monthly payment 200 APR % 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 2 years 6 months. Cards are available to get free balance transfers, need to look into this. With 10% APR this would take roughly 3 years 1 month. £10,000 lump and £7,400 repaid over 3 years 1 month (saving £10,600 and 8 years 7 months). This option is the same as above, but you have the options on the odd tight month to reduce payments to £100. This also will allow the 2nd card to be used interest free for an emergency purchase (to be paid off without any interest charge) If rates are different, pay of the one with the higher APR AIM: Clear one card to free up more monthly income. AIM: Clear one card and focus on just using one, having 2nd as emergency. Same as above, but don’t increase to £200, leave monthly payment at £100. Credit Card Debt 6,000 Monthly payment 100 APR % 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 5 years. With the 10% APR this would take 88 months (7 years 4 months) £10,000 lump and £8,800 repaid over 7 years and 4 months (saving £9,200 and 4 years 4 months). This also allows for some extra spending (even racking back up the debt – although not advised) AIM: Clear some debt to allow further controlled spending As above apart from this will allow you to spend to get back up to full £16,000 debt. NOTE My figures are theoretical, paying off £500 (£250x2) a month instead of the £100 (10%APR) would take: Lump sum 10,000, remaining 6,000 – 14 months (£17,000 paid) Lump sum 5,000, remaining 2 x 5,500 – 26 months (£18,000 paid) Lump Sum 0, remaining 2 x 8,000 – 40 months (£20,000 paid) Now I have finished waffling, I hope you have an idea on what you are aiming to achieve and a better idea of what to do when you receive the income  Stephen." }, { "docid": "300461", "title": "", "text": "\"First, let me answer the question the best way I can: I don't know if there are any studies other than those that have already been mentioned. Now, let's talk about something more interesting: You don't need to base your behavior on any study, even if it is scientific. Let's pretend, for example, that we could find a scientifically valid study that shows that people spend 25% more when using a credit card than they do when spending cash. This does not mean that if you use a credit card, you will spend 25% more. All it means is that the average person spending with a credit card spends more than the average person paying cash. But there are outliers. There are plenty of people who are being frugal while using a credit card, and there are others who spend too much cash. Everyone's situation is different. The idea that you will automatically spend less by using cash would not be proven by such a study. When hearing any type of advice like this, you need to look at your own situation and see if it applies to your own life. And that is what people are doing with the anecdotal comments. Some say, \"\"Yep, I spend too much if I use a card.\"\" Others say, \"\"Actually, I find that when I have cash in my wallet, I spend it on junk.\"\" And both are correct. It doesn't matter what the study says the average person does, because you are not average. Now, let's say that you are a financial counselor who helps people work through disastrous financial messes. Your client has $20,000 in credit card debt and is having trouble paying all his bills. He doesn't have a budget and never uses cash. Probably the best advice for this guy is to stop using his card and start paying cash. It doesn't take a scientific study to see that this guy needs to change his behavior. For what it is worth, I keep a strict budget, keeping track of my spending on the computer. The vast majority of my spending is electronic. I find tracking my cash spending difficult, and sometimes I find that when I have cash in my wallet, it seems to disappear without a trace. :)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "316490", "title": "", "text": "My husband used this device at work in an organization/club that collects dues for fundraisers. The fundraisers are only for the club. So I think that is not business at all. They have no business tax id#, etc? and they use it for personal reasons when collecting money via Cc#'s if this helps you." } ]

[ { "docid": "299840", "title": "", "text": "\"You are correct. Credit card companies charge the merchant for every transaction. But the merchant isn't necessarily going to give you discount for paying in cash. The idea is that by providing more payment options, they increase sales, covering the cost of the transaction fee. That said, some merchants require a minimum purchase for using a credit card, though this may be against the policies of some issuers in the U.S. (I have no idea about India.) Also correct. They hope that you'll carry a balance so that they can charge you interest on it. Some credit cards are setup to charge as many fees as they possibly can. These are typically those low limit cards that are marketed as \"\"good\"\" ways to build up your credit. Most are basically scams, in the fact that the fees are outrageous. Update regarding minimum purchases: Apparently, Visa is allowing minimum purchase requirements in the U.S. of $10 or less. However, it seems that MasterCard still does not allow them, for the most part. Moral of the story: research the credit card issuers' policies. A further update regarding minimum purchases: In the US, merchants will be allowed to require a minimum purchase of up to $10 for credit card transactions. (I am guessing that prompted the Visa rule change mentioned above.) More detail can be found here in this answer, along with a link to the text of the bill itself.\"" }, { "docid": "533933", "title": "", "text": "My view is from the Netherlands, a EU country. Con: Credit cards are more risky. If someone finds your card, they can use it for online purchases without knowing any PIN, just by entering the card number, expiration date, and security code on the back. Worse, sometimes that information is stored in databases, and those get stolen by hackers! Also, you can have agreed to do periodic payments on some website and forgot about them, stopped using the service, and be surprised about the charge later. Debit cards usually need some kind of device that requires your PIN to do online payments (the ones I have in the Netherlands do, anyway), and automated periodic payments are authorized at your bank where you can get an overview of the currently active ones. Con: Banks get a percentage of each credit card payment. Unlike debit cards where companies usually pay a tiny fixed fee for each transaction (of, say, half a cent), credit card payments usually cost them a percentage and it comes to much more, a significant part of the profit margin. I feel this is just wrong. Con: automatic monthly payment can come at an unexpected moment With debit cards, the amount is withdrawn immediately and if the money isn't there, you get an error message allowing you to pay some other way (credit card after all, other bank account, cash, etc). When a recent monthly payment from my credit card was due to be charged from my bank account recently, someone else had been paid from it earlier that day and the money wasn't there. So I had to pay interest, on something I bought weeks ago... Pro: Credit cards apparently have some kind of insurance. I've never used this and don't know how it works, but apparently you can get your money back easily after fraudulent charges. Pro: Credit cards can be more easily used internationally for online purchases I don't know how it is with Visa or MC-issued debit cards, but many US sites accept only cards that have number/expiration date/security code and thus my normal bank account debit card isn't useable. Conclusion: definitely have one, but only use it when absolutely necessary." }, { "docid": "197660", "title": "", "text": "Welcome to the psychicoraclechat, we have experts and professionals for tarot card readers, clairvoyants, gypsy and angel card readers of our live chat room so you can contact us and we have 24/7 sercacavices. Along with these things you can also do free tarot card and orcale Card readings directly on our website and get accurate answers. Apart from this you can also chat to our online Psychic for free unlimited time without any obligations. For further more details about the psychicoraclechat and Psychic, feel free to get in touch with us 24/7." }, { "docid": "294128", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID ... This worked for a long time, until retailers ... For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. Impractical and not even worth it as anyone can copy a signature on a card. Neither do banks bother to check for signature. They don't even have a \"\"signature on-file\"\" anymore. Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. I guarantee you that! **Please try it! Let me know if it did not work!** I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. The only sure thing is to ask for a PIN. But, alas, credit cards use a chip, so if I steall your card, I can buy with it with no problems. But not if I still your ATM card - I don't know your PIN. The PIN is in your head and I can't get it. The credit card companies don't really care.\"" }, { "docid": "277477", "title": "", "text": "The details of credit score calculation tend to change periodically, but the fundamentals are mostly consistent. Pay your bills, keep your average account age high, overpay your credit card minimums, and keep your overall debt low. And do soft pulls on your credit report to see what's happening. First, the simplest route: pay all your bills early or on time. Automatic deduction may be useful in this regard, especially for bills with predictable amounts. A corollary to this tip is to never leave an unpaid bill. What often happens to young people is in the course of moving around they leave the final bill unpaid and it gets reported to collections. Make sure you follow up online with all bills, even after canceling the service. Second, average account age and oldest account age matter. Open an account like a credit card and never close it, so you'll have an older account (hopefully a zero-fee card). Try to keep other accounts open rather than closing them (no need to cancel a zero-fee credit card) so your average account age stays higher. A card that works on internal systems (like a gift card) is not going to show up on a credit report; a card that works like any VISA/MC is likely going to show up. The rule of thumb is if they need your SSN to run a credit check for the application, then the card will appear on a credit report. You can pull your credit report to find out if the card is listed (you may have to allow time for lag before the card appears, but I'm not sure how long that might be). Third, a tip for extra credit score is to pay more than the minimum required on credit card bills. You can achieve this by either using your credit card at least once a month or by leaving a small hanging balance each month so there's always something to overpay next month. Credit card reporting will be either: unpaid, underpaid, minimum paid, or overpaid. Minimum payment helps your score and overpayment helps more. If you can use your credit card every month, that will give you something to overpay every month. Otherwise, you can leave a small debt left on the card but still pay over the monthly minimum. However, your total debt load, especially debt carried on your cards, counts against your score; aim for less than 10% of your limit. Finally, of course, is to pull your credit report periodically. You need to know what others are seeing. Since debt load utilization matters, make sure the reported card maximum is correct on your credit report. Talk to your bank or account issuer if the limit is wrong. If a collection appears, then you need to handle it. Often you can negotiate with the collector, but be careful to negotiate how they will report the resolution. You want them to agree to remove any negative information (either in exchange for payment or because of a mistake). Failing that, you want them to mark it paid in full or satisfied in full; letting them notate your score that you only partially paid is what you want to avoid, since it most signals someone with cash flow problems and credit issues. They control their reporting to credit bureaus, so if the person on the phone demurs, ask to speak to their supervisor or someone with negotiating authority. Try to get any agreements in writing. Remember that your total debt load is a factor in your credit score. Home loans and student loans do affect credit score. If you take on a smaller home loan, then it will affect your credit less harshly (and leave you with smaller monthly payments)." }, { "docid": "567201", "title": "", "text": "\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \"\"sniff test\"\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \"\"strike\"\"; too many \"\"strikes\"\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\"" }, { "docid": "85074", "title": "", "text": "\"Yodlee and Mint are good solutions if you don't mind your personal financial information being stored \"\"in the cloud\"\". I do, so I use Quicken. Quicken stores whatever you give to it for as long as you want: so the only question is how to get the credit card transactions you want into it? All my financial institutions allow me to view my credit card statements for a year back, and download them in a form Quicken can read. So you can have a record of your transactions from a year ago right now, and in a year you will have two year's worth.\"" }, { "docid": "566607", "title": "", "text": "I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form." }, { "docid": "495431", "title": "", "text": "\"There are services that deal specifically with these situations, boostcredit101.com is one I've personally had a good experience with though there are plenty out there. What they do is add you as an authorized user to a credit card with a high limit, low balance, and perfect payment history. This \"\"boosts\"\" for about 30 days while you remain listed as a user on that account, which allows you to qualify for your own card or other kind of loan in that time and helps you start rebuilding your credit. I've even heard of people doing this to qualify for a home loan, though the home loan industry is typically aware of this \"\"trick\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "444590", "title": "", "text": "I was hoping to comment on the original question, but it looks to me like the asker lives in the EU, where credit cards are a lot less common and a lot of the arguments (car rental, building up of credit etc) brought forward by people living in the US just don't apply. In fact especially airlines (and other merchants) will charge you extra when using a credit card instead of a debit card and this can add up fairly quickly. I hold a credit card purely for travelling outside the EU and occasionally I will travel for work and make my own arrangements, then it can come in handy as I am able to reclaim my expenses before I have to pay my credit card bill (in this case I will also claim the extra credit card fees from my employer). This however is for my personal convenience and not strictly necessary. (I could fill out a bunch of paperwork and claim the costs from my employer as an advance.) In the EU I find that if my VISA debit card will not work in a shop, neither will my credit card, so on that note it's pretty pointless. So to answer the asker question: If you live (and travel) in the EU you don't need a credit card, ever. If you travel to the US, it would be advantageous to get one. Occasionally banks will offer you a credit card for free and there's no harm in taking it (apart from the fact that you have one more card to keep track off), but if you do, set up a direct debit to pay it off automatically. And as other people have said: Don't spend money you don't have. If you are not absolutely sure you can't do this, don't get a credit card." }, { "docid": "195207", "title": "", "text": "Do you have a separate bank account for your business? That is generally highly recommended. I have a credit card for my single-member LLC. I prefer it this way because it makes the separation of personal and business expenses very clear. Using a personal credit card, but using it for only business expenses seems to be a reasonable practice. You may be able to do one better though... For your sole proprietorship, you can file a DBA which establishes the business name. The details of this depend on your state. With a DBA, I believe you can open a bank account in the name of your business and you may also be able to open a credit card account in the name of the business. I'm not sure what practical difference it makes, but it does make the personal/business distinction clearer. Though, at that point, you might as well just do the LLC..." }, { "docid": "81416", "title": "", "text": "When you give your credit card number and authorize a merchant to charge your credit card, the merchant then gives the information to their merchant processor which in turns bills the bank that issued the card (it's a little more complex and it all happens instantly unless the merchant is using the very old fasion imprinting gizmos). It is possible for a merchant to attempt to charge you more than you authorized but if they do they risk a fine ($25-$50 for a chargeback) from their processor, the legitimate portion of the charge as well as increasing the processing fees charged by their processor or even the possibility of loosing their merchant account entirely and being permanently blacklisted by Visa/Mastercard. In short no legitimate business is going to intentionally over charge your credit card. There really isn't significant risk in using a reputable online retailer's order forms. There is the possibility that their database could be compromised but that risk is lower than the risk of having an employee steal your credit number when you give it to them in person. Besides in the US at least the most you can legally be held liable for is $50 assuming you notice the discrepancy within 60 days of statement the charge appears on and most banks limit liability to $0. Over the years I have had a number of different credit card numbers stolen and used fraudulently and I have never had to pay any fraudulent charges." }, { "docid": "345482", "title": "", "text": "\"in theory, yes. in practice, no. largely because merchants pay a fee to process credit card transactions which normally exceeds the cash back you can get. i tried this with square, since their vendor fee was 2.75%, and i got 5% back on restaurants. however, even though i registered with square as a restaurant, transactions were categorized as \"\"other services\"\" or something, so i only got 1% back and lost 1.75% net. moreover, if you did find a card/processor combination that left you with a net gain, they would eventually catch on and charge you with some sort of fraud. i wasn't worried about it with the square experiment because it was only 1$, but if you tried to do this with large sums, a human would catch you. and if it was enough money to matter, there would be a lawsuit. if you were really unlucky, you might get charged with some terrorism crap like \"\"structuring\"\" deposits.\"" }, { "docid": "309909", "title": "", "text": "Are you allowed to have two personal current accounts with a debit card attached to each one? Yes, you may have as many current accounts you want, but you should ask why should I have more than one. It is cumbersome and time consuming to keep track of ongoing incoming credits and outgoing debits. Open to bank fraud too, if you aren't careful. If yes, can a sole trader in the UK use the second personal account for business transactions? Yes, but no payments to the business. At the end of the year you file you P11D, even if you have a business bank account. You would need to justify the expenses by keeping the bills and stuff. As it will be a personal account, you have to little more careful, not to mix personal and business expenses. If you are allowed to use a second personal account for business transactions, then why would someone choose to open a business bank account, where you have to pay? What are the benefits? First of all no company will pay into you personal account, for any transactions, they need to pay you. They will only pay to an account registered with the business, with whom they are dealing with. Benefits are you have your business expenses sorted out in one account and personal expenses in other. Pure business expenses comes out of the business account, rather than from your personal purse, keeps the accounts smooth. No need to sort out expenses at the end of each quarter or at the end of each month." }, { "docid": "219181", "title": "", "text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month." }, { "docid": "562993", "title": "", "text": "The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's. However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged. Why? Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even. In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer. However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued. If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it. However I would call and check and get their answer in writing. Why? Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms. Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this. The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero. The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high. This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees. Credit card company wins! I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them. I would also require them to have some financial accountability. Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere." }, { "docid": "526106", "title": "", "text": "\"It is called \"\"Credit card installments\"\" or \"\"Equal pay installments\"\", and I am not aware of them being widely used in the USA. While in other countries they are supported by banks directly (right?), in US you may find this option only in some big stores like home improvement stores, car dealerships, cell phone operators (so that you can buy a new phone) etc. Some stores allow 0% financing for, say, 12 months which is not exactly the same as installments but close, if you have discipline to pay $250 each month and not wait for 12 months to end. Splitting the big payment in parts means that the seller gets money in parts as well, and it adds risks of customer default, introduces debt collection possibility etc. That's why it's usually up to the merchants to support it - bank does not care in this case, from the bank point of view the store just charges the same card another $250 every month. In other countries banks support this option directly, I think, taking over or dividing the risk with the merchants. This has not happened in US. There is a company SplitIt which automates installments if stores want to support it but again, it means stores need to agree to it. Here is a simple article describing how credit cards work: https://www.usbank.com/credit-cards/how-credit-cards-work.html In general, if you move to US, you are unlikely to be able to get a regular credit card because you will not have any \"\"credit history\"\" which is a system designed to track each customer ability to get & pay off debt. The easiest way to build the history - request \"\"secured credit card\"\", which means you have to give the bank money up front and then they will give you a credit card with a credit limit equal to that amount. It's like a \"\"practice credit card\"\". You use it for 6-12 months and the bank will report your usage to credit bureaus, establishing your \"\"credit score\"\". After that you should be able to get your money back and convert your secured card into a regular credit card. Credit history can be also built by paying rent and utilities but that requires companies who collect money to report the payments to credit bureaus and very few do that. As anything else in US, there are some businesses which help to solve this problem for extra money.\"" }, { "docid": "25906", "title": "", "text": "\"To avoid nitpicks, i state up front that this answer is applicable to the US; Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc may well have quite different systems and rules. You have nothing to worry about if you pay off your credit-card statement in full on the day it is due in timely fashion. On the other hand, if you routinely carry a balance from month to month or have taken out cash advances, then making whatever payment you want to make that month ASAP will save you more in finance charges than you could ever earn on the money in your savings account. But, if you pay off each month's balance in full, then read the fine print about when the payment is due very carefully: it might say that payments received before 5 pm will be posted the same day, or it might say before 3 pm, or before 7 pm EST, or noon PST, etc etc etc. As JoeTaxpayer says, if you can pay on-line with a guaranteed day for the transaction (and you do it before any deadline imposed by the credit-card company), you are fine. My bank allows me to write \"\"electronic\"\" checks on its website, but a paper check is mailed to the credit-card company. The bank claims that if I specify the due date, they will mail the check enough in advance that the credit-card company will get it by the due date, but do you really trust the USPS to deliver your check by noon, or whatever? Besides the bank will put a hold on that money the day that check is cut. (I haven't bothered to check if the money being held still earns interest or not). In any case, the bank disclaims all responsibility for the after-effects (late payment fees, finance charges on all purchases, etc) if that paper check is not received on time and so your credit-card account goes to \"\"late payment\"\" status. Oh, and my bank also wants a monthly fee for its BillPay service (any number of such \"\"electronic\"\" checks allowed each month). The BillPay service does include payment electronically to local merchants and utilities that have accounts at the bank and have signed up to receive payments electronically. All my credit-card companies allow me to use their website to authorize them to collect the payment that I specify from my bank account(s). I can choose the day, the amount, and which of my bank accounts they will collect the money from, but I must do this every month. Very conveniently, they show a calendar for choosing the date with the due date marked prominently, and as mhoran_psprep's comment points out, the payment can be scheduled well in advance of the date that the payment will actually be made, that is, I don't need to worry about being without Internet access because of travel and thus being unable to login to the credit-card website to make the payment on the date it is due. I can also sign up for AutoPay which takes afixed amount/minimum payment due/payment in full (whatever I choose) on the date due, and this will happen month after month after month with no further action necessary on my part. With either choice, it is up to the card company to collect money from my account on the day specified, and if they mess up, they cannot charge late payment fees or finance charge on new purchases etc. Also, unlike my bank, there are no fees for this service. It is also worth noting that many people do not like the idea of the credit-card company withdrawing money from their bank account, and so this option is not to everyone's taste.\"" }, { "docid": "525129", "title": "", "text": "\"Note: this answer is true for the UK, other places may vary. There are a couple of uses for credit cards. The first is to use them in a revolving manner, if you pay off the bill in full every time you get one then with the vast majority of cards you will pay no interest, effecitvely delay your expenses by a month, build your credit rating and with many credit cards you can also get rewards. Generally you should wait until the bill comes to pay it off. This ensures that your usage is reported to the credit ratings agencies. In general you should not draw out cash on credit cards as there is usually a fee and unlike purchases it will start acruing interest immediately. The second is longer term borrowing. This is where you have to be careful. Firstly the \"\"standard\"\" rate on most credit cards is arround 20% APR which is pretty high. Secondly on many cards once you are carrying a balance any purchases start acruing interest immediately. However many credit cards offer promotional rates. In contrast to the standard rates which are an expensive way to borrow the promotional rates often allow you to borrow at 0% APR for some period. Usually when it comes to promotional rates you get the best deal by opening a new credit card and using it immediately. Ideally you should plan to pay off the card before the 0% period ends, if you can't do that then a balance transfer may be an option but be aware than in a few years the market for credit cards may (or may not) have changed. Whatever you do you should ALWAYS make sure to pay at least the minimum payment and do so on time. Not doing so may trigger steep fees, loss of promotional interest rates. There is a site called moneysavingexpert that tracks the best deals.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "347637", "title": "", "text": "I used square in the past for personal yard sale and they did not transfer balance to my bank acct because they told me it was against their policy and I had to have a business license that they could either refund the credit cards i process or keep the money. So they kept it I never got it back. I don't recommend anybody to use square." } ]

[ { "docid": "25906", "title": "", "text": "\"To avoid nitpicks, i state up front that this answer is applicable to the US; Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc may well have quite different systems and rules. You have nothing to worry about if you pay off your credit-card statement in full on the day it is due in timely fashion. On the other hand, if you routinely carry a balance from month to month or have taken out cash advances, then making whatever payment you want to make that month ASAP will save you more in finance charges than you could ever earn on the money in your savings account. But, if you pay off each month's balance in full, then read the fine print about when the payment is due very carefully: it might say that payments received before 5 pm will be posted the same day, or it might say before 3 pm, or before 7 pm EST, or noon PST, etc etc etc. As JoeTaxpayer says, if you can pay on-line with a guaranteed day for the transaction (and you do it before any deadline imposed by the credit-card company), you are fine. My bank allows me to write \"\"electronic\"\" checks on its website, but a paper check is mailed to the credit-card company. The bank claims that if I specify the due date, they will mail the check enough in advance that the credit-card company will get it by the due date, but do you really trust the USPS to deliver your check by noon, or whatever? Besides the bank will put a hold on that money the day that check is cut. (I haven't bothered to check if the money being held still earns interest or not). In any case, the bank disclaims all responsibility for the after-effects (late payment fees, finance charges on all purchases, etc) if that paper check is not received on time and so your credit-card account goes to \"\"late payment\"\" status. Oh, and my bank also wants a monthly fee for its BillPay service (any number of such \"\"electronic\"\" checks allowed each month). The BillPay service does include payment electronically to local merchants and utilities that have accounts at the bank and have signed up to receive payments electronically. All my credit-card companies allow me to use their website to authorize them to collect the payment that I specify from my bank account(s). I can choose the day, the amount, and which of my bank accounts they will collect the money from, but I must do this every month. Very conveniently, they show a calendar for choosing the date with the due date marked prominently, and as mhoran_psprep's comment points out, the payment can be scheduled well in advance of the date that the payment will actually be made, that is, I don't need to worry about being without Internet access because of travel and thus being unable to login to the credit-card website to make the payment on the date it is due. I can also sign up for AutoPay which takes afixed amount/minimum payment due/payment in full (whatever I choose) on the date due, and this will happen month after month after month with no further action necessary on my part. With either choice, it is up to the card company to collect money from my account on the day specified, and if they mess up, they cannot charge late payment fees or finance charge on new purchases etc. Also, unlike my bank, there are no fees for this service. It is also worth noting that many people do not like the idea of the credit-card company withdrawing money from their bank account, and so this option is not to everyone's taste.\"" }, { "docid": "583666", "title": "", "text": "Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!" }, { "docid": "483441", "title": "", "text": "If you keep going over budget with your credit card, then stop using the credit card. If you plan to pay off the card every month, then your balance should always be under whatever your budget is. For example, if you budget to spend $500, then even though your card has a limit of $5,000 you will never carry a balance of over $500. Most banks have an option to email and / or text message you when you pass a certain balance threshold; in this instance, you would set two notices, one when your balance exceeds $400 (warning you that you're close & need to start paying closer attention), and one when you exceed $500. Additionally, maybe you aren't ready to pay for everything with your credit card. I prefer to use mine just for groceries, and then pay it off at the end of the month. Whatever rewards you get for putting all of your purchases on the card are more than paid for when you cross your budget limit, costing you more in interest and fees. Perhaps starting with just one type of purchase (groceries or gas are good choices, as most consumers are fairly consistent in their purchases of both) would allow you to ease into using the card until you get used to managing your budget with it. Personal finances are all about behavior, not knowledge. Don't worry too much about slipping up right now and making a mistake; just keep practicing good behavior with your credit card, and soon managing your budget with it will be as natural for you as when you only used cash." }, { "docid": "318239", "title": "", "text": "Another one to alert consumers: [RFID Credit Cards Are Easy Prey for Hackers](http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/249138/rfid_credit_cards_are_easy_prey_for_hackers_demo_shows.html) If you have a paypass capable card, then you have a RF chip in it. All it takes is someone to walk around with a RF reader to pull your credit card info and then use it. ($350 in equipment)" }, { "docid": "376987", "title": "", "text": "The minimum amount is set by the merchant services provider based on the kind of business, its location and the history. It mostly has nothing to do with you personally. However, the minimum amount differs based on the kind of credit cards being used. For example, foreign credit cards will require signatures on much lower amounts than domestic. In my local Safeway (NoCal analog of Ralph's) the limit for domestic credit cards is set at $50. If your credit limit is $5000, you might think that its a 1% of your limit. But if your limit is $50000 or $500 - it will still be $50. You cannot deduce anything about a specific person's credit situation based on whether or not they are required to sign the receipt. It has no affect on the decision." }, { "docid": "172305", "title": "", "text": "How would you respond to these cases: Limited card options - If someone has a bad credit record the cards available may only be those with an annual fee. Not everyone will have your credit record and thus access to the cards you have. Some annual fees may be waived in some cases - Thus, someone may have a card with a fee that could be waived if enough transactions are done on the card. Thus, if someone gives enough business to the credit card company, they will waive the fee. On the point of the rewards, if the card is from a specific retailer, there could be a 10% discount for using that card and if the person purchases more than a couple thousand dollars' worth from that store this is a savings of $200 from the retail prices compared to what would happen in other cases that more than offsets the annual fee. If someone likes to be a handyman and visits Home Depot often there may be programs to give rewards in this case. Credit cards can be useful for doing on-line purchases, flight reservations, rental cars and a few other purchases that to with cash or debit can be difficult if not close to impossible. Some airline cards have a fee, but presumably the perks provide a benefit that outweigh that fee over the year. I'm thinking of the Citibank cards tied to American Airlines, first year free, then an $85 fee." }, { "docid": "456098", "title": "", "text": "\"The credit card may have advantages in at least two cases: In some instances (at least in the US), a merchant will put a \"\"hold\"\" on a credit card without charging it. This happens a lot at hotels, for example, which use the hold as collateral against damages and incidental charges. On a credit card this temporarily reduces your credit limit but never appears on your bill. I've never tried to do it on a debit card, but my understanding is that they either reject the debit card for this purpose or they actually make the withdrawal and then issue a refund later. You'll actually need to account for this in your cash flow on the debit card but not on the credit card. If you get a fraudulent charge on your credit card, it impacts that account until you detect it and go through the fraud resolution process. On a debit card, the fraudulent charge may ripple through the rest of your life. The rent payment that you made by electronic transfer or (in the US) by check, for example, is now rejected because your bank account is short by the amount of the fraud even if you didn't use the debit card to pay it. Eventually this will probably get sorted out, but it has potential to create a bigger mess than is necessary. Personally, I never use my debit card. I consider it too risky with no apparent benefit.\"" }, { "docid": "6341", "title": "", "text": "Most business credit cards do not report to the personal credit report unless the person pays the card late. Given that fact, any debt carried on these cards does not hurt the credit score if it is not reported. You can carry credit card debt on these cards without hurting your credit score. Just apply for business credit cards now to start building this segment of your credit." }, { "docid": "115712", "title": "", "text": "fine because the application was declined anyway. No it isn't fine. Credit card applications generally need a hard pull, so get it rectified. Firstly check if an application was really made on your behalf. Some companies use this ploy to pull you into a scheme of making you apply for a credit card. Secondly call up the credit card company and ask them about the details of who had made the application as you haven't done so and inform them that it was a fraudulent application. It might be somebody is using your personal details to do a identity theft in your name. Thirdly get in touch with the credit rating firms and see if a check has been made on your credit report. Dispute it if you see a check in your record and have it removed from your report. If you subscribe to credit agency, get the identity theft protection, helps you in such cases. And finally keep a diligent eye on your credit records from now on. Once bitten, twice shy." }, { "docid": "477811", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd like to know if there is any reliable research on the subject. Intuitively, this must be true, no? Is it? First, is it even possible to discover the correlation, if one exists? Dave Ramsey is a proponent of \"\"Proven study that shows you will spend 10% more on a credit card than with cash.\"\" Of course, he suggests that the study came from an otherwise reliable source, Dun & Bradstreet. A fellow blogger at Get Rich Slowly researched and found - Nobody I know has been able to track down this mythical Dun and Bradstreet study. Even Dun and Bradstreet themselves have been unable to locate it. GRS reader Nicole (with the assistance of her trusty librarian Wendi) contacted the company and received this response: “After doing some research with D&B, it turns out that someone made up the statement, and also made up the part where D&B actually said that.” In other words, the most cited study is a Myth. In fact, there are studies which do conclude that card users spend more. I think that any study (on anything, not just this topic. Cigarette companies buy studies to show they don't cause cancer, Big Oil pays to disprove global warming, etc.) needs to be viewed with a critical eye. The studies I've seen nearly all contain one of 2 major flaws - My own observation - when I reviewed our budget over the course of a year, some of the largest charges include - I list the above, as these are items whose cost is pretty well fixed. We are not in the habit of \"\"going for a drive,\"\" gas is bought when we need it. All other items I consider fixed, in that the real choice is to pay with the card or check, unlike the items some claim can be inflated. These add to about 80% of the annual card use. I don't see it possible for card use to impact these items, and therefore the \"\"10% more\"\" warning is overreaching. To conclude, I'll concede that even the pay-in-full group might not adhere to the food budget, and grab the $5 brownie near the checkout, or over tip on a restaurant meal. But those situations are not sufficient to assume that a responsible card user comes out behind over the year for having done so. A selection of the Studies I am referencing -\"" }, { "docid": "277477", "title": "", "text": "The details of credit score calculation tend to change periodically, but the fundamentals are mostly consistent. Pay your bills, keep your average account age high, overpay your credit card minimums, and keep your overall debt low. And do soft pulls on your credit report to see what's happening. First, the simplest route: pay all your bills early or on time. Automatic deduction may be useful in this regard, especially for bills with predictable amounts. A corollary to this tip is to never leave an unpaid bill. What often happens to young people is in the course of moving around they leave the final bill unpaid and it gets reported to collections. Make sure you follow up online with all bills, even after canceling the service. Second, average account age and oldest account age matter. Open an account like a credit card and never close it, so you'll have an older account (hopefully a zero-fee card). Try to keep other accounts open rather than closing them (no need to cancel a zero-fee credit card) so your average account age stays higher. A card that works on internal systems (like a gift card) is not going to show up on a credit report; a card that works like any VISA/MC is likely going to show up. The rule of thumb is if they need your SSN to run a credit check for the application, then the card will appear on a credit report. You can pull your credit report to find out if the card is listed (you may have to allow time for lag before the card appears, but I'm not sure how long that might be). Third, a tip for extra credit score is to pay more than the minimum required on credit card bills. You can achieve this by either using your credit card at least once a month or by leaving a small hanging balance each month so there's always something to overpay next month. Credit card reporting will be either: unpaid, underpaid, minimum paid, or overpaid. Minimum payment helps your score and overpayment helps more. If you can use your credit card every month, that will give you something to overpay every month. Otherwise, you can leave a small debt left on the card but still pay over the monthly minimum. However, your total debt load, especially debt carried on your cards, counts against your score; aim for less than 10% of your limit. Finally, of course, is to pull your credit report periodically. You need to know what others are seeing. Since debt load utilization matters, make sure the reported card maximum is correct on your credit report. Talk to your bank or account issuer if the limit is wrong. If a collection appears, then you need to handle it. Often you can negotiate with the collector, but be careful to negotiate how they will report the resolution. You want them to agree to remove any negative information (either in exchange for payment or because of a mistake). Failing that, you want them to mark it paid in full or satisfied in full; letting them notate your score that you only partially paid is what you want to avoid, since it most signals someone with cash flow problems and credit issues. They control their reporting to credit bureaus, so if the person on the phone demurs, ask to speak to their supervisor or someone with negotiating authority. Try to get any agreements in writing. Remember that your total debt load is a factor in your credit score. Home loans and student loans do affect credit score. If you take on a smaller home loan, then it will affect your credit less harshly (and leave you with smaller monthly payments)." }, { "docid": "219181", "title": "", "text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month." }, { "docid": "567201", "title": "", "text": "\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \"\"sniff test\"\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \"\"strike\"\"; too many \"\"strikes\"\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\"" }, { "docid": "566607", "title": "", "text": "I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form." }, { "docid": "5203", "title": "", "text": "I have credit card debt of about $5000 That's the answer right there. You told us the 401(b) has no match. The next highest priority would be credit card debt that's costing you interest. You didn't mention the rate on the card, I'm assuming it's 8% or more. As far as your balance sheet (the 'bottom line') is concerned, pay off a 10% debt is the same as earning 10% on your money. If anyone promises you a higher return with a different investment, I'd run the other way. We hope the market, i.e. the US stock market, as measured by a broad index, say the S&P 500, will return 8-10%/yr over the long term, but this isn't guaranteed. Paying off that credit card will save you the interest every year, and free up the payments to invest elsewhere. In response to Marlene's comment - Crazy? No. Human nature and emotion is what it is. I honestly don't know how to address some of it. Years ago, I was in a similar situation with a reader who had a $5000 'emergency' account, yet had $5000 in credit card debt. I had a tough time getting my head around why it wasn't obvious this made no sense. In your case, I might suggest you pay the card down to below $1000 and have the credit line reduced. Paying high interest on $5K makes no sense at any point in one's life. At least a 20-something can dig his way out and learn a lesson. A pre-retiree shouldn't be throwing this money away." }, { "docid": "85074", "title": "", "text": "\"Yodlee and Mint are good solutions if you don't mind your personal financial information being stored \"\"in the cloud\"\". I do, so I use Quicken. Quicken stores whatever you give to it for as long as you want: so the only question is how to get the credit card transactions you want into it? All my financial institutions allow me to view my credit card statements for a year back, and download them in a form Quicken can read. So you can have a record of your transactions from a year ago right now, and in a year you will have two year's worth.\"" }, { "docid": "413441", "title": "", "text": "\"Im currently working on the line for a major multinational. They regularly take feedback from us for improvements, and in India, one of those suggestions increased direct sales by (reportedly) over 50%. That suggestion? Put a label on card readers that said \"\"(company name) Authorized Card Reader\"\". It cost the company less than $10, and now brings in millions per year.\"" }, { "docid": "599483", "title": "", "text": "\"This does not seem, to me, to be a very good indication regarding the risk of the person not paying their balances off. If you do not have a source of income then how are you going to repay your debt. Not to mention there is recource for creditors to garnish wages. That is not possible if you have no income. The risk assessment is about the ability of the creditor to recover any moneys loaned and costs and still make a profit. For example, students have their parents pay them some pocket money to cover for expenses, or a person might be working sporadically on consulting gigs that do not have a fixed monthly or yearly component. Most credit card companies that are willing to issue to college students will allow you to include money from your parents in your income. Credit card companies are looking for customers that will carry a balance and incur fees but be able to pay them. These companies do not make money off of fees and interest that they do not collect. As such, sporatic work increases risk. Is it possible for people to get approved for unsecured credit cards if they don't hold (or have not held for some time) a job at the time of application? I was able to while I was in college. Though I did have a part time job. If you can show that you have the ability to pay you can usually get a credit card if you do not have bad credit. It will probably be high interest and have alot of fees some of them you will have to pay upfront. But what you probably mean to ask is \"\"Is it possible to get a no cost unsecured credit card with out a reliable source of income?\"\" The answer to that is: probably not. Even the ones that look like they are free probably have hidden fees.\"" }, { "docid": "258412", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure if this is what your looking for but my favorite piece of work was credit card fraud and ways banks are preventing it. Topics included: -Family's at risk (who has the most risk?) -Credit card strip vs chip -Cost on chip scanners for local businesses -Apple Pay and the likelihood of getting hacked -Insurance and how it will cover a business with out chip readers -example of chipotle and target getting hacked -bitcoin and is it an easier source I wrote a paper about 4 years ago, and it had multiple finance topics involved into it. Hope this at least gives you a direction of what your looking for !" } ]

[ { "docid": "165645", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk." } ]

[ { "docid": "413879", "title": "", "text": "All the existing answers are right and the general theme is: contracting is a different kind of relationship. It's a business-to-business relationship rather than a business-to-employee relationship. This has implications such as: Of course, some contractors are effectively just over-paid employees, and some of the above points don't apply to them, but that's the idea behind bona fide contracting." }, { "docid": "506108", "title": "", "text": "\"LLC is, as far as I know, just a US thing, so I'm assuming that you are in the USA. Update for clarification: other countries do have similar concepts, but I'm not aware of any country that uses the term LLC, nor any other country that uses the single-member LLC that is disregarded for income tax purposes that I'm referring to here (and that I assume the recruiter also was talking about). Further, LLCs vary by state. I only have experience with California, so some things may not apply the same way elsewhere. Also, if you are located in one state but the client is elsewhere, things can get more complex. First, let's get one thing out of the way: do you want to be a contractor, or an employee? Both have advantage, and especially in the higher-income areas, contractor can be more beneficial for you. Make sure that if you are a contractor, your rate must be considerably higher than as employee, to make up for the benefits you give up, as well as the FICA taxes and your expense of maintaining an LLC (in California, it costs at least $800/year, plus legal advice, accounting, and various other fees etc.). On the other hand, oftentimes, the benefits as an employee aren't actually worth all that much when you are in high income brackets. Do pay attention to health insurance - that may be a valuable benefit, or it may have such high deductibles that you would be better off getting your own or paying the penalty for going uninsured. Instead of a 401(k), you can set up an IRA (update or various other options), and you can also replace all the other benefits. If you decide that being an employee is the way to go, stop here. If you decide that being a contractor is a better deal for you, then it is indeed a good idea to set up an LLC. You actually have three fundamental options: work as an individual (the legal term is \"\"sole proprietorship\"\"), form a single-member LLC disregarded for income tax purposes, or various other forms of incorporation. Of these, I would argue that the single-member LLC combines the best of both worlds: taxation is almost the same as for sole proprietorship, the paperwork is minimal (a lot less than any other form of incorporation), but it provides many of the main benefits of incorporating. There are several advantages. First, as others have already pointed out, the IRS and Department of Labor scrutinize contractor relationships carefully, because of companies that abused this status on a massive scale (Uber and now-defunct Homejoy, for instance, but also FedEx and other old-economy companies). One of the 20 criteria they use is whether you are incorporated or not. Basically, it adds to your legal credibility as a contractor. Another benefit is legal protection. If your client (or somebody else) sues \"\"you\"\", they can usually only sue the legal entity they are doing business with. Which is the LLC. Your personal assets are safe from judgments. That's why Donald Trump is still a billionaire despite his famous four bankruptcies (which I believe were corporate, not personal, bankrupcies). Update for clarification Some people argue that you are still liable for your personal actions. You should consult with a lawyer about the details, but most business liabilities don't arise from such acts. Another commenter suggested an E&O policy - a very good idea, but not a substitute for an LLC. An LLC does require some minimal paperwork - you need to set up a separate bank account, and you will need a professional accounting system (not an Excel spreadsheet). But if you are a single member LLC, the paperwork is really not a huge deal - you don't need to file a separate federal tax return. Your income will be treated as if it was personal income (the technical term is that the LLC is disregarded for IRS tax purposes). California still does require a separate tax return, but that's only two pages or so, and unless you make a large amount, the tax is always $800. That small amount of paperwork is probably why your recruiter recommended the LLC, rather than other forms of incorporation. So if you want to be a contractor, then it sounds like your recruiter gave you good advice. If you want to be an employee, don't do it. A couple more points, not directly related to the question, but hopefully generally helpful: If you are a contractor (whether as sole proprietor or through an LLC), in most cities you need a business license. Not only that, but you may even need a separate business license in every city you do business (for instance, in the city where your client is located, even if you don't live there). Business licenses can range from \"\"not needed\"\" to a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. In some cities, the business license fee may also depend on your income. And finally, one interesting drawback of a disregarded LLC vs. sole proprietorship as a contractor has to do with the W-9 form and your Social Security Number. Generally, when you work for somebody and receive more than $600/year, they need to ask you for your Social Security Number, using form W-9. That is always a bit of a concern because of identity theft. The IRS also recognizes a second number, the EIN (Employer Identification Number). This is basically like an SSN for corporations. You can also apply for one if you are a sole proprietor. This is a HUGE benefit because you can use the EIN in place of your SSN on the W-9. Instant identity theft protection. HOWEVER, if you have a disregarded LLC, the IRS says that you MUST use your SSN; you cannot use your EIN! Update: The source for that information is the W-9 instructions; it specifically only excludes LLCs.\"" }, { "docid": "510913", "title": "", "text": "You have to file and issue each one of them a 1099 if you are paying them $600 or more for the year. Because you need to issue a 1099 to them (so they can file their own taxes), I don't think there's a way that you could just combine all of them. Additionally, you may want to make sure that you are properly classifying these people as contractors in case they should be employees." }, { "docid": "388713", "title": "", "text": "As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part." }, { "docid": "352640", "title": "", "text": "I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity." }, { "docid": "377335", "title": "", "text": "\"Employers are not supposed to give cash gifts to their employees, even if you try to call it a \"\"gift\"\" for tax purposes. Presumably, the reason your wife's employer gave her cash was to be nice and save her taxes on that amount. Her employer already paid tax on that money so that your wife doesn't have to. If she plans to declare it anyway, then she should instead give it back and ask for it to be added to the W2 as an end of year bonus. This way her employer could then deduct the payment and pay her a larger amount of money. (The additional amount would be approximately their tax rate minus about 7.45% for FICA.) In fact, if your wife's tax rate is more than 15% lower than her employer's, then this is actually mathematically best for both parties.\"" }, { "docid": "58937", "title": "", "text": "In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual." }, { "docid": "375748", "title": "", "text": "Hence new employer pays a part of the salary as per diem compensation along with regular salary and says that per-diem compensation is non-taxable. Per-diem is not taxable. But that is not what you're describing. It appears that either you or the prospective employer, misunderstood what per-diem is. As per US law is it legally allowed non taxable per diem compensation to employees? Yes. What are the pros and cons of having per diem compensation? Per-diem is not compensation. It is not part of your salary. It is not part of your employment contract. If I have to report my salary to any one like banks, insurance companies, do I need to include Per diem compensation or not? No, because it is not compensation. Back to the first item: Per-diem is paid to you during business trips when you're away from your (tax) home. It is not part of your compensation, and is only allowed for business trips. Contract work on site for any prolonged period of time (1 year or more, as a definitive rule, but can be less) is not a business trip. For that period of time your tax home becomes that location, so you're not away. You're home. You should discuss it with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), but it seems to me that either you misunderstood something, or your prospective employer is trying to evade taxes (both yours and his) by disguising part of your compensation as per-diem. It is very likely that when you get caught, the employer will just issue you 1099 on the amounts and leave you hanging." }, { "docid": "59686", "title": "", "text": "You're doing business in the US and derive income from the US, so I'd say that yes, you should file a non-resident tax return in the US. And in Connecticut, as well, since that's where you're conducting business (via your domestic LLC registered there). Since you paid more than $600 to your contractor, you're probably also supposed to send a 1099 to him on that account on behalf of your LLC (which is you, essentially, if you're the only member)." }, { "docid": "172752", "title": "", "text": "This sounds very like disguised employment. You act like an employee of the company, but your official relationship with them is as a contractor. You gain none of the protection you get from being an employee, and this may make you cheaper, less risky and more desirable for the company who is hiring you. Depending on your country you may also pay corporation tax rather than income tax, which may represent a very significant saving. Also, the company hiring you may not have to pay PAYE, national insurance, stakeholder pension, etc. This arrangement is normal and legal providing you genuinely are acting as a subcontractor. However if you are behaving as an employee (desk at the company, company email, have to work specific hours in a specific location, no ability to subcontract, etc.) you may be classified as a disguised employee. In the UK it used to be common practice for highly paid employees to set up shell companies to avoid tax. This will now get you into hot water. Google IR35 It sounds like your relationship in this case is directly with the recruiter. You will have to consider if the recruiter is acting as your employer, or if you remain a genuinely independent agent. The duration of your contract with the recruiter will have a bearing on this. In the UK there are a whole series of tests for disguised employment. This is a good arrangement provided you go in with your eyes open and an awareness of the legislation. However you should absolutely check the rules that apply in your country before entering into this agreement. You could potentially be stung very badly indeed." }, { "docid": "559884", "title": "", "text": "The dividend quoted on a site like the one you linked to on Yahoo shows what 1 investor owning 1 share received from the company. It is not adjusted at all for taxes. (Actually some dividend quotes are adjusted but not for taxes... see below.) It is not adjusted because most dividends are taxed as ordinary income. This means different rates for different people, and so for simplicity's sake the quotes just show what an investor would be paid. You're responsible for calculating and paying your own taxes. From the IRS website: Ordinary Dividends Ordinary (taxable) dividends are the most common type of distribution from a corporation or a mutual fund. They are paid out of earnings and profits and are ordinary income to you. This means they are not capital gains. You can assume that any dividend you receive on common or preferred stock is an ordinary dividend unless the paying corporation or mutual fund tells you otherwise. Ordinary dividends will be shown in box 1a of the Form 1099-DIV you receive. Now my disclaimer... what you see on a normal stock quote for dividend in Yahoo or Google Finance is adjusted. (Like here for GE.) Many corporations actually pay out quarterly dividends. So the number shown for a dividend will be the most recent quarterly dividend [times] 4 quarters. To find out what you would receive as an actual payment, you would need to divide GE's current $0.76 dividend by 4 quarters... $0.19. So you would receive that amount for each share of stock you owned in GE." }, { "docid": "77245", "title": "", "text": "Careful. I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment. It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099. On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages. On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year. Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company. As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104. Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay. I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too." }, { "docid": "207997", "title": "", "text": "You can ask the client to pay you through the LLC. In that case you should invoice them from the LLC and have them pay the invoice. If they pay you personally, you can always make a capital contribution to the LLC and use that money to buy equipment. The tax implications for a single person LLC providing professional services are the same for you either way: income is income whether it's from your LLC or an employer. It's different for the employer if they are giving you a W2 vs a 1099. So it doesn't matter much for you. If the LLC is buying equipment, make sure you get enough revenue through the LLC to at least offset those expenses." }, { "docid": "113871", "title": "", "text": "I would just take $2000 and multiply by your marginal tax rate, weight that between the 5 other people according to their share of the prize money and ask them to give you that. From your question it seems like you all have a good working relationship, I'm sure the other partners would agree to that. I think it's the simplest solution that is also fair and equitable. Basically, you pay the tax on 2000 and they pay you back for their share of the tax. Much easier than trying to pass it through your tax return for 5 separate people for a minimal amount of $'s. In hindsight, the best way to do it would have been to 1099 the person with the lowest marginal tax rate for the year to minimize the total tax paid on the 2000. Probably only would've been a few dollars difference but still the most efficient way to do it." }, { "docid": "179359", "title": "", "text": "\"It seems that you think you are freelancing, and they think you are an employee. What's bad for you, the tax office will also think you are an employee if they withhold tax for you. Alternatively, they think you are stupid, and they keep the money, but are actually not paying it to the tax office at all, in which case you will have a bad surprise when you do your tax returns. First, I'd ask them for proof that they are indeed paying these taxes into some account related to you. I'd then ask a tax adviser for some serious advice. If they are acting out of incompetence and not out of malice, then you should be mostly fine, but your work there will count as employment. Heaven knows why they treat you as an employee. Check your contract with them; whether it is between you and them or your company and them. It maybe that they never hired a contractor and believe that they have to pay employment tax. They don't. If your company sends them a bill, then they need to pay that bill, 100% of it, and that's it. Taxes are fully your business and your responsibility. As \"\"quid\"\" said, if they say they are withholding tax, then at the very least there must be a paystub that proves they have actually been paying these taxes. If they withhold taxes, and there is no paystub, then this looks like a criminal attempt to cheat you. If they have actually paid taxes properly into your account, then they are merely creating a mess that can hopefully be fixed. But it is probably complicated enough that you need a tax advisor, even if you had none before, since instead of paying to your company, they paid some money to the company, and some to you personally.\"" }, { "docid": "121621", "title": "", "text": "\"As a contractor, I have done this exact calculation many times so I can compare full time employment offers when they come. The answer varies greatly depending on your situation, but here's how to calculate it: So, subtracting the two and you get I've run many different scenarios with multiple plans and employers, and in my situation with a spouse and 1 child, the employer plans usually ended up saving me approximately $5k per year. So then, to answer your question: ...salary is \"\"100k\"\", \"\"with healthcare\"\", or then \"\"X\"\" \"\"with no healthcare\"\" - what do we reckon? I reckon I would want to be paid $5K more, or $105K. This is purely hypothetical though and assumes there are no other differences except for with or without health insurance. In reality, contractor vs employee will have quite a few other differences. But in general, the calculation varies by company and the more generous the employer's health benefits, the more you need to be compensated to make up for not having it. Note: the above numbers are very rough, and there are many other factors that come into play, some of which are: As a side note, many years ago, during salary talks with a company, I was able to negotiate $2K in additional yearly salary by agreeing not to take the health insurance since I had better insurance through my spouse. Health insurance in the US was much cheaper back then so I think closer to $5K today would be about right and is consistent with my above ballpark calculation. I always wondered what would have happened if I turned around and enrolled the following year. I suspect had I done that they could not have legally lowered my salary due to my breaking my promise, but I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't get a raise that year either.\"" }, { "docid": "595919", "title": "", "text": "Successful technology contractors* make far more than employees. The contractor market is getting oversaturated because more people want to do it and employers like it less and less. Problem is, the only time big employers are willing to hire contractors are when they're really good, so you really only get well paid contractors who find consistent work, and then a flood of contractors that have to get whatever work they can find." }, { "docid": "481459", "title": "", "text": "Do you get cash (or a deposit into your bank account) of your PhD stipend and then you immediately send the university a check to pay the tuition fee (which might be more than the cash you get from the University)? Or does the University simply keep the stipend money, transferring it from one pocket to another in essence, and say, OK, you have paid your tuition except for $X that you still owe us? Or does the university grant you a tuition waiver as part of your assistantship and reports this as income on Form 1099-MISC? In all of these cases, the money reported on Form 1099-MISC is not taxable income to you, and it is neither subject to Self-Employment tax (basically, Social Security and Medicare tax -- both the employee's share and the employer's share) nor to (Federal) income tax." }, { "docid": "502137", "title": "", "text": "The report I linked to appears to disagree with you about the numbers. But if you said that the number of contractors exceeding the number of government employees wasn't in and of itself hugely meaningful I'd not disagree. The point is that the military do outsource their work to various degrees, which was the point I'd been making, and so we're largely agreed. I wonder how it works out from a budgetary perspective for the professional mercenary companies, who I've read get paid massive amounts, which, I imagine, must irritate those doing similar work for government pay. People like Blackwater and their ilk." } ]

[ { "docid": "482464", "title": "", "text": "I'll give the credit to @Quid in the comments section of the question. You put out $10k, you got back $20k, that's a cash gain of $10k, how the asset was valued between your purchase and sale isn't relevant. From an accounting perspective, the company is the only party that is realizing the loss (as they have sold the asset for 40K less than par). You the buyer, only get to see the initial buy and sale of such capital asset. Example: A company purchases a car for $20,000 and after depreciation it is worth (book valued at) $2,000. It is then sold to a customer for $3,000. Does the customer realize a loss of $1,000? No. Does the company realize a gain of $1,000? Yes. Your bank analogy is flawed in two ways:" } ]

[ { "docid": "447619", "title": "", "text": "\"Why is nobody providing a service that is basically: Give me your money. I will invest it as I see fit. A year later I will return the capital to you, plus half of any profits or losses. This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. Because they can already make lots of money by just charging people an unconditional fee and not having to cover their losses. Why take on the risk of having to cover your losses when they can just take a percentage of your assets and stick you with any losses? In addition, as Charles E. Grant mentioned in a comment on another answer, if a person has both sufficient capital to cover your losses and sufficient confidence in their investing acumen that they don't think they will have to do so, they have little need for your money. Rather than take half the gains on your money, they will invest their own money (they must have some, or else they can't guarantee your losses) and take all the gains. Your scheme would only be plausible as a partnership between a person with investing skills but little capital, and another person with ample capital and less skill. In that case, the investment whiz could genuinely benefit from access to the bankroller's capital. As quid noted in chat, this does exist in the form of ad-hoc private equity arrangements between individuals. However, such a setup is unlikely to exist as an \"\"off-the-shelf product\"\" marketed at retail investors, because financial institutions have more capital than any individual retail investor -- and, more generally, anyone with sufficient skill to pull this off will (at least in theory) quickly accumulate enough capital that they can negotiate a less risky payment plan.\"" }, { "docid": "496820", "title": "", "text": "When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases." }, { "docid": "586649", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally, yes. Rather than ask, \"\"why are these guys so cheap?\"\", you should be asking why the big names are so expensive. :) Marketing spend plays a big role there. Getting babies to shill for your company during the super bowl requires a heck of a lot of commissions. Due to the difficulties involved in setting up a brokerage, it's unlikely that you'll see a scam. A brokerage might go bankrupt for random reasons, but that's what investor insurance is for. \"\"Safeness\"\" is mostly the likelihood that you'll be able to get access to your funds on deposit with the broker. Investment funds are insured by SIPC for up to $500,000, with a lower limit on cash. The specific limits vary by broker, with some offering greater protection paid for on their own dime. Check with the broker -- it's usually on their web pages under \"\"Security\"\". Funds in \"\"cash\"\" might be swept into an interest-earning investment vehicle for which insurance is different, and that depends on the broker, too. A few Forex brokers went bankrupt last year, although that's a new market with fewer regulatory protections for traders. I heard that one bankruptcy in the space resulted in a 7% loss for traders with accounts there, and that there was a Ponzi-ish scam company as well. Luckily, the more stringent regulation of stock brokerages makes that space much safer for investors. If you want to assess the reliability of an online broker, I suggest the following: It's tempting to look at when the brokerage was founded. Fly-by-night scams, by definition, won't be around very long -- and usually that means under a few months. Any company with a significant online interface will have to have been around long enough to develop that client interface, their backend databases, and the interface with the markets and their clearing house. The two brokerages you mentioned have been around for 7+ years, so that lends strength to the supposition of a strong business model. That said, there could well be a new company that offers services or prices that fit your investment need, and in that case definitely look into their registrations and third-party reviews. Finally, note that the smaller, independent brokerages will probably have stiffer margin rules. If you're playing a complex, novel, and/or high-risk strategy that can't handle the volatility of a market crash, even a short excursion such as the 2010 flash crash, stiff margin rules might have consequences that a novice investor would rather pretend didn't exist.\"" }, { "docid": "118485", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say \"\"interest\"\", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A \"\"bad year\"\" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases \"\"interest\"\" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that \"\"Roth IRA fund\"\" doesn't really tell you what's \"\"inside\"\" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a \"\"target retirement date\"\"-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total \"\"interest\"\" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about \"\"standard growth\"\" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much \"\"growth\"\" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (\"\"How much do you expect growth to be per year?\"\") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not \"\"rules\"\" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected.\"" }, { "docid": "354823", "title": "", "text": "Icahn also bought a substantial amount of GM in the early 2000s... They were bankrupt just a one short recession later. (Though by that time I'm sure he had cut his losses) Icahn's fund's track record over the last few years hasn't been great either, as they've consistently underperformed the market. Point being... Having Carl Icahn invest in your company doesn't mean it's a good company and it's well documented that your chances of getting rich by selling Herbalife are only slightly better than your chances of hitting the lotto. The FTC ruling spared Herbalife in the short term..but I think it's inevitable that they'll run out of steam at some point. Though without having a good idea of when, it's a very risky short." }, { "docid": "127578", "title": "", "text": "Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation." }, { "docid": "356819", "title": "", "text": "Suppose that the ETF is currently at a price of $100. Suppose that the next day it moves up 10% (to a price of $110) and the following day it moves down 5% (to a price of $104.5). Over these two days the ETF has had a net gain of 4.5% from its original price. The inverse ETF reverses the daily gains/losses of the base ETF. Suppose for simplicity that the inverse ETF also starts out at a price of $100. So on the first day it goes down 10% (to $90) and on the second day it goes up 5% (to $94.5). Thus over the two days the inverse ETF has had a net loss of 5.5%. The specific dollar amounts do not matter here. The result is that the ETF winds up at 110%*95% = 104.5% of its original price and the inverse ETF is at 90%*105% = 94.5% of its original price. A similar example is given here. As suggested by your quote, this is due to compounding. A gain of X% followed by a loss of Y% (compounded on the gain) is not in general the same as a loss of X% followed by a gain of Y% (compounded on the loss). Or, more simply put, if something loses 10% of its value and then gains 10% of its new value, it will not return to its original value, because the 10% it gained was 10% of its decreased value, so it's not enough to bring it all the way back up. Likewise if it gains 10% and then loses 10%, it will go slightly below its original value (since it lost 10% of its newly increased value)." }, { "docid": "424679", "title": "", "text": "\"I cannot tell you what is or is not allowed under Islamic law. What I can tell you is that when most investors talk about the \"\"power of compound interest,\"\" they are not actually necessarily talking about interest! The idea of the magic of compound interest is that when you receive an interest payment on your investment, you now have a larger investment, earning more interest. Your investment grows exponentially. This doesn't just apply to interest payments, however, but can apply to any type of investment where the profits of the investment cause the investment to get larger. For example, if you invest in a company's stock, and the value of the stock goes up 10% in a year, after that year your investment is worth more than it was at the beginning. If it goes up another 10% the following year, you have gained more money in the second year than you did in the first. Your gains are compounding, even though interest payments are not involved at all. The same is true if you reinvest dividends or if you use business profit to expand your business, for example. The term \"\"power of compound interest\"\" is so named for historical reasons, but really applies to any type of investment where the investment itself is growing.\"" }, { "docid": "183898", "title": "", "text": "It is true that this is possible, however, it's very remote in the case of the large and reputable fund companies such as Vanguard. FDIC insurance protects against precisely this for bank accounts, but mutual funds and ETFs do not have an equivalent to FDIC insurance. One thing that does help you in the case of a mutual fund or ETF is that you indirectly (through the fund) own actual assets. In a cash account at a bank, you have a promise from the bank to pay, and then the bank can go off and use your money to make loans. You don't in any sense own the bank's loans. With a fund, the fund company cannot (legally) take your money out of the fund, except to pay the expense ratio. They have to use your money to buy stocks, bonds, or whatever the fund invests in. Those assets are then owned by the fund. Legally, a mutual fund is a special kind of company defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, and is a separate company from the investment advisor (such as Vanguard): http://www.sec.gov/answers/mfinvco.htm Funds have their own boards, and in principle a fund board can even fire the company advising the fund, though this is not likely since boards aren't usually independent. (a quick google found this article for more, maybe someone can find a better one: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mutual-fund-independent-board-rule-all-but-dead) If Vanguard goes under, the funds could continue to exist and get a new adviser, or could be liquidated with investors receiving whatever the assets are worth. Of course, all this legal stuff doesn't help you with outright fraud. If a fund's adviser says it bought the S&P 500, but really some guy bought himself a yacht, Madoff-style, then you have a problem. But a huge well-known ETF has auditors, tons of different employees, lots of brokerage and exchange traffic, etc. so to me at least it's tough to imagine a risk here. With a small fund company with just a few people - and there are lots of these! - then there's more risk, and you'd want to carefully look at what independent agent holds their assets, who their auditors are, and so forth. With regular mutual funds (not ETFs) there are more issues with diversifying across fund companies: With ETFs, there probably isn't much downside to diversifying since you could buy them all from one brokerage account. Maybe it even happens naturally if you pick the best ETFs you can find. Personally, I would just pick the best ETFs and not worry about advisor diversity. Update: maybe also deserving a mention are exchange-traded notes (ETNs). An ETN's legal structure is more like the bank account, minus the FDIC insurance of course. It's an IOU from the company that runs the ETN, where they promise to pay back the value of some index. There's no investment company as with a fund, and therefore you don't own a share of any actual assets. If the ETN's sponsor went bankrupt, you would indeed have a problem, much more so than if an ETF's sponsor went bankrupt." }, { "docid": "62706", "title": "", "text": "\"You can do several things: After the fact: If you believe the stock will go up, you can buy more stock now, it's what's called \"\"averaging\"\". So, you bought 100 at $10, now it's at $7. To gain money from your original investment it needs to raise to over $10. But if you really think it'll go up, you can buy and average. So you buy, say, 100 more stock at $7, now you have 200 shares at $8.50 average so you gain money on your investment when the stock goes over $8.50 instead of $10. Of course, you risk losing even more money if the stock keeps going down. Before the fact: When you buy stock, set 'triggers'. In most trading houses you can set automatic triggers to fire on conditions you set. When you buy 100 shares at $10, you can set a trigger to automatically sell the 100 shares if it drops below $9, so you limit your losses to 10% (for example).\"" }, { "docid": "193485", "title": "", "text": "\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"" }, { "docid": "322284", "title": "", "text": "\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"" }, { "docid": "438119", "title": "", "text": "Unless your investments are held within a special tax-free account, then every sale transaction is a taxable event, meaning a gain or loss (capital gain/loss or income gain/loss, depending on various circumstances) is calculated at that moment in time. Gains may also accrue on unrealized amounts at year-end, for specific items [in general in the US, gains do not accrue at year-end for most things]. Moving cash that you have received from selling investments, from your brokerage account to your checking account, has no impact from a tax perspective." }, { "docid": "264023", "title": "", "text": "\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\"" }, { "docid": "444405", "title": "", "text": "Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it." }, { "docid": "230646", "title": "", "text": "\"A Credit Default Swap (CDS) is a contract between two parties. A useful analogy is insurance (but by no means exact). I pay a quarterly premium in order to insure myself against another event. In this case, it might be that I own some IBM Bonds. I am happy to own those bonds, and like the \"\"coupon\"\" that they pay me. But I am a little worried about IBM going bankrupt. So I can find someone willing to sell me a CDS. So long as I keep up my \"\"premium\"\" payments, if IBM goes into default on their bonds, I get a payout. This analogy does break down at a couple of levels. Firstly there is no requirement that I have to own the IBM bond in the first place. I can in effect then \"\"take a view\"\" on IBM going into default by purchasing a CDS without owning the underlying asset. Also in the real insurance world, there are various capital requirements that the companies have to adhere to, while CDS market, being essentially unregulated has none. So to summarize, and while The Pedia has a pretty good article, they are good both to hedge your bet (i.e. protect your actual owned asset) or as a speculative tool to take a \"\"view\"\" on the likelihood of a company to go bankrupt.\"" }, { "docid": "287923", "title": "", "text": "\"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a \"\"realized loss\"\" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the \"\"cost basis\"\" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders.\"" }, { "docid": "48718", "title": "", "text": "\"You can hold a wide variety of investments in your TFSA account, including stocks such as SLF. But if the stocks are being purchased via a company stock purchase plan, they are typically deposited in a regular margin account with a brokerage firm (a few companies may issue physical stock certificates but that is very rare these days). That account would not be a TFSA but you can perform what's called an \"\"in-kind\"\" transfer to move them into a TFSA that you open with either the same brokerage firm, or a different one. There will be a fee for the transfer - check with the brokerage that currently holds the stock to find out how costly that will be. Assuming the stock gained in value while you held it outside the TFSA, this transfer will result in capital gains tax that you'll have to pay when you file your taxes for the year in which the transfer occurs. The tax would be calculated by taking the value at time of transfer, minus the purchase price (or the market value at time of purchase, if your plan allowed you to buy it at a discounted price; the discounted amount will be automatically taxed by your employer). 50% of the capital gain is added to your annual income when calculating taxes owed. Normally when you sell a stock that has lost value, you can actually get a \"\"capital loss\"\" deduction that is used to offset gains that you made in other stocks, or redeemed against capital gains tax paid in previous years, or carried forward to apply against gains in future years. However, if the stock decreased in value and you transfer it, you are not eligible to claim a capital loss. I'm not sure why you said \"\"TFSA for a family member\"\", as you cannot directly contribute to someone else's TFSA account. You can give them a gift of money or stocks, which they can deposit in their TFSA account, but that involves that extra step of gifting, and the money/stocks become their property to do with as they please. Now that I've (hopefully) answered all your questions, let me offer you some advice, as someone who also participates in an employee stock purchase plan. Holding stock in the company that you work for is a bad idea. The reason is simple: if something terrible happens to the company, their stock will plummet and at the same time they may be forced to lay off many employees. So just at the time when you lose your job and might want to sell your stock, suddenly the value of your stocks has gone way down! So you really should sell your company shares at least once a year, and then use that money to invest in your TFSA account. You also don't want to put all your eggs in one basket - you should be spreading your investment among many companies, or better yet, buy index mutual funds or ETFs which hold all the companies in a certain index. There's lots of good info about index investing available at Canadian Couch Potato. The types of investments recommended there are all possible to purchase inside a TFSA account, to shelter the growth from being taxed. EDIT: Here is an article from MoneySense that talks about transferring stocks into a TFSA. It also mentions the importance of having a diversified portfolio!\"" }, { "docid": "214108", "title": "", "text": "We will ignore the fact that insurance companies are making record profits since the ACA, are not allowed over 10% profit, which they don't hit, and are only pulling out of markets because they want MORE money in the coffers at the end of the year, not because it will bankrupt them to stay in. You're right, lowering investments from not dumping as much dividend gains back into it, and taxing them in them will make them not lower premiums, you know, seeing as they reach that 10% anyway." } ]

[ { "docid": "498631", "title": "", "text": "\"Do I need an Investment Adviser? No, but you may want to explore the idea of having one. Is he going to tell me anything that my accountant can't? Probably. How much expertise are you expecting from your accountant here? Do you think your accountant knows everything within the realms of money from taxes, insurance products, investments and all your choices and what would work or wouldn't? Seems like it could be a tall order to my mind. My accountant did say to come to him for advice on investment/business issues. So, he is willing, but is he able? Not asking about his competence, but rather \"\"is there something that only an Investment Adviser can provide, by law, that an accountant can't\"\"? Not that I know though don't forget how much expertise are you expecting here from one person. Is this person intended to answer all your money questions? But isn't that something that my accountant could/should do? Perhaps though how well are you expecting one person to be aware of so much stuff? I want you to know all the tax law so I can minimize taxes, maximize my investment returns, cover me with adequate insurance, and protect my savings seems like a bit much to put on one entity. Do I need either of them? Won't the Internet and sites like this one suffice? Need no. However, how much time are you prepared to spend learning the basics of strategies that work for you? How much money are you prepared to put into things to learn what works and doesn't? While it is your decision, consider how to what extent do you diagnose your medical issues through the internet versus going to see a doctor? Be careful of how much of a do it yourself approach you want to go here and recognize that there are multiple approaches that may work. The question is which trade-offs are OK for you.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "186029", "title": "", "text": "Each bank builds or buys their own bill pay system, so answers are not universal (try your banks bill pay system out before fully transferring over, if I didn't like mine I'd get a new bank), but for your questions in order: Other things to consider include: Check your bank account at least twice a month to verify what payments have been made (this is just good general advice). I use bill pay to automatically pay the minimum payment so I avoid forgetting to pay my credit card bill. I strongly recommend a push vs. pull method for bill pay; that is, pushing money from your bank account to pay bills, rather than allowing billers to pull money from your account. This limits the number of companies that you directly give your bank account information to, and makes it easier to hold onto your money when you dispute a mistake they made. It also puts all payment information in once central place so you can keep track of all payment schedules together." }, { "docid": "253970", "title": "", "text": "Getting the right diversity of investments helps buffer you from some of the short term market swings. If you need advice it's worth spending a small part of that money on a consultation with a financial adviser, who can talk to you about your goals, your time horizon, and your risk tolerance and recommend a good starting distribution. (Free advice from brokers risks being biased by their commissions.) Once you have that plan, uou need to decide how to execute it. Low-fee index funds are a good way to get started until you learn more, and for many of us that's all we ever need. Then you need to decide whether to invest it all at once or dollar-cost average. I've heard arguments both ways; DCA does mean you risk missing some immmediate gains, but also reduces your risk of buying at a temporary high and taking some immediate losses. For me DCA seemed to make sense, but that's another decision for you to make." }, { "docid": "113885", "title": "", "text": "I won't make any assumptions about the source of the money. Typically however, this can be an emotional time and the most important thing to do is not act rashly. If this is an amount of money you have never seen before, getting advice from a fee only financial adviser would be my second step. The first step is to breathe and promise yourself you will NOT make any decisions about this money in the short term. Better to have $100K in the bank earning nearly zero interest than to spend it in the wrong way. If you have to receive the money before you can meet with an adviser, then just open a new savings account at your bank (or credit union) and put the money in there. It will be safe and sound. Visit http://www.napfa.org/ and interview at least three advisers. With their guidance, think about what your goals are. Do you want to invest and grow the money? Pay off debt? Own a home or new large purchase? These are personal decisions, but the adviser might help you think of goals you didn't imagine Create a plan and execute it." }, { "docid": "586984", "title": "", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions." }, { "docid": "314252", "title": "", "text": "\"A financial planner can help with investments, insurance, estate planning, budgeting, retirement planning, saving for college, tax planning/prep, and other money topics. One way to get a sense is to look at this Certified Financial Planner topic list. Another idea is to look at this book (my favorite I've read) which covers roughly a similar topic list in a concise form: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 It could not hurt at all to read that before deciding to visit a planner, so you have baseline knowledge. By the way, look for the CFP certification which is a generalist certification. A CFP might also have a deeper cert in certain topics or connect you with someone who does. For example: You really want a generalist (CFP) who may have an additional credential as well. The idea is to holistically look at what you're trying to accomplish and all finance-related areas. Especially because there may be tradeoffs. The CFP would then refer you to or work with lawyers, accountants, etc. Importantly, some advisors are fiduciaries (must act in your interests) and some are not. In particular many stockbrokers are neither qualified planners (no CFP or equivalent) nor are they fiduciaries. Stay away. There are several models for paying a financial planner, including: There's an organization called NAPFA (napfa.org) for fiduciary non-commission-based planners. Membership there is a good thing to look for since it's a third party that defines what fee-only means and requires the no-commissions/fiduciary standard. Finally, the alternative I ended up choosing was to just take the CFP course myself. You can do it online via correspondence course, it costs about the same as 1 year of professional advice. I also took the exam, just to be sure I learned the stuff. This is the \"\"extreme DIY\"\" approach but it is cheaper over time and you know you are not going to defraud yourself. You still might do things that are counterproductive and not in your interests, but you know that already probably ;-) Anyway I think it's equivalent to about a quarter's worth of work at a decent college, or so. There are about 6 textbooks to dig through. You won't be an experienced expert at the end, but you'll know a lot. To get an actual CFP cert, you need 3 years experience on top of the courses and the exam - I haven't done that, just the book learning. Someone who puts \"\"CFP\"\" after their name will have the 3 years on top of the training. Some editorial: many planners emphasize investing, and many people looking for planners (or books on finance) emphasize investing. This is a big mistake, in my view. Investing is more or less a commodity and you just need someone who won't screw it up, overcharge, and/or lose your money on something idiotic or inappropriate. Some people are in plain-bad and inappropriate investments, don't get me wrong. But once you fix that and just get into anything decent, your biggest planning concerns are probably elsewhere. On investments, I'd look for a planner to just get you out of overpriced annuities and expensive mutual funds you may have been sold (anything you were sold by a salesperson is probably crap). And look for them to help you decide how much to invest, and how much in stocks vs. bonds. Those are the most important investment decisions.\"" }, { "docid": "11998", "title": "", "text": "\"I have a couple other important considerations regarding external HSA accounts vs employer sponsored HSA accounts. Depending on your personal financial situation and goals; some people like to use HSA accounts as an extra retirement account (since the money can be withdrawn penalty free in retirement for non-medical expenses, and completely tax & penalty free at any time for medical expenses). If your intended use for the HSA account is an investment vehicle for retirement, then you may find more use/benefit out of an external provider that may provide more or better investment options than your employers HSA investment options. There can be a lot of additional value in those extra investment options over greater periods of time. Another VERY important consideration for FICA taxes (FICA includes Social Security & Medicare) that I don't believe was mentioned before - for those earners who are under the maximum social security wage limit, you are paying 6.2% of each paycheck into social security taxes. As others have mentioned you can \"\"save\"\" this tax through your employer’s plan if you set up the account to be funded pre-tax from your paychecks. However, in doing so, you are lowering your overall contributions into social security, which may lower your social security benefits in your retirement years! If this is ultimately going to lower your SSA benefits in retirement then that is a big future cost that may steer you against the pre-tax employer contributions. Think of social security as part of your retirement plan, not as a tax but instead as an additional check you put away for yourself for retirement every month. Of course, this is only an important consideration if SSA is still going to be around when you retire, but let's assume that it will be. This is not an issue for higher earners, earning well above the max SSA taxable wages. There is no wage limit on the 1.45% Medicare tax withholding's, and there is certainly no harm in saving Medicare taxes because it will not affect future Medicare benefits. So for taxpayers earning well over the max SSA wages, they will just save the 1.45% Medicare taxes without affecting their SSA contributions and resulting retirement benefits. So again, it all comes down to personal situations. Depending on your earnings and goals, employer plan may or may not be the way to go. Personally, for my lower earning clients, friends and family, I tend to recommend that they do whatever they can to maximize their social security benefits in retirement. So I would advise them to either use the external provider account, or the employer plan but with post-tax contributions so you don't lower the SSA withholding's but can still claim the income tax deduction on your tax return. YMMV -Dan\"" }, { "docid": "123513", "title": "", "text": "You increase the capital account by the additional contributions and retained earnings and decrease the capital account by the distributions of return of capital and/or losses. Distributing gains doesn't change the capital account. So in your case it would be: 1st year we lost money Assuming you lost 20K, and the interests are even, it will look like this: 1st year we break even Nothing changes - you break even, means the balance sheet doesn't change (in this example). 1st year we made money Assume you gained 20K and kept it: If you didn't retain the earnings, it would look the same as case 2 - no change. Note that this is only the financial accounting, tax accounting might look differently. For example, in the US Partnerships (or LLCs taxed as) are pass-through entities, on in case 3 while you retained the earnings, the partners will still be taxed. I'm of course neither CPA nor a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you get a consultation with one. Only a CPA can provide a reliable accounting advice or sign official financial statements, reviews and audits. Only a EA, CPA or an Attorney specializing in tax law can provide a tax advice." }, { "docid": "536580", "title": "", "text": "\"Ah I got ya. I partially agree with you, but it's far more complex. I think that is simplifying the debate a bit too much. When people go \"\"passive\"\" you are making the assumption that they are able to stay fully invested the full time period (say 30-40 years until retirement when you might change the asset allocation). This is not a fair assumption because many studies on behavioral finance have shown that people (90% plus) are not able to sit tight through a full market cycle and often sell out during a bear market. I'm not debating you're point that passive often outperforms due to the fees (although there are many managers that do outperform), but the main issue with self-managing and passive investing is people usually make emotional decisions, which then hurts their long-term performance. This would be the reason to hire an adviser. Assuming that people are able to stay passive the entire time and not make a single \"\"active\"\" decision is a very unfair assumption. There was a good study on this referenced in Forbes article below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the-average-investors-investment-return-is-so-low/#5169be2b111a Another issue is that there are a lot \"\"active managers\"\" that really just replicate their benchmarks and don't actually actively manage. If you look at active managers who really do have huge under-weights and over-weights relative to their benchmarks they actually tend to outperform them (look at the study below by martin cremers, he's one of the most highly respected researchers when it comes to investment performance research and the active vs passive debate) http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v73.n2.4 I guess what I'm trying to say is that for most people having an adviser (and paying them a 1% fee) is usually better than going it alone, where they are going to A. chase heat (I bet they always choose the hottest benchmark from the past few years) and B. make poor emotional decisions relating their finances.\"" }, { "docid": "431884", "title": "", "text": "\"Although there is no single best answer to your situation, several other people have already suggest it in some form: always pay off your highest after-tax (!) interest loan first! That being said, you probably also have heard about the differentiation for good debt vs. bad debt. Good debt is considered a mortgage for buying your primary home or, as is the case here, debt for education. As far as I am concerned, those are pretty much the only two types of debt I'd ever tolerate. (There may be exceptions for health/medical reasons.) Everything else is consumer debt and my personal rule is, don't buy it if you don't have the money for it! Meaning, don't take on consumer debt. One other thing you may consider before accelerating paying off your student debt, the interest paid on it may be tax deductible. So you should look at what the true interest is on your student loan after taxes. If it is in the (very) low single digits, meaning between 1-3%, you may consider using the extra money towards an automatic investment plan into an ETF index fund. But that would be a question you should discuss with your tax accountant or financial adviser. It is also critical in that case that you don't view the money invested as \"\"found\"\" money later on, unless you have paid off all your debt. (This part is the most difficult for most people so be very cautious and conscious if you decide to go this route!) At any rate, congratulations on making so much progress paying off your debt! Keep it going.\"" }, { "docid": "30935", "title": "", "text": "\"No, I do not. The advice is to take advice :-) but it is not required. Several \"\"low cost\"\" SIPPs allow an \"\"Execution Only\"\" transfer from some pensions (generally not occupational or defined benefits schemes [where transfers are generally a bad idea anyway] but FAVCs such as mine are ok). Best Invest is one such, and the fees are indeed relatively low. As far as anyone knows, the government's plans for changes to rules on using pension funds would still apply even once I've transferred my pension pot and begun to withdraw funds (provided I don't commit myself to an annuity or other irrevocable investment). I am not a financial adviser, nor employed or otherwise connected with Best Invest, and I'm not endorsing their SIPP schemes, just giving them as an example of what can be done. [Added after I carried out my plan] I found the process very straightforward; I needed to apply for a pension fund with my new provider and fill in a transfer form, which set up the scheme and transferred the funds with no expense required. Once the money arrived in my pension account I filled in another form to take the lump sum and set up regular withdrawals from the fund. I had my lump sum within a couple of months of initiating the transfer. I'm very happy I did not take independent advice because it would have been very poor value for money. During my researches I was approached eagerly by one firm promising to get me my money quick and claiming to be an independent financial advisor. Luckily I mistrusted the service they offered.\"" }, { "docid": "403017", "title": "", "text": "\"Most financial \"\"advisors\"\" are actually financial-product salesmen. Their job is to sweet-talk you into parting with as much money as possible - either in management fees, or in commissions (kickbacks) on high-fee investment products** (which come from fees charged to you, inside the investment.) This is a scrappy, cutthroat business for the salesmen themselves. Realistically that is how they feed their family, and I empathize, but I can't afford to buy their product. I wish they would sell something else. These people prey on people's financial lack of knowledge. For instance, you put too much importance on \"\"returns\"\". Why? because the salesman told you that's important. It's not. The market goes up and down, that's normal. The question is how much of your investment is being consumed by fees. How do you tell that (and generally if you're invested well)? You compare your money's performance to an index that's relevant to you. You've heard of the S&P 500, that's an index, relevant to US investors. Take 2015. The S&P 500 was $2058.20 on January 2, 2015. It was $2043.94 on December 31, 2015. So it was flat; it dropped 0.7%. If your US investments dropped 0.7%, you broke even. If you made less, that was lost to the expenses within the investment, or the investment performing worse than the S&P 500 index. I lost 0.8% in 2015, the extra 0.1% being expenses of the investment. Try 2013: S&P 500 was $1402.43 on December 28, 2012 and $1841.10 on Dec. 27, 2013. That's 31.2% growth. That's amazing, but it also means 31.2% is holding even with the market. If your salesman proudly announced that you made 18%... problem! All this to say: when you say the investments performed \"\"poorly\"\", don't go by absolute numbers. Find a suitable index and compare to the index. A lot of markets were down in 2015-16, and that is not your investment's fault. You want to know if were down compared to your index. Because that reflects either a lousy funds manager, or high fees. This may leave you wondering \"\"where can I invest that is safe and has sensible fees? I don't know your market, but here we have \"\"discount brokers\"\" which allow self-selection of investments, charge no custodial fees, and simply charge by the trade (commonly $10). Many mutual funds and ETFs are \"\"index funds\"\" with very low annual fees, 0.20% (1 in 500) or even less. How do you pick investments? Look at any of numerous books, starting with John Bogle's classic \"\"Common Sense on Mutual Funds\"\" book which is the seminal work on the value of keeping fees low. If you need the cool, confident professional to hand-hold you through the process, a fee-only advisor is a true financial advisor who actually acts in your best interest. They honestly recommend what's best for you. But beware: many commission-driven salespeople pretend to be fee-only advisors. The good advisor will be happy to advise investment types, and let you pick the brand (Fidelity vs Vanguard) and buy it in your own discount brokerage account with a password you don't share. Frankly, finance is not that hard. But it's made hard by impossibly complex products that don't need to exist, and are designed to confuse people to conceal hidden fees. Avoid those products. You just don't need them. Now, you really need to take a harder look at what this investment is. Like I say, they make these things unnecessarily complex specifically to make them confusing, and I am confused. Although it doesn't seem like much of a question to me. 1.5% a quarter is 6% a year or 60% in 10 years (to ignore compounding). If the market grows 6% a year on average so growth just pays the fees, they will consume 60% of the $220,000, or $132,000. As far as the $60,000, for that kind of money it's definitely worth talking to a good lawyer because it sounds like they misrepresented something to get your friend to sign up in the first place. Put some legal pressure on them, that $60k penalty might get a lot smaller. ** For instance they'll recommend JAMCX, which has a 5.25% buy-in fee (front-end load) and a 1.23% per year fee (expense ratio). Compare to VIMSX with zero load and a 0.20% fee. That front-end load is kicked back to your broker as commission, so he literally can't recommend VIMSX - there's no commission! His company would, and should, fire him for doing so.\"" }, { "docid": "531005", "title": "", "text": "\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"" }, { "docid": "12373", "title": "", "text": "\"As someone who's done quit a bit of home improvement and seen positive ROI, I can speak from some personal experience. All of this assumes you do the unskilled labor yourself and shop around for relatively cheap plumbers, electricians, etc. First, never underestimate the resale value added by a can of paint. This assumes you have, or know someone with a good sense of style that can help improve the aesthetics of the home significantly. White walls can be so boring to homebuyers and so many of them can't see through the 1/16 of an inch of white paint. Second, look for shortcomings in the house as-is. Anyway, these are some common upgrades. The big thing is to find something you are reasonably comfortable doing yourself and that you will enjoy. Realize that if you're new to this most projects will cost twice what you budget and take four times as long! The pride of having done it yourself and put in the sweat equity makes it worth it though (usually). Edit To better answer your modified question, I'm adding to my answer. So if I understand it, your question is now \"\"At what rate is it sane to invest in our house vs. outside investments\"\". This is really just a matter of balancing risk vs. lifestyle. With most upgrades there is no financial benefit to investing in upgrading your home now vs. 5 years from now right before you sell. You could be making 10% in mutual funds until then and then invest in the upgrades right before you sell. There is obviously a physical limit to how fast you can do these improvements yourself, but front-loading this now at the beginning of your timeframe as opposed to the end is not an investment decision, it is a lifestyle decision. Not saying \"\"Don't do it\"\", but don't rationalize it to yourself as \"\"we're saving money by doing this now.\"\" Maybe use the rationalization \"\"We want to enjoy these upgrades and not just add them before we move out.\"\" One exception to that - I'd plant any trees now and make sure they have a good water supply. Good trees take a while to grow, and doing that sooner rather than later will help.\"" }, { "docid": "537508", "title": "", "text": "Why would anyone listen to someone else's advice? Because they believe that the person advising them knows better than they do. It's as simple as that. The fact that you're doing any research at all - indeed, the fact that you know about a site on the internet where personal finance questions get asked and answered - puts you way ahead of the average member of the population when it comes to pensions. If you think you know better than the SJP adviser (and I don't mean that aggressively, just as a matter of fact), then by all means do your own thing. But remember about unknown unknowns - you don't know everything the adviser might say, depending on your circumstances and changes to them over time..." }, { "docid": "534124", "title": "", "text": "If possible, I would disable online payment on the card, immediately (reduce the limit of online payment to zero). I think you should also demand the photocopy back, immediately. It is tad confrontational, and maybe he did get it without any ill will, but even in this case, he should be made aware of the fact that this is wrong. Note that if he genuinely did it with ill will, he will have likely made multiple copies (who knows how many), so it will not really protect you from fraud (in this case). Then you should call or e-mail the card company (and/or your bank) and tell them what happened. I think they would consider the card stolen and maybe advise you on what you should do next. Note that if he uses the card, you might (and should) try to chargeback the money (through the card company), but it might be argued that you did not sufficiently protect the details of your card. And even if you succeed, the process can be long and you will not have access to your money in the meantime (this is one of the downsides of a debit card vs credit card...). You may also consider moving away the money from the associated bank account (so that there's not much to steal). Of course, the situation (on that front) gets more complicated if account overdrawing is enabled in your account." }, { "docid": "468473", "title": "", "text": "\"Pete and Noah addressed the math, showing how this is, in effect, converting a 30yr to a ~23yr mortgage, at a cost, plus payment about 8% higher (1 extra payment per year). No magic there. The real issue, as I see it, is whether this is the best use of the money. Keep in mind, once you pay extra principal, which in effect is exactly what this is, it's not easy to get it back. As long as you have any mortgage at all, you have the need for liquidity, enough to pay your mortgage, tax, utilities, etc, if you find yourself between jobs or to get through any short term crisis. I've seen people choose the \"\"sure thing\"\" prepayment VS the \"\"risky\"\" 401(k) deposit. Ignoring a match is passing up a 50% or 100% return in most cases. Too good to pass up. 2 points to add - I avoided the further tangent of the tax benefit of IRA/401(k) deposits. It's too long a discussion, today's rate for the money saved, vs the rate on withdrawal. Worth considering, but not part of my answer. The other discussion I avoid is Nicholas' thoughts on the long term market return of 10% vs today's ~4% mortgage rate. This has been debated elsewhere and morphs into a \"\"pre-pay vs invest\"\" question.\"" }, { "docid": "254458", "title": "", "text": "I'll be happy to edit when you provide answers to the question I posed in the comments. Given the choice (and I assume there is no other) I'd take a loan from the 401(k) vs a withdrawal. You withdraw $40K. I'll assume 25% bracket as you're planning at least a $200K house. Hopefully, your taxable income is above $38K, the 25% line for singles. The tax and penalty is 35% total, federal. You net $26K. And you have $40K less in the retirement account. In 40 years, at 10% average growth, that's $1.8M you won't have in your 401(k). And as littleadv stated, no deposits for 6 months, meaning no matching. There's a few more thousand you'll lose. You borrow $20K. Your 401(k) will see a return on the $20k that's better than the short bond account, 4-5% vs less than 1%. You are short $6K, but in return have paid no tax, no penalty, etc. I respect those who are strongly anti-loan, but even they would agree, this is the far lesser of 2 evils. The above is pretty generic, there are better choices. But your CPA friend's advice is nearly as bad as it gets. By the way, the tax you'll save once you have the mortgage has nothing to do with that 10% penalty. Say you bought the house with cash (as many would be happy to do). You'd pay the penalty for the 401(k) withdrawal, but have no mortgage deduction. If you had the 20%, you still have a loan and the deduction, but no penalty for taking his bad advice. My advice is to take that refund and use it to pay the loan faster." }, { "docid": "331268", "title": "", "text": "The term self-directed generally refers to RRSP accounts where the account holder has not only the ability to determine a basic investment asset mix (such as can be accomplished even with a limited selection of mutual funds) but, more specifically, the self-directed account holder has a much wider choice of financial instruments beyond mutual funds, GICs, and/or cash savings. A self-directed RRSP generally permits the account holder to also invest or trade directly in financial instruments such as: Those kinds of instruments are not typically available in a non-self-directed mutual fund or bank RRSP. Typical mutual fund or bank RRSPs offer you only their choice of products – often with higher fees attached. Related resources:" }, { "docid": "254910", "title": "", "text": "Note, the main trade off here is the costs of holding cash rather than being invested for a few months vs trading costs from trading every month. Let's start by understanding investing every month vs every three months. First compare holding cash for two months (at ~0% for most Canadians right now) and then investing on the third month vs being invested in a single stock etf (~5% annually?). At those rates she is forgoing equity returns of around These costs and the $10 for one big trade give total costs of $16+$8+$10=$34 dollars. If you were to trade every month instead there would be no cost for not being invested and the trading costs over three months would just be 3*$10=$30. So in this case it would be better to trade monthly instead of every three months. However, I'm guessing you don't trade all $2000 into a single etf. The more etfs you trade the more trading more infrequently would be an advantage. You can redo the above calculations spliting the amount across more etfs and including the added trading costs to get a feel for what is best. You can also rotate as @Jason suggests but that can leave you unbalanced temporarily if not done carefully. A second option would be to find a discount broker that allows you to trade the etfs you are interested in for free. This is not always possible but often will be for those investing in index funds. For instance I trade every month and have no brokerage costs. Dollar cost averaging and value averaging are for people investing a single large amount instead of regular monthly amounts. Unless the initial amount is much much larger than the monthly amounts this is probably not worth considering. Edit: Hopefully the above edits will clarify that I was comparing the costs (including the forgone returns) of trading every 3 months vs trading every month." } ]

[ { "docid": "549435", "title": "", "text": "An accountant should be able to advise on the tax consequences of different classes of investments/assets/debts (e.g. RRSP, TFSA, mortgage). But I would not ask an accountant which specific securities to hold in these vehicles, or what asset allocation (in terms of geography, capitalization, or class (equity vs fixed income vs derivatives vs structured notes etc). An investment advisor would be better suited to matching your investments to your risk tolerance." } ]

[ { "docid": "201415", "title": "", "text": "\"Until you get some financial education, you will be vulnerable to people wanting your money. Once you are educated, you will be able to live a tidy life off this-- which is exactly why this amount was awarded to you, rather than some other amount. They gave you enough money. This is not a lottery win. I mean \"\"financial counselors\"\" who will want to help you with strategies to invest your money. Every one will promise your money will grow. The latter case describes every full-service broker, e.g. what will happen if you walk into EdwardJones. This industry has a long tradition of charmingly selling investments which significantly underperform the market, and making their money by kickbacks (sales commissions) from those investments (which is why they significantly underperform.) They also offer products which are unnecessarily complex meant to confuse customers and hide fees. One mark of trouble is \"\"early exit\"\" fees, which they need to recoup the sales commission they already paid out. Unfortunately, one of those people is you. You are treating this like a windfall, falling into old, often-repeated cliché of \"\"lottery-win thinking\"\". \"\"Gosh, there's so much money there, what could go wrong?\"\" This always ends in disaster and destitution, on top of your other woes. It's not a windfall. They gave you just enough money to live on - barely. Because these lawyers and judges do this all day every day, and they know exactly how much capital will replace a lifelong salary, and if anything you got cheated a bit. Read on. You don't want to feel like greedy Scrooge, hoarding every penny. I get that. But generous spending won't fix that. What will is financial education, and once you have real understanding and certainty about your financial situation, you will be able to both provide for yourself and be giving in a sensible manner. This stuff isn't taught in school. If it was, there'd be a lot more millionaires, because wealth isn't about luck, it's about intelligent management of money. Good advisers do exist. They're hard to find. Good advisors work only one way: for a flat rate or hourly fee. This is called a \"\"Fee-only advisor\"\". S/he never takes commissions. Beware of brokers who normally work on commission but will happily take an upfront fee. Even if they promise to hand you their commission check, they're still recommending you into the same sub-par investments because that's their training! I get the world of finance is extremely confusing and it's hard to know where to start. Just make one leap of faith with me: You can learn this. One place it's not confusing: University endowments. They get windfalls just like you, and they need to manage it to support them for a very long time, just like you. Endowments are very closely watched by the smartest people in finance -- no lottery fever here. It's agreed by all that there is one best way to invest an endowment. And it's mandatory by law. An endowment is a chunk of money (say, $1.2 million) that must fund a purpose (say, a math professorship or \"\"chair\"\") in perpetuity. You're not planning to live quite that long, but when you're in your 20's, the investment strategy is the same. The endowment is designed to generate income of some amount, on average, over the long term. You can draw from the endowment even in \"\"down years\"\". The rule of thumb is 4-6% is a sustainable rate that won't overtax the endowment (usually, but you have to keep an eye on it). On $1.2M, that's $48,000 to $72,000 per year. Not half bad. See, I told you it could work. Read Jane Austen? Mister Darcy, referred to as a gentleman of 10,000 pounds -- meaning his assets were many times that, but they yield income of £10,000 a year. Same idea. Keep in mind that you need to pay taxes. But if you plan your investments so you're holding them more than a year, you're in the much lower 0-10-15% capital gains tax bracket. So, here's where I'd like you to go. I would say more, but this will give you quite an education by itself. Say you gave all your money to me. And said \"\"Your nonprofit needs an executive director. Fund it. In perpetuity.\"\" I'd say \"\"Thank you\"\", \"\"you're right\"\", and I'd create an endowment and invest it about like this. That is fairly close to the standard mix you'll find in most endowments, because that is what's considered \"\"prudent\"\" under endowment law (UPMIFA). I'd carry all that in a Vanguard or Fidelity account and follow Bogle's advice on limiting fees. That said, dollar-cost-averaging is not a suicide pact, and bonds are ugly right now (for reason Suze Orman describes) and real estate seems really bubbly right now... so I'd back out of those for now. I'd aim to draw about $60k/year out of it or 5%, and on average, in the very long term, the capital should grow. I would adjust it downward somewhat if the next few years are a hard recession, to avoid taking too much out of the capital... and resist the urge to take more out in boom years, because that is your hedge against the next recession. Over 7% is not prudent per the law (absent very reasonable reasons). UPMIFA doesn't apply to you, but I'd act as if it did. A very reasonable reason to take more than 7% would be to shift investment into a house for living in. I would aim for a duplex/triplex to also have income from the property, if the numbers made sense, which they often don't in California, but that's another question. At your financial level -- never, never, never give cash to a charity. You will get marked as a \"\"soft target\"\" and every commercial fundraiser on earth will stalk you for the rest of your life. At your level, you open a Donor Advised Fund, and let the Fund do your giving for you. Once you've funded it (which is tax deductible) you later tell them which charities to fund when. They screen out fake charities and protect your identity. I discuss DAFs at length here. Now when \"\"charities\"\" harass you for an immediate handout, just tell them that's not how you support charities.\"" }, { "docid": "519473", "title": "", "text": "\"The difference between the provincial/territorial low and high corporate income tax rates is clear if you read through the page you linked: Lower rate The lower rate applies to the income eligible for the federal small business deduction. One component of the small business deduction is the business limit. Some provinces or territories choose to use the federal business limit. Others establish their own business limit. Higher rate The higher rate applies to all other income.   [emphasis mine] Essentially, you pay the lower rate only if your income qualifies for the federal small business deduction (SBD). If you then followed the small business deduction link in the same page, you'd find the SBD page describing \"\"active business income\"\" from a business carried on in Canada as qualifying for the small business deduction. If your corporation is an investment vehicle realizing passive investment income, generally that isn't considered \"\"active business income.\"\" Determining if your business qualifies for the SBD isn't trivial — it depends on the nature of your business and the kind and amount of income it generates. Talk to a qualified corporate tax accountant. If you're looking at doing IT contracting, also pay close attention to the definition of \"\"personal services business\"\", which wouldn't qualify for the SBD. Your accountant should be able to advise you how best to conduct your business in order to qualify for the SBD. Don't have a good accountant? Get one. I wouldn't operate as an incorporated IT contractor without one. I'll also note that the federal rate you would pay would also differ based on whether or not you qualified for the SBD. (15% if you didn't qualify, vs. 11% if you qualify.) The combined corporate income tax rate for a Canadian-controlled private corporation in Ontario that does qualify for the small business deduction would be 11% + 4.5% = 15.5% (in 2013). Additional reading:\"" }, { "docid": "305111", "title": "", "text": "I mean, the ultimate goal of the takeover would be removing a specific account, so if twitter shuts down all accounts, the it's a win (granted the investors don't care about monetary losses, which of course they do). Still, activist investors can get into proxy fights for board seats and even strategy with just 2% of a company. If there were enough people invested only in removing Trump, the trade of unhappy shareholders vs Trump seems easy to make." }, { "docid": "114327", "title": "", "text": "&gt; corporate strategy vs. corporate finance vs business development? Broadly speaking there are different functional roles (regardless of title) that are involved in: - Financial Planning and Analysis (FPA). Forecasting, variance analysis (demand, supply etc.), pricing strategy, etc. Depending on your skill set, they can be viewed as basic excel work or more complex optimization problems. - Strategic planning, M&amp;A. Build or buy analysis. Market analysis, etc. This area is more on the capital allocation side in terms of whether or not a company should buy a competitor or build their own product line/service in a given area, geography, etc. Investment banking backgrounds are helpful here. - Communication. There is a side of the business involved in presenting the company's business strategy to outside parties whether that be creditors or investors (stock holders). The 'marcom / IR' (marketing communications, investor relations) side of the business involves presenting the company's strategy, forecast and results to outside parties. This could also include the board of directors or senior management. If you have a strong quantitative background at the engineering level, your ability to take differential equations and translate that to forecasting/econometric time series won't be difficult. But for a lot of people that will be overkill and they only want basic Excel skills and understanding of finance/accounting." }, { "docid": "314252", "title": "", "text": "\"A financial planner can help with investments, insurance, estate planning, budgeting, retirement planning, saving for college, tax planning/prep, and other money topics. One way to get a sense is to look at this Certified Financial Planner topic list. Another idea is to look at this book (my favorite I've read) which covers roughly a similar topic list in a concise form: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 It could not hurt at all to read that before deciding to visit a planner, so you have baseline knowledge. By the way, look for the CFP certification which is a generalist certification. A CFP might also have a deeper cert in certain topics or connect you with someone who does. For example: You really want a generalist (CFP) who may have an additional credential as well. The idea is to holistically look at what you're trying to accomplish and all finance-related areas. Especially because there may be tradeoffs. The CFP would then refer you to or work with lawyers, accountants, etc. Importantly, some advisors are fiduciaries (must act in your interests) and some are not. In particular many stockbrokers are neither qualified planners (no CFP or equivalent) nor are they fiduciaries. Stay away. There are several models for paying a financial planner, including: There's an organization called NAPFA (napfa.org) for fiduciary non-commission-based planners. Membership there is a good thing to look for since it's a third party that defines what fee-only means and requires the no-commissions/fiduciary standard. Finally, the alternative I ended up choosing was to just take the CFP course myself. You can do it online via correspondence course, it costs about the same as 1 year of professional advice. I also took the exam, just to be sure I learned the stuff. This is the \"\"extreme DIY\"\" approach but it is cheaper over time and you know you are not going to defraud yourself. You still might do things that are counterproductive and not in your interests, but you know that already probably ;-) Anyway I think it's equivalent to about a quarter's worth of work at a decent college, or so. There are about 6 textbooks to dig through. You won't be an experienced expert at the end, but you'll know a lot. To get an actual CFP cert, you need 3 years experience on top of the courses and the exam - I haven't done that, just the book learning. Someone who puts \"\"CFP\"\" after their name will have the 3 years on top of the training. Some editorial: many planners emphasize investing, and many people looking for planners (or books on finance) emphasize investing. This is a big mistake, in my view. Investing is more or less a commodity and you just need someone who won't screw it up, overcharge, and/or lose your money on something idiotic or inappropriate. Some people are in plain-bad and inappropriate investments, don't get me wrong. But once you fix that and just get into anything decent, your biggest planning concerns are probably elsewhere. On investments, I'd look for a planner to just get you out of overpriced annuities and expensive mutual funds you may have been sold (anything you were sold by a salesperson is probably crap). And look for them to help you decide how much to invest, and how much in stocks vs. bonds. Those are the most important investment decisions.\"" }, { "docid": "371176", "title": "", "text": "First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make. You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account. So your question really has two different parts: Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment. The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty. These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement. Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either. You can put money in and take money out whenever you like. However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on. Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest. A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments. If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments. Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest. The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies. Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close. However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term. In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%. At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments. The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks. There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion." }, { "docid": "259227", "title": "", "text": "\"To summarize your starting situation: You want to: Possible paths: No small business Get a job. Invest the 300K in safe liquid investments then move the maximum amount each year into your retirement accounts. Depending on which company you work for that could include 401K (Regular or Roth), deductible IRA, Roth IRA. The amount of money you can transfer is a function of the options they give you, how much they match, and the amount of income you earn. For the 401K you will invest from your paycheck, but pull an equal amount from the remainder of the 300K. If you are married you can use the same procedure for your spouse's account. You current income funds any vacations or splurges, because you will not need to put additional funds into your retirement plan. By your late 30's the 300K will now be fully invested in retirement account. Unfortunately you can't touch much of it without paying penalties until you are closer to age 60. Each year before semi-retirement, you will have to invest some of your salary into non-retirement accounts to cushion you between age 40 and age 60. Invest/start a business: Take a chunk of the 300K, and decide that in X years you will use it to start a small business. This chunk of money must be liquid and invested safely so that you can use it when you want to. You also don't want to invest it in investments that have a risk of loss. Take the remaining funds and invest it as described in the no small business section. You will completely convert funds to retirement funds earlier because of a smaller starting amount. Hopefully the small business creates enough income to allow you to continue to fund retirement or semi-retirement. But it might not. Comment regarding 5 year \"\"rules\"\": Roth IRA: you have to remain invested in the Roth IRA for 5 years otherwise your withdrawal is penalized. Investing in stocks: If your time horizon is short, then stocks are too volatile. If it drops just before you need the money, it might not recover in time. Final Advice: Get a financial adviser that will lay out a complete plan for a fixed fee. They will discuss investment options, types not particular funds. They will also explain the tax implications of investing in various retirement accounts, and how that will impact your semi-retirement plans. Review the plan every few years as tax laws change.\"" }, { "docid": "299690", "title": "", "text": "\"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \"\"tax-free\"\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\"" }, { "docid": "469599", "title": "", "text": "The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return." }, { "docid": "163353", "title": "", "text": "\"What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short \"\"parking\"\" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do. Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet.\"" }, { "docid": "113885", "title": "", "text": "I won't make any assumptions about the source of the money. Typically however, this can be an emotional time and the most important thing to do is not act rashly. If this is an amount of money you have never seen before, getting advice from a fee only financial adviser would be my second step. The first step is to breathe and promise yourself you will NOT make any decisions about this money in the short term. Better to have $100K in the bank earning nearly zero interest than to spend it in the wrong way. If you have to receive the money before you can meet with an adviser, then just open a new savings account at your bank (or credit union) and put the money in there. It will be safe and sound. Visit http://www.napfa.org/ and interview at least three advisers. With their guidance, think about what your goals are. Do you want to invest and grow the money? Pay off debt? Own a home or new large purchase? These are personal decisions, but the adviser might help you think of goals you didn't imagine Create a plan and execute it." }, { "docid": "537508", "title": "", "text": "Why would anyone listen to someone else's advice? Because they believe that the person advising them knows better than they do. It's as simple as that. The fact that you're doing any research at all - indeed, the fact that you know about a site on the internet where personal finance questions get asked and answered - puts you way ahead of the average member of the population when it comes to pensions. If you think you know better than the SJP adviser (and I don't mean that aggressively, just as a matter of fact), then by all means do your own thing. But remember about unknown unknowns - you don't know everything the adviser might say, depending on your circumstances and changes to them over time..." }, { "docid": "586984", "title": "", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions." }, { "docid": "468473", "title": "", "text": "\"Pete and Noah addressed the math, showing how this is, in effect, converting a 30yr to a ~23yr mortgage, at a cost, plus payment about 8% higher (1 extra payment per year). No magic there. The real issue, as I see it, is whether this is the best use of the money. Keep in mind, once you pay extra principal, which in effect is exactly what this is, it's not easy to get it back. As long as you have any mortgage at all, you have the need for liquidity, enough to pay your mortgage, tax, utilities, etc, if you find yourself between jobs or to get through any short term crisis. I've seen people choose the \"\"sure thing\"\" prepayment VS the \"\"risky\"\" 401(k) deposit. Ignoring a match is passing up a 50% or 100% return in most cases. Too good to pass up. 2 points to add - I avoided the further tangent of the tax benefit of IRA/401(k) deposits. It's too long a discussion, today's rate for the money saved, vs the rate on withdrawal. Worth considering, but not part of my answer. The other discussion I avoid is Nicholas' thoughts on the long term market return of 10% vs today's ~4% mortgage rate. This has been debated elsewhere and morphs into a \"\"pre-pay vs invest\"\" question.\"" }, { "docid": "135176", "title": "", "text": "\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \"\"time weighted\"\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \"\"investor return\"\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \"\"beating the market\"\" (or \"\"matching the market\"\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \"\"the point\"\" - I feel \"\"the point\"\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\"" }, { "docid": "254910", "title": "", "text": "Note, the main trade off here is the costs of holding cash rather than being invested for a few months vs trading costs from trading every month. Let's start by understanding investing every month vs every three months. First compare holding cash for two months (at ~0% for most Canadians right now) and then investing on the third month vs being invested in a single stock etf (~5% annually?). At those rates she is forgoing equity returns of around These costs and the $10 for one big trade give total costs of $16+$8+$10=$34 dollars. If you were to trade every month instead there would be no cost for not being invested and the trading costs over three months would just be 3*$10=$30. So in this case it would be better to trade monthly instead of every three months. However, I'm guessing you don't trade all $2000 into a single etf. The more etfs you trade the more trading more infrequently would be an advantage. You can redo the above calculations spliting the amount across more etfs and including the added trading costs to get a feel for what is best. You can also rotate as @Jason suggests but that can leave you unbalanced temporarily if not done carefully. A second option would be to find a discount broker that allows you to trade the etfs you are interested in for free. This is not always possible but often will be for those investing in index funds. For instance I trade every month and have no brokerage costs. Dollar cost averaging and value averaging are for people investing a single large amount instead of regular monthly amounts. Unless the initial amount is much much larger than the monthly amounts this is probably not worth considering. Edit: Hopefully the above edits will clarify that I was comparing the costs (including the forgone returns) of trading every 3 months vs trading every month." }, { "docid": "331268", "title": "", "text": "The term self-directed generally refers to RRSP accounts where the account holder has not only the ability to determine a basic investment asset mix (such as can be accomplished even with a limited selection of mutual funds) but, more specifically, the self-directed account holder has a much wider choice of financial instruments beyond mutual funds, GICs, and/or cash savings. A self-directed RRSP generally permits the account holder to also invest or trade directly in financial instruments such as: Those kinds of instruments are not typically available in a non-self-directed mutual fund or bank RRSP. Typical mutual fund or bank RRSPs offer you only their choice of products – often with higher fees attached. Related resources:" }, { "docid": "368698", "title": "", "text": "\"Whether your financial status is considered \"\"OK\"\" depends on your aspirations. You aren't spending more than you earn and have no debt. That puts you in the category of OK in my book, but the information in your post indicates that you would benefit from some financial advice--100 grand sounds like a lot of money to have in a bank unless you are on the verge of spending it. Financial advisors come in various shapes and sizes. Many will charge you a lot for what turns out to be helpful advice in the first meeting, but very little value-added thereafter. Some don't have the best incentives (they may be incentivized to encourage you to put your money into certain funds, for example). There are many financial advisors (of sorts) that you have access to that won't cost you anything. For example, if you have a 401(k) at work, I bet there is a representative from the plan administrator that will meet with you for free. If you open a brokerage account or IRA at any place (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.) you can easily talk with one of their reps and get all sorts of advice. My personal take is to meet with anyone who will meet with me for free, but not to pay anyone for this service. It's too easy to get good advice and paying for it doesn't guarantee that you get better advice. Your financial situation will depend primarily on a few things you have not mentioned here. For example, How much are you setting aside for retirement and what are your retirement goals? This is something lots of people can give you advice on, but we don't know what market returns will be going forward so we don't really know. One bit of advice that may benefit you is how to set aside money for retirement in the most tax advantaged way. How much do you feel that you need saved up for large expenses? Thinking of starting a family? How many months worth of income are you comfortable having set aside? What is your tolerance of risk? If you put your money in risky assets, you may make more, but you may also actually lose money. Those are the questions a financial advisor will ask about. Once you have his/her advice--and preferrably after talking to a few advisors--you can make your own decision. Basically, your options are: Rules of thumb: Save only what makes sense to save in banks given your expected needs for cash. Put a lot in tax advantaged accounts (don't give Uncle Sam any gifts). Then look at financial and real investments. There are a number of free resources on the internet. For example FutureAdvisor. Or you can hit up the forums at BogleHeads. Those guys give and receive financial advice as a hobby. They aren't professionals, but you can get a lot of varying ideas and make up your own mind, which to me is better than (just) asking a professional. BTW, regarding the ESPP: these plans often give you a discount on stock and can therefore be a good idea. Just be sure you don't hold the stock longer than you need to. It's generally a bad idea to concentrate your wealth in any single investment, especially one highly correlated with your background risk (i.e., if the company does poorly you will already be worse off because you may lose your job or see fewer advancement opportunities. No need to add losses in your savings to that). 1 Please note: I am neither advocating nor discouraging buying guns, gold, or other controversial real assets. I'm just giving examples of items some people buy as part of their wealth-preservation strategy.\"" }, { "docid": "18832", "title": "", "text": "\"Just to add about using debit card as \"\"credit\"\" vs \"\"debit\"\" way: In addition to the difference of having to enter the PIN when using \"\"debit\"\" mode (vs having to sign in \"\"credit\"\" mode), for stores that offer cash back (i.e. get cash out of your account at the same time as paying), you can only get cash back when using \"\"debit\"\" mode.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "181678", "title": "", "text": "I think the OP is getting lost in designations. Sounds to me that what he wants is a 'financial advisor' not an 'investment advisor'. Does he even have investments? Does he want to be told which securities to buy? Or is he wanting advice on overall savings, insurance, tax-shelters, retirement planning, mortgages, etc. Which is a different set of skills - the financial advisor skill set. Accountants don't have that skill set. They know operating business reporting, taxes and generally how to keep it healthy and growing. They can do personal tax returns (as a favour to only the owners of the business they keep track of usually). IMO they can deal with the reporting but not the planning or optimization. But IMO the OP should just read up and learn this stuff for himself. Accreditation mean nothing. Eg. the major 'planner' brand teaches factually wrong stuff about RRSPs - which are the backbone of Canadian's finances." } ]

[ { "docid": "254910", "title": "", "text": "Note, the main trade off here is the costs of holding cash rather than being invested for a few months vs trading costs from trading every month. Let's start by understanding investing every month vs every three months. First compare holding cash for two months (at ~0% for most Canadians right now) and then investing on the third month vs being invested in a single stock etf (~5% annually?). At those rates she is forgoing equity returns of around These costs and the $10 for one big trade give total costs of $16+$8+$10=$34 dollars. If you were to trade every month instead there would be no cost for not being invested and the trading costs over three months would just be 3*$10=$30. So in this case it would be better to trade monthly instead of every three months. However, I'm guessing you don't trade all $2000 into a single etf. The more etfs you trade the more trading more infrequently would be an advantage. You can redo the above calculations spliting the amount across more etfs and including the added trading costs to get a feel for what is best. You can also rotate as @Jason suggests but that can leave you unbalanced temporarily if not done carefully. A second option would be to find a discount broker that allows you to trade the etfs you are interested in for free. This is not always possible but often will be for those investing in index funds. For instance I trade every month and have no brokerage costs. Dollar cost averaging and value averaging are for people investing a single large amount instead of regular monthly amounts. Unless the initial amount is much much larger than the monthly amounts this is probably not worth considering. Edit: Hopefully the above edits will clarify that I was comparing the costs (including the forgone returns) of trading every 3 months vs trading every month." }, { "docid": "187571", "title": "", "text": "I think you may be drawing the wrong conclusion about why you put what type of investment in a taxable vs. tax-advantaged account. It is not so much about risk, but type of return. If you're investing both tax-advantaged and taxable accounts, you can benefit by putting more tax-inefficient investments inside your tax-advantaged accounts. Some aggressive asset types, like real estate, can throw off a lot of taxable income. If your asset allocation calls for investing in real estate, holding it in a 401k or IRA can allow more of your money to remain invested, rather than having to use it to pay for taxes. And if you're holding in a Roth IRA, you get that tax free. But bonds, a decidedly non-aggressive asset, also throw off a lot of taxable income. You're able to hold them in a tax-advantaged account and not pay taxes on the income until you withdraw it from the account (or tax free in the case of a Roth account.) An aggressive stock fund that is primarily expected to provide returns via price appreciation would do well in a taxable account because there's likely little tax consequence to you until it is sold." }, { "docid": "586984", "title": "", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions." }, { "docid": "253970", "title": "", "text": "Getting the right diversity of investments helps buffer you from some of the short term market swings. If you need advice it's worth spending a small part of that money on a consultation with a financial adviser, who can talk to you about your goals, your time horizon, and your risk tolerance and recommend a good starting distribution. (Free advice from brokers risks being biased by their commissions.) Once you have that plan, uou need to decide how to execute it. Low-fee index funds are a good way to get started until you learn more, and for many of us that's all we ever need. Then you need to decide whether to invest it all at once or dollar-cost average. I've heard arguments both ways; DCA does mean you risk missing some immmediate gains, but also reduces your risk of buying at a temporary high and taking some immediate losses. For me DCA seemed to make sense, but that's another decision for you to make." }, { "docid": "135176", "title": "", "text": "\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \"\"time weighted\"\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \"\"investor return\"\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \"\"beating the market\"\" (or \"\"matching the market\"\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \"\"the point\"\" - I feel \"\"the point\"\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\"" }, { "docid": "278611", "title": "", "text": "\"Since it's not tagged united-states, I'd like to offer a more general advice. Your emergency fund should match the financial risks that are relevant to you. The two main classes of financial risk are of course a sudden increase in costs or a decrease in income. You'd have to address both independently. First, loss of income. For most, this would simply equate to the loss of a job. How much benefits would you expect to get, and for how long? This is often the most important question; the 6 months advise in the US is based on a lack of benefits. With two incomes, you're less likely to lose both jobs at the same time. That's a general advise, though. If you both work for the same employer, the risk of losing two jobs at the same time is certainly real. Also, in countries with little protection against dismissal (such as the US), the chance of being layed off at the same time is also higher. On the debit side, there are also two main risks. The first is the loss or failure of an essential possession, i.e. one which requires immediate replacement. This could include a car, or a washing machine. You already paid for one before, so you should have a good idea how much it costs. The second expenditure risk is health-related costs. Those can suddenly crop up, but often you have some kind of insurance. If not, you'd need to account for some costs, but it's hard to come up with an objective number here. The two categories are dependent, of course. Health-related costs may very well coincide with a loss of income, especially if you're self-employed. Now, once you've figured out what the risks are, it's time to figure out how to insure against them. Insurance might be a better choice than an emergency fund, especially for the health costs. You might even discover that you don't need an emergency fund at all. In large parts of Europe, you could establish a credit margin that's not easily revoked (i.e. overdraft agreements), and unemployment benefits are sufficient to cover your regular cost of living. The main risk would then be a sudden lack of liquidity if your employer goes bankrupt and fails to pay the monthly wages, which means your credit should be guaranteed sufficient to borrow one month of expenses. (This of course assumes quite good credit; \"\"pay off my car\"\" doesn't suggest that.)\"" }, { "docid": "473949", "title": "", "text": "\"Many of my friends said I should invest my money on stocks or something else, instead of put them in the bank forever. I do not know anything about finance, so my questions are: First let me say that your friends may have the best intentions, but don't trust them. It has been my experience that friends tell you what they would do if they had your money, and not what they would actually do with their money. Now, I don't mean that they would be malicious, or that they are out to get you. What I do mean, is why would you take advise from someone about what they would do with 100k when they don't have 100k. I am in your financial situation (more or less), and I have friends that make more then I do, and have no savings. Or that will tell you to get an IRA -so-and-so but don't have the means (discipline) to do so. Do not listen to your friends on matters of money. That's just good all around advise. Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? Any financial situation with no or really low debt is OK. I would say 5% of annual income in unsecured debt, or 2-3 years in annual income in secured debt is a good place to be. That is a really hard mark to hit (it seems). You have hit it. So your good, right now. You may want to \"\"plan for the future\"\". Immediate goals that I always tell people, are 6 months of income stuck in a liquid savings account, then start building a solid investment situation, and a decent retirement plan. This protects you from short term situations like loss of job, while doing something for the future. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? Is it worthy? How would she/he help me? Rather it's worth it or not to use a financial adviser is going to be totally opinion based. Personally I think they are worth it. Others do not. I see it like this. Unless you want to spend all your time looking up money stuff, the adviser is going to have a better grasp of \"\"money stuff\"\" then you, because they do spend all their time doing it. That being said there is one really important thing to consider. That is going to be how you pay the adviser. The following are my observations. You will need to make up your own mind. Free Avoid like the plague. These advisers are usually provided by the bank and make their money off commission or kickbacks. That means they will advise you of the product that makes them the most money. Not you. Flat Rate These are not a bad option, but they don't have any real incentive to make you money. Usually, they do a decent job of making you money, but again, it's usually better for them to advise you on products that make them money. Per Hour These are my favorite. They charge per hour. Usually they are a small shop, and will walk you through all the advise. They advise what's best for you, because they have to sit there and explain their choices. They can be hard to find, but are generally the best option in my opinion. % of Money These are like the flat rate advisers to me. They get a percentage of the money you give them to \"\"manage\"\". Because they already have your money they are more likely to recommend products that are in their interest. That said, there not all bad. % or Profit These are the best (see notes later). They get a percentage of the money they make for you. They have the most interest in making you money. They only get part of what you get, so there going to make sure you get the biggest pie, so they can get a bigger slice. Notes In the real world, all advisers are likely to get kickbacks on products they recommend. Make sure to keep an eye for that. Also most advisers will use 2-3 of the methods listed above for billing. Something like z% of profit +$x per hour is what I like to see. You will have to look around and see what is available. Just remember that you are paying someone to make you money (or to advise you on how to make money) so long as what they take leaves you with some profit your in a better situation then your are now. And that's the real goal.\"" }, { "docid": "536580", "title": "", "text": "\"Ah I got ya. I partially agree with you, but it's far more complex. I think that is simplifying the debate a bit too much. When people go \"\"passive\"\" you are making the assumption that they are able to stay fully invested the full time period (say 30-40 years until retirement when you might change the asset allocation). This is not a fair assumption because many studies on behavioral finance have shown that people (90% plus) are not able to sit tight through a full market cycle and often sell out during a bear market. I'm not debating you're point that passive often outperforms due to the fees (although there are many managers that do outperform), but the main issue with self-managing and passive investing is people usually make emotional decisions, which then hurts their long-term performance. This would be the reason to hire an adviser. Assuming that people are able to stay passive the entire time and not make a single \"\"active\"\" decision is a very unfair assumption. There was a good study on this referenced in Forbes article below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the-average-investors-investment-return-is-so-low/#5169be2b111a Another issue is that there are a lot \"\"active managers\"\" that really just replicate their benchmarks and don't actually actively manage. If you look at active managers who really do have huge under-weights and over-weights relative to their benchmarks they actually tend to outperform them (look at the study below by martin cremers, he's one of the most highly respected researchers when it comes to investment performance research and the active vs passive debate) http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v73.n2.4 I guess what I'm trying to say is that for most people having an adviser (and paying them a 1% fee) is usually better than going it alone, where they are going to A. chase heat (I bet they always choose the hottest benchmark from the past few years) and B. make poor emotional decisions relating their finances.\"" }, { "docid": "371176", "title": "", "text": "First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make. You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account. So your question really has two different parts: Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment. The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty. These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement. Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either. You can put money in and take money out whenever you like. However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on. Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest. A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments. If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments. Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest. The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies. Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close. However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term. In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%. At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments. The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks. There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion." }, { "docid": "519473", "title": "", "text": "\"The difference between the provincial/territorial low and high corporate income tax rates is clear if you read through the page you linked: Lower rate The lower rate applies to the income eligible for the federal small business deduction. One component of the small business deduction is the business limit. Some provinces or territories choose to use the federal business limit. Others establish their own business limit. Higher rate The higher rate applies to all other income.   [emphasis mine] Essentially, you pay the lower rate only if your income qualifies for the federal small business deduction (SBD). If you then followed the small business deduction link in the same page, you'd find the SBD page describing \"\"active business income\"\" from a business carried on in Canada as qualifying for the small business deduction. If your corporation is an investment vehicle realizing passive investment income, generally that isn't considered \"\"active business income.\"\" Determining if your business qualifies for the SBD isn't trivial — it depends on the nature of your business and the kind and amount of income it generates. Talk to a qualified corporate tax accountant. If you're looking at doing IT contracting, also pay close attention to the definition of \"\"personal services business\"\", which wouldn't qualify for the SBD. Your accountant should be able to advise you how best to conduct your business in order to qualify for the SBD. Don't have a good accountant? Get one. I wouldn't operate as an incorporated IT contractor without one. I'll also note that the federal rate you would pay would also differ based on whether or not you qualified for the SBD. (15% if you didn't qualify, vs. 11% if you qualify.) The combined corporate income tax rate for a Canadian-controlled private corporation in Ontario that does qualify for the small business deduction would be 11% + 4.5% = 15.5% (in 2013). Additional reading:\"" }, { "docid": "390368", "title": "", "text": "As a sole proprietor, the tax liability of your business is calculated based on combining your business income with your personal income together. It is good advice to keep all personal and business financial matters separate. This makes it easier to prove to the IRS that all your business expenses are actually business related. In this case however, the two items [tax payment for personal income vs tax payment for business income] are inseparable. What you can do, however, for your own personal records, is calculate how much of your tax payment relates to your business. I wouldn't get complicated about this; I would simply take the net income of your business as a % of your taxable income, and multiply that against your tax payment. ie: if your business net income is $10,000, and your total taxable income is $50,000, and you paid $6,000 in taxes, I would record that 20% of the $6k was related to business income. If you have a separate bank account for your sole proprietorship, you could make a transfer to your personal account of $1,200, and then make the $6k payment from your personal account. Remember that tax payments for either your sole proprietorship and your personal income will be treated the same: federal tax payments are not tax deductible, and state tax payments are tax deductible, whether they were paid for your sole proprietorship or the rest of your personal income. So even though this method is simplistic [for example, it doesn't factor in that different investment income types earned personally will have a lower rate than your sole proprietorship income], any difference wouldn't have an impact on any future tax liability. This would only be for your own personal record keeping." }, { "docid": "519321", "title": "", "text": "Are you being paid through a limited company or an umbrella company ? Are you self employed If not what they are doing is illegal. If you are being paid a salary, then the employer has to contribute their part of National Insurance. I believe they are treating you as self employed, hence asking you to generate invoices. Check your contract wordings properly. Or get help from Citizens Advice. Call them or visit their local office. Or else do call up HMRC. But if you are invoicing them, I would assume you are self employed and you have to do your self assessment. Get in contact with HMRC and ask them to generate your Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR). THey will send you the UTR and using this you can fill your tax returns. It looks like cumbersome now, but it isn't so. You can do it yourself, I do mine. Or at the end of the financial year, get an accountant to do the returns for you, probably should charge you £100-£150. Keep all your invoices, bills, bank statements safely. This is some help from HMRC website" }, { "docid": "240997", "title": "", "text": "There are several insurance products that I buy for legal reasons: Both of these protect me from lawsuits and fines. Many people buy similar products to protect their business operations. (e.g. medical malpractice insurance) There are some insurance products I buy for tax planning and financial planning purposes: I have a large amount of savings available, so I have several tricks to reduce my insurance costs, and I have several products that I avoid. Several of these reasons are mentioned in other answers, but I thought I would collect them into a single answer to demonstrate that there are reasons other than the rational calculation of what the payout will be for the insurance products vs. the premium paid. If I gain access to a tax advantaged Health savings account, that is a bigger benefit to me than avoiding the premium, especially when my employer is paying the majority of the premium. Perhaps it makes no sense to buy insurance given sufficient savings (like the products I listed that make no sense for me given my finances) but not everyone can self-insure; it does require a certain level of wealth." }, { "docid": "498631", "title": "", "text": "\"Do I need an Investment Adviser? No, but you may want to explore the idea of having one. Is he going to tell me anything that my accountant can't? Probably. How much expertise are you expecting from your accountant here? Do you think your accountant knows everything within the realms of money from taxes, insurance products, investments and all your choices and what would work or wouldn't? Seems like it could be a tall order to my mind. My accountant did say to come to him for advice on investment/business issues. So, he is willing, but is he able? Not asking about his competence, but rather \"\"is there something that only an Investment Adviser can provide, by law, that an accountant can't\"\"? Not that I know though don't forget how much expertise are you expecting here from one person. Is this person intended to answer all your money questions? But isn't that something that my accountant could/should do? Perhaps though how well are you expecting one person to be aware of so much stuff? I want you to know all the tax law so I can minimize taxes, maximize my investment returns, cover me with adequate insurance, and protect my savings seems like a bit much to put on one entity. Do I need either of them? Won't the Internet and sites like this one suffice? Need no. However, how much time are you prepared to spend learning the basics of strategies that work for you? How much money are you prepared to put into things to learn what works and doesn't? While it is your decision, consider how to what extent do you diagnose your medical issues through the internet versus going to see a doctor? Be careful of how much of a do it yourself approach you want to go here and recognize that there are multiple approaches that may work. The question is which trade-offs are OK for you.\"" }, { "docid": "262256", "title": "", "text": "I work in internet marketing. Starting an internet marketing company is much like being a novelist, all it requires is some knowledge and the willingness to spend long hours in front of a computer. Long hours in front of computer being constructive vs long hours in front of a tv being nonconstructive. Much the same thing." }, { "docid": "546372", "title": "", "text": "You better consult with a tax adviser (EA or CPA) on this, my answer doesn't constitute such an advice. Basically, you're selling stuff on Kickstarter. No matter how they call it (projects, pledges, rewards - all are just words), you're selling stuff. People give you money (=pledges) and in return you're giving them tangible or intangible goods (=rewards). All the rest is just PR. So you will pay taxes on all the money you get, and you will be able to deduct some of the expenses (depends on whether its a business or a hobby, the deduction may be full or limited). It doesn't matter if you use LLC or your own account from the financial/taxation point of you, but it matters legally. LLC limits your personal liability, but do get a legal advice on this issue, and whether it is at all relevant for you. If you raise funds in 2012 you pay taxes on the money in 2012. If you go into production in 2013 - you can deduct expenses in 2013. If you're classified as a hobby, you'll end up paying full taxes in 2012 and deducting nothing in 2013. Talk to a tax adviser." }, { "docid": "19591", "title": "", "text": "I recommend an online savings account. The money is more liquid without early withdrawal fees and frequently you can get a visa/mastercard check card to access the funds. Looking at interest rates, ING is currently paying 1.10% and bankrate reports the best interest rate in the country on a 1 year CD is 1.33%. The .23% difference is not enough to convince me to invest in CDs at a fixed rate vs. an online savings account at a variable rate when we are at (or near) the bottom of CD/savings interest rates." }, { "docid": "229225", "title": "", "text": "\"Wikipedia says \"\"The Canadian Securities Course (CSC) offered by the Canadian Securities Institute (CSI) is the initial course required for becoming licensed to work within the Canadian securities industry (outside Quebec) as a securities dealer or securities agent.\"\" Src: Candian Securities Course EfficientMarket Canada adds \"\" You require it and further courses for other jobs in the investment industry. Generally some work experience is also required. All of this is governed by various self-regulatory agencies. The material in the course is strong on money making products, and fairly weak on material that would actually protect a consumer from harm. Passing the course is very little indication that you understand what's important about investing, for example, you won't be taught much of anything about the theory of investment, or the markets, or things like the efficient market hypothesis.\"\" Src: EfficientMarket.ca on the CSC So it appears that the CSC is necessary to work as certain types of financial agencies. That being said, I doubt it will be enough to get your foot in the door. This seems more like a prerequisite rather than a true qualification, so you'll be competing with MBAs/Finance students and other people who either have experience or training in the financial industry. I'd recommend you look into the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) certification as that will provide you with a rigorous knowledge of financial theory as well as asset management, which seems more appropriate for what you'd like to do. From there you'll have to network like crazy and leverage your experience to get in at a Canadian financial firm and eventually wealth management. So yes, I suppose a CSC is a good first step but more will certainly be required and I doubt it will be enough to land you a full time position. Another important factor is age - nobody expects undergrads to have extensive certifications or experience, but it's harder for a 35 year old to enter a new industry, especially finance.\"" }, { "docid": "531005", "title": "", "text": "\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "368008", "title": "", "text": "Robinhood seems interesting. Some say it's a gimmicky site with a nice UI not an investing or trading platform. From investopedia: 1. For now, the app stays afloat for mainly two reasons. First, the business itself is extremely lean: no physical locations, a small staff, no massive public relations campaigns and only one operating system platform to maintain. Robinhood also generates interest off of unused cash deposits from user accounts according to the Federal Funds rate. 2. Second, venture capitalists such as Index Ventures, Ribbit Capital, Google Ventures, Andreessen Horowitz, Social Leverage,and “many others” have invested more than $16 million in the app. 3. According to Barron’s, Robinhood plans to implement margin trading in 2015, eventually charging 3.5% interest for the service. E*Trade charges 8.44% for accounts under $25,000. Phone assisted trading will also be available at $10 per trade in the future. 4. Originally, Robinhood planned to make money off of order flows – a common tactic used by discount brokerages in the 1990s to generate revenue. According to the company's FAQ, Robinhood backpedaled on the idea because it executes orders through a clearing partner and, as a result, receives little to no payment for order flow. The company is willing to return to its original plan in the future if it receives order flows directly or begins to generate a lot of revenue from them." } ]

[ { "docid": "475560", "title": "", "text": "\"Recently, I asked about what the company valuation is and how many shares does my 4% represent.CFO told me that there is no point to talk about \"\"shares\"\" or \"\"stock\"\" since the company is not public. Is it right? No, it is wrong. Shares and stocks exist regardless of how they can be traded. Once a company is formed, there are stocks that belong to the owners in the proportion of the ownership. They may not exist physically, but they do exist on paper. As an owner of 5% of the company, you own 5% of the company stocks. I asked if my investor portion equity will be subjected under a vesting schedule, CFO said yes. That doesn't make sense to me, because I bought those 4%? Aren't those supposed to be fully vested? I agree to my employee equity to be vested. Doesn't make sense to me either, since your money is already in their pocket. But I'm not sure if its illegal. If that's what is written in the signed contract - then may be its possible to have that situation. But it doesn't make much sense, because these shares are granted to you in return to your money, not some potential future work (as the 1% employee's portion). You already gave the money, so why wouldn't they be vested? Best to read the contract upon which you gave them your money, I really hope you have at least that and not just gave them a check....\"" }, { "docid": "442727", "title": "", "text": "\"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. \"\"Past performance does not predict future results.\"\" Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have \"\"underperformed\"\" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying \"\"you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement.\"\" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired.\"" }, { "docid": "166227", "title": "", "text": "First off, you should phone your broker and ask them just to be 100% certain. You will be exercised on the short option that was in the money. It is irrelevant that your portfolio does not contain AAPL stock. You will simply be charged the amount it costs to purchase the shares that you owe. I believe your broker would just take this money from your margin/cash account, they would not have let you put the position on if your account could not cover it. I can't see how you having a long dated 2017 call matters. You would still be long this call once assignment of the short call was settled." }, { "docid": "461018", "title": "", "text": "stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice." }, { "docid": "192900", "title": "", "text": "This is the bird's eye view of how shorting works: When you place an order to sell a stock short, your broker attempts to grab the desired number of shares from any accounts of its other customers and makes them available for you to sell. If no other customers own shares of this stock, then generally you are out of luck (It is more complicated like that in practice, but this is just an overview). Your odds are better if the particular stock has a large float (i.e. a large number of shares that are actually available for trading) and its short ratio is low (which means relatively few shares are currently being sold short). Also, a large brokerage may be more likely to have access to the shares than a small niche-market broker. The example you've given, Angie's List (ANGI) is a $600M small-cap with a comparatively low float, and though I haven't been able to glean the short ratio, it appears that a lot of investors are bearish on this stock and probably already had the same idea to short it. There is really no way to find out if a specific broker has shares in inventory available for shorting, short of (forgive the pun) checking directly with the broker." }, { "docid": "585269", "title": "", "text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"" }, { "docid": "576564", "title": "", "text": "It would be very unusual (and very erroneous) to have a company's stock be included in the Long Term Investments on the balance sheet. It would cause divergent feedback loops which would create unrepresentative financial documents and stock prices. That's how your question would be interpreted if true. This is not the case. Stock prices are never mentioned on the financial documents. The stock price you hear being reported is information provided by parties who are not reporting as part of the company. The financial documents are provided by the company. They will be audited internally and externally to make sure that they can be presented to the market. Stock prices are quoted and arbitrated by brokers at the stock exchange or equivalent service. They are negotiated and the latest sale tells you what it has sold for. What price this has been reported never works its way onto the financial document. So what use are stock prices are for those within the company? The stock price is very useful for guessing how much money they can raise by issuing stock or buying back stock. Raising money is important for expansion of the company or to procure money for when avenues of debt are not optimal; buying back stock is important if major shareholders want more control of the company." }, { "docid": "495600", "title": "", "text": "\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\"" }, { "docid": "55443", "title": "", "text": "\"I have received a response from SIPC, confirming littleadv's answer: For a brief background, the protections available under the Securities Investor Protection Act (\"\"SIPA\"\"), are only available in the context of a liquidation proceeding of a SIPC member broker-dealer and relate to the \"\"custody\"\" of securities and related cash at the SIPC member broker-dealer. Thus, if a SIPC member broker-dealer were to fail at a time when a customer had securities and/or cash in the custody of the SIPC member broker-dealer, in most instances it would be SIPC's obligation to restore those securities and cash to the customer, within statutory limits. That does not mean, however, that the customer would necessarily receive the original value of his or her purchase. Rather, the customer receives the security itself and/or the value of the customer's account as of the day that the liquidation commenced. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of any security. In a liquidation proceeding under the SIPA, SIPC may advance up to $500,000 per customer (including a $250,000 limit on cash in the account). Please note that this protection only applies to the extent that you entrust cash or securities to a U.S. SIPC member. Foreign broker dealer subsidiaries are not SIPC members. However, to the extent that any assets, including foreign securities, are being held by the U.S. broker dealer, the assets are protected by SIPC. Stocks listed on the LSE are protected by SIPC to the extent they are held with a SIPC member broker dealer, up to the statutory limit of $500,000 per customer. As I mentioned in the comments, in the case of IB, indeed they have a foreign subsidiary, which is why SIPC does not cover it (rather they are insured by Lloyds of London for such cases).\"" }, { "docid": "564870", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer to your question is \"\"no\"\". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account. If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days. Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker. Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership. Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house.\"" }, { "docid": "405206", "title": "", "text": "Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem." }, { "docid": "443605", "title": "", "text": "\"Surprising that you have a \"\"finance background,\"\" but don't know what a cold-calling broker does - he calls people he's never met and tries to bullshit them into buying stock or making some other trade. You can call people from contact lists obtained from marketing firms, people who hopefully fit a certain income and age bracket best suited to investing. For some people it's ok, for others it's complete hell. If you fall into the latter category, your salary being based on how much trading you generate every month can make it even worse. If you want an idea of cold-calling, call 100 people today at random from the phonebook and try to convince them that they need to buy something.\"" }, { "docid": "123649", "title": "", "text": "It depends on the way you have directed the order and the execution agreement you have signed with your broker. In case of DMA (direct market access) you would direct your order to the specific exchange - and that exchange would post your offer, assuming you did not tag it as hidden. However, if you just gave your order to the broker (be it via telephone, email or even online), they may not have to display your order to the market or chose which exchange to sell it on. It will also depend where the stock is listed. For most US listed and OTC stocks, regulation NMS applies where your order should have been executed against if it went to the exchanges. Check your account opening docs and agreements, particulary the execution agreement. In there it will tell you how your order should be treated. In case where the broker stipulates that you have DMA or that they will direct your order to Lit markets (public exchanges and not market making firms and dark-pools) then you may have a case - you would need to request information to whcih exchange your broker sent the order to. In case that you gave them discretion on routing of your order - read the fine print. The answer lies there. Regarding NBBO missing you quote as quantycuenta suggested above is also a possibility, however Reg NMS should take care of this. Do you have stock and date & time of your order?" }, { "docid": "358129", "title": "", "text": "It's about how volatile the instrument is. Brokers are concerned not about you but about potential lawsuits stemming from their perceived inadequate risk management - letting you trade extremely volatile stocks with high leverage. On top of that they run the risk of losing money in scenarios where a trader shorts a stock with all of the funds, the company rises 100% or more by the next day, in which case the trader owes money to the broker. If you look in detail you'll see that many of the companies with high margin requirements are extremely volatile pharmaceutical companies which depend heavily of FDA approvals." }, { "docid": "593445", "title": "", "text": "\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"" }, { "docid": "350110", "title": "", "text": "\"Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting. The \"\"worth\"\" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers.\"" }, { "docid": "408994", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages. If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well. On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time). As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own. Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team). With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement." }, { "docid": "227399", "title": "", "text": "It depends on the broker, each one's rules may vary. Your broker should be able to answer this question for how they handle such a situation. The broker I used would execute and immediately sell the stock if the option was 25 cents in the money at expiration. If they simply executed and news broke over the weekend (option expiration is always on Friday), the client could wake up Monday to a bad margin call, or worse." }, { "docid": "153010", "title": "", "text": "You're trying to mitigate the risk of having your investments wiped out by fraud committed by your broker by using margin loans to buy stock secured by other, non-cash assets in your account. The solution that you are proposing does not make any sense at all. You mitigate a very low probability/high impact risk by doing something that comes with a high probability/medium impact risk. In addition to interest costs, holding stocks on margin subjects you to the very real risk of being forced to sell assets at inopportune times to meet margin calls. Given the volatility that the markets are experiencing in 2011, there is a high risk that some irrational decision in Greece could wipe you out. If I were worried about this, I would: If you have enough money that SIPC protection limits are an issue, you desperately need a financial adviser. Do not implement any strategy involving margin loans until you talk to a qualified adviser." } ]

[ { "docid": "285997", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, there is a lot they are leaving out, and I would be extremely skeptical of them because of the \"\"reasons\"\" they give for being able to charge $0 commissions. Their reasons are that they don't have physical locations and high overhead costs, the reality is that they are burning venture capital on exchange fees until they actually start charging everyone they suckered into opening accounts. They also get paid by exchanges when users provide liquidity. These are called trade rebates in the maker-taker model. They will start offering margin accounts and charging interest. They are [likely] selling trade data to high frequency trading firms that then fill your stock trades at worse prices (Robinhood users are notorious for complaining about the fills). They may well be able to keep commissions low, as that has been a race to the bottom for a long time. But if they were doing their users any actual favors, then they would be also paying users the rebates that exchanges pay them for liquidity. Robinhood isn't doing anything unique as all brokers do what I mentioned along with charging commissions, and it is actually amazing their sales pitch \"\"$0 commissions because we are just a mobile app lol\"\" was enough for their customers. They are just being disingenuous.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "61170", "title": "", "text": "Concerning the Broker: eToro is authorized and registered in Cyprus by the Cyprus Securities Exchange Commission (CySEC). Although they are regulated by Cyprus law, many malicious online brokers have opened shop there because they seem to get along with the law while they rip off customers. Maybe this has changed in the last two years, personally i did not follow the developments. eToro USA is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and thus doing business in a good regulated environment. Of course the CFTC cannot see into the future, so some black sheep are getting fined and even their license revoked every now and then. It has no NFA Actions: http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/Details.aspx?entityid=45NH%2b2Upfr0%3d Concerning the trade instrument: Please read the article that DumbCoder posted carefully and in full because it contains information you absolutely have to have if you are to do anything with Contract for difference (CFD). Basically, a CFD is an over the counter product (OTC) which means it is traded between two parties directly and not going through an exchange. Yes, there is additional risk compared to the stock itself, mainly: To trade a CFD, you sign a contract with your broker, which in almost all cases allows the broker A CFD is just a derivative financial instrument which allows speculating / investing in an asset without trading the actual asset itself. CFDs do not have to mirror the underlying asset's price and price movement and can basically have any price because the broker quotes you independently of the underlying. If you do not know how all this works and what the instrument / vehicle actually is and how it works; and do not know what to look for in a broker, please do not trade it. Do yourself a favor and get educated, inform yourself, because otherwise your money will be gone fast. Marketing campaigns such as this are targeted at people who do not have the knowledge required and thus lose a significant portion (most of the time all) of their deposits. Answer to the actual question: No, there is no better way. You can by the stock itself, or a derivative based on it. This means CFDs, options or futures. All of them require additional knowledge because they work differently than the stock. TL;DR: DumbCoder is absolutely right, do not do it if you do not know what it is about. EDIT: Revisiting this answer and reading the other answers, i realize this sounds like derivatives are bad in general. This is absolutely not the case, and i did not intend it to sound this way. I merely wanted to emphasize the point that without sufficient knowledge, trading such products is a great risk and in most cases, should be avoided." }, { "docid": "5122", "title": "", "text": "Robinhood does offer premium products that they charge for-I suspect we will see more of that in the future. They do not change the bid/ask spread as some have said because they have to give you the NBBO." }, { "docid": "528475", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"" }, { "docid": "192900", "title": "", "text": "This is the bird's eye view of how shorting works: When you place an order to sell a stock short, your broker attempts to grab the desired number of shares from any accounts of its other customers and makes them available for you to sell. If no other customers own shares of this stock, then generally you are out of luck (It is more complicated like that in practice, but this is just an overview). Your odds are better if the particular stock has a large float (i.e. a large number of shares that are actually available for trading) and its short ratio is low (which means relatively few shares are currently being sold short). Also, a large brokerage may be more likely to have access to the shares than a small niche-market broker. The example you've given, Angie's List (ANGI) is a $600M small-cap with a comparatively low float, and though I haven't been able to glean the short ratio, it appears that a lot of investors are bearish on this stock and probably already had the same idea to short it. There is really no way to find out if a specific broker has shares in inventory available for shorting, short of (forgive the pun) checking directly with the broker." }, { "docid": "57711", "title": "", "text": "The traditional role of a stockbroker is to arrange for the buying and selling of stock by finding buyers and sellers at an agreed upon price. The broker does not purchase the stock for himself but merely arranges for the stock to be traded. A trader is one who purchases stock with the hope of selling it for a gain. The trader will use a broker to help with the purchase and sale of a stock." }, { "docid": "500534", "title": "", "text": "Yes, it can buy back the call, but much before stock hits the $30 mark. Let us say you got 1$ from selling the call. So the total money in your account is 4$ + 1 $ = 5 $. When stock hits 10$ (your strike), the maintenance margin is 5$. As soon as stock goes past 10, your maintenance margin is violated. So broker will buy back your call (at least IB does that, it does not wait for a margin call). Now if the stock gapped up from 8 to 30,then yes, broker will buy it back at 30, so your account will have a negative balance. Assume the call cost 20$ when stock hit 30, your balance is: 5 - (30-10) = -15. Depending on broker, I suppose they will ask you to bring your account balance back up to positive. If they don't do that, they risk going out of business." }, { "docid": "329662", "title": "", "text": "\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\"" }, { "docid": "550314", "title": "", "text": "\"Your broker will charge you commissions and debit interest on your \"\"overdraft\"\" of $30,000. However it is very likely that your contract with the broker also contains a rehypothecation clause which allows your broker to use your assets. Typically, with a debt of $30,000, they would probably be entitled to use $45-60,000 of your stocks. In short, that means that they would be allowed to \"\"borrow\"\" the stocks you just bought from your account and either lend them to other clients or pledge them as collateral with a bank and receive interest. In both cases they will make money with your stocks. See for example clause #14 of this typical broker's client agreement. Applied to your example: In other words they will make $60 + $450 + $1,800 = $2,310 the first year. If the stock is expensive to borrow and they manage to lend it, they will make a lot more. There are by the way a few important consequences:\"" }, { "docid": "3463", "title": "", "text": "You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems." }, { "docid": "104916", "title": "", "text": "It is a question of how volatile the stock is perceived to be, its beta correlation to the S&P500 or other index. Margin requirements are derived from the Federal Reserve, Self Regulatory Organizations, the exchange itself, the broker you use, and which margining system you are using. So that makes this a loaded question. There are at least three margin systems, before you have your own risk officer in a glass room that doesn't care how leveraged up you get. Brokers primarily don't want to lose money." }, { "docid": "241135", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started." }, { "docid": "294424", "title": "", "text": "\"Regarding \"\"Interest on idle cash\"\", brokerage firms must maintain a segregated account on the brokerage firm's books to make sure that the client's money and the firm's money is not intermingled, and clients funds are not used for operational purposes. Source. Thus, brokerage firms do not earn interest on cash that is held unused in client accounts. Regarding \"\"Exchanges pay firm for liquidity\"\", I am not aware of any circumstances under which an exchange will pay a brokerage any such fee. In fact, the opposite is the case. Exchanges charge participants to transact business. See : How the NYSE makes money Similarly, market makers do not pay a broker to transact business on their behalf. They charge the broker a commission just like the broker charges their client a commission. Of course, a large broker may also be acting as market maker or deal directly with the exchange, in which case no such commission will be incurred by the broker. In any case, the broker will pay a commission to the clearing house.\"" }, { "docid": "279782", "title": "", "text": "\"Usually insiders are in a better position than you to understand their business, but that doesn't mean they will know the future with perfect accuracy. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes life events force them to liquidate an otherwise promising investment, sometimes their minds change. So while it is indeed valuable information, as everything in fundamental analysis it must be taken with a grain of salt. Automatic Sell I think these refer to how the sell occurred. Often the employees don't get actual shares but options or warrants that can be converted to shares. Or there may be special predetermined arrangements regarding when and how the shares may be traded. Since the decision to sell here has nothing to do with the prospects of the business, but has to do with the personal situation of the employee, it's not quite the same as outright selling due to market concerns. Some people, for instance, are not interested in holding stock. Part of their compensation is given in stock, so they immediately sell the stock to avoid the headache of watching an investment. This obviously doesn't indicate that they expect the company will go south. I think automatic sell refers to these sorts of situations, but your broker should provide a more detailed definition. Disposition (Non Open Market) These days people trade through a broker, but there's nothing stopping you from taking the physical shares and giving them to someone in exchange for say a stack of cash. With a broker, you only \"\"sell\"\" without considering who is buying. The broker then finds buyers for you according to their own system. If selling without a broker you can also be choosy with who is buying, and it's not like anybody can just call up the CEO and ask to buy some stock, so it's a non-open market. Ultimately though it's still the insider selling. Just on a different exchange. So I would treat this as any insider sell - if they are selling, they may be expecting the stock to become less valuable. indirect ownership I think this refers to owning an entity that in turn owns the asset. For instance CEO of XYZ owns stock in ACME, but ACME holds shares of XYZ. This is a somewhat complicated situation, it comes down to whether you think they sold ACME because of the exposure to XYZ or because of some other risk that applies only to ACME and not XYZ. Generally speaking, I don't think you would find a rule like \"\"if insider transactions of so and so kinds > X then buy\"\" that provides guaranteed success. If such a rule was possible it would have been exploited already by the professionals. The more sensible option is to consider all data available to you and try to make a holistic evaluation. All of these insider activities can be bullish or bearish depending on many other factors.\"" }, { "docid": "593445", "title": "", "text": "\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"" }, { "docid": "321487", "title": "", "text": "Humans also coped fine before the advent of computers. Does that mean we should revert back to how things were before they came about? Anyway you haven't said why HFT is inherently bad. Well, you did make one point at the start but I think it's a weak one. You said that HFT screws those without access to HFT? HFT system aren't free you know. I could say that me having instant access to stock markets through a computer screws over those who still rely in calling their broker to place an order. Does that mean that trading through computers should be banned? I know you'll probably argue the difference in the magnitude of the capital requirements and that almost everybody has access to a computer but not an HFT system, but where do you draw the line? Should bloomberg terminals be banned? They're out of reach for a lot of investors due to the cost." }, { "docid": "443605", "title": "", "text": "\"Surprising that you have a \"\"finance background,\"\" but don't know what a cold-calling broker does - he calls people he's never met and tries to bullshit them into buying stock or making some other trade. You can call people from contact lists obtained from marketing firms, people who hopefully fit a certain income and age bracket best suited to investing. For some people it's ok, for others it's complete hell. If you fall into the latter category, your salary being based on how much trading you generate every month can make it even worse. If you want an idea of cold-calling, call 100 people today at random from the phonebook and try to convince them that they need to buy something.\"" }, { "docid": "55443", "title": "", "text": "\"I have received a response from SIPC, confirming littleadv's answer: For a brief background, the protections available under the Securities Investor Protection Act (\"\"SIPA\"\"), are only available in the context of a liquidation proceeding of a SIPC member broker-dealer and relate to the \"\"custody\"\" of securities and related cash at the SIPC member broker-dealer. Thus, if a SIPC member broker-dealer were to fail at a time when a customer had securities and/or cash in the custody of the SIPC member broker-dealer, in most instances it would be SIPC's obligation to restore those securities and cash to the customer, within statutory limits. That does not mean, however, that the customer would necessarily receive the original value of his or her purchase. Rather, the customer receives the security itself and/or the value of the customer's account as of the day that the liquidation commenced. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of any security. In a liquidation proceeding under the SIPA, SIPC may advance up to $500,000 per customer (including a $250,000 limit on cash in the account). Please note that this protection only applies to the extent that you entrust cash or securities to a U.S. SIPC member. Foreign broker dealer subsidiaries are not SIPC members. However, to the extent that any assets, including foreign securities, are being held by the U.S. broker dealer, the assets are protected by SIPC. Stocks listed on the LSE are protected by SIPC to the extent they are held with a SIPC member broker dealer, up to the statutory limit of $500,000 per customer. As I mentioned in the comments, in the case of IB, indeed they have a foreign subsidiary, which is why SIPC does not cover it (rather they are insured by Lloyds of London for such cases).\"" }, { "docid": "495600", "title": "", "text": "\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\"" }, { "docid": "397897", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "30959", "title": "", "text": "\"Disclosure: I don't have an iPhone, so I don't use RobinHood. That being said, I have a less \"\"they're-out-to-get-ya\"\" view of what they're doing. As a small business owner (2 businesses), employees cost the most. If you can create a solid business with few (or no) employees and let robots run it, you will drastically reduce your costs. Joe Polish said it similarly with sales letters, something along the lines of they never complain about a headache, need to take a year off to discover themself, or just need a personal day. Robots are the same; they do not have human limits. Most simple trading can be done and maintained by well written code and AI, there's very little need for humans to do anything other than build it. Think about the efficiency of bitcoin versus all the central banks combined; how many people are employed by central banks? Robinhood states that they are using technology in these ways to minimize costs and they're using a system that doesn't need physical branches (this doesn't mean they will never have them, just that they don't need them). Robinhood does not indicate that they allow everything to happen for free; only stock trading. I worked for a large trading firm once and observed that stock trading wasn't the bulk of where they made their money anyway; trading options, futures, index funds, etc are where the big money was and Robinhood says nothing about those being free. Like the CQM mentioned too, they'll be charging for margin as well. In a way, the individual stock trader is dead; many people - including this forum - prefer index funds, so more than likely, Robinhood will strike up a deal with an index fund company or create their own (this is just easy, passive income with an expense ratio). In this category, the markets are their playground, but they do need to attract enough people to their platform, thus free stock trading is a good way to do it. As for selling your information for advertising, that is always a possibility, but they have quite a few other options that would be good for most investors (index funds, affiliating with financial fund companies, etc) where they can start before ever needing to dip their toe in selling information. This isn't to say they won't do it, but that there are few other options they have. The major concern I have for Robinhood is ongoing security. Just building it and letting it run kind of assumes that there won't be major compromises in the future and as AI evolves, superior AI might be able to crush older AI.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "576632", "title": "", "text": "\"If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in \"\"betting on the outcome of an horse race\"\" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process.\"" }, { "docid": "360139", "title": "", "text": "\"The mortgage broker makes money from the mortgage originator, and from closing fees. All the broker does is the grunt work, mostly paperwork and credit record evaluation. But there's a lot of it. They make their money by navigating the morass of regulations (federal, state, local) and finding you the best mortgage from the mortgage lender(s) they represent. They don't have any capital involved in the deal. Just sweat equity. Mortgage originator is the one who put up the capital for you to borrow. They're the ones who get most of the payments you send in. They sell the mortgage if they receive what they consider an equitable offer. Keep in mind that the mortgage, from the lender's point of view, is made up of three parts. The capital expenditure, the collateral, and the cashflow. The present value of the cashflow at the rate of the loan is greater than the capital expenditure. Any offer between those two numbers is 'in the money' for them, and the next owner, assuming no default. But the collateral makes up for the chance of default, to an extent. There's also a mortgage servicing company in many cases. This doesn't have to be the current holder of the loan. Study \"\"the time value of money\"\", and pay close attention to the parts about present value, future value, and cash flow and how to compare these.\"" }, { "docid": "397897", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"" }, { "docid": "279782", "title": "", "text": "\"Usually insiders are in a better position than you to understand their business, but that doesn't mean they will know the future with perfect accuracy. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes life events force them to liquidate an otherwise promising investment, sometimes their minds change. So while it is indeed valuable information, as everything in fundamental analysis it must be taken with a grain of salt. Automatic Sell I think these refer to how the sell occurred. Often the employees don't get actual shares but options or warrants that can be converted to shares. Or there may be special predetermined arrangements regarding when and how the shares may be traded. Since the decision to sell here has nothing to do with the prospects of the business, but has to do with the personal situation of the employee, it's not quite the same as outright selling due to market concerns. Some people, for instance, are not interested in holding stock. Part of their compensation is given in stock, so they immediately sell the stock to avoid the headache of watching an investment. This obviously doesn't indicate that they expect the company will go south. I think automatic sell refers to these sorts of situations, but your broker should provide a more detailed definition. Disposition (Non Open Market) These days people trade through a broker, but there's nothing stopping you from taking the physical shares and giving them to someone in exchange for say a stack of cash. With a broker, you only \"\"sell\"\" without considering who is buying. The broker then finds buyers for you according to their own system. If selling without a broker you can also be choosy with who is buying, and it's not like anybody can just call up the CEO and ask to buy some stock, so it's a non-open market. Ultimately though it's still the insider selling. Just on a different exchange. So I would treat this as any insider sell - if they are selling, they may be expecting the stock to become less valuable. indirect ownership I think this refers to owning an entity that in turn owns the asset. For instance CEO of XYZ owns stock in ACME, but ACME holds shares of XYZ. This is a somewhat complicated situation, it comes down to whether you think they sold ACME because of the exposure to XYZ or because of some other risk that applies only to ACME and not XYZ. Generally speaking, I don't think you would find a rule like \"\"if insider transactions of so and so kinds > X then buy\"\" that provides guaranteed success. If such a rule was possible it would have been exploited already by the professionals. The more sensible option is to consider all data available to you and try to make a holistic evaluation. All of these insider activities can be bullish or bearish depending on many other factors.\"" }, { "docid": "585269", "title": "", "text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"" }, { "docid": "593445", "title": "", "text": "\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"" }, { "docid": "408994", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages. If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well. On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time). As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own. Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team). With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement." }, { "docid": "25671", "title": "", "text": "The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy." }, { "docid": "121765", "title": "", "text": "The short answer: it depends. The long answer.. Off the top of my head, there are quite a number of factors that an analyst may look at when analyzing a stock, to come up with a recommendation. Some example factors to look at include: The list goes on. Quite literally, any and all factors are fair game for a recommendation. So, the question isn't really what analysts do with financial data, it is what do analysts do with financial data that meets your investment needs? As an example, if you have two analysts, one who is focused on growth stocks, and one who is focused on dividend growth, they may have completely different views on a company. If both analysts were to analyze Apple (AAPL) 5 years ago, the dividend analyst would likely say SELL or at the most HOLD, because back then Apple did not have a dividend. However, an analyst focused on growth would likely have said BUY, because Apple appeared to be on a clear upward trend in terms of growth. Likewise, if you have analysts who are focused on shorting stocks, and ones who are focused on deep value investing, the sell analyst may be selling SELL because they are confident the stock will go down in price, so you can make money on the short position. Conversely, the deep value investor may be saying BUY, because they believe that based on the companies strong balance sheet, and recent shake-ups in management the stock will eventually turn around. Two completely different views for the same company: the analyst focused on shorting is looking to make money by capitalizing on falling share price, while the analyst focused on deep value is looking for unloved companies in a tailspin whom s/he believe will turn around, the thesis being that if you dollar-cost-average as the price drops, when it corrects, you'll reap the rewards. That all said, to answer the question about what analysts look for: So really, you should be looking for analysts who align with your investment style, and use those recommendations as a starting point for your own purchases. Personally, I am a dividend investor, so I have passed many BUY recommendations from analysts and my former broker because those were based on growth stories. That does not mean that the analysts, my former broker, or myself, are wrong. But we were all incorrect given the context of how I invest, and what they recommend." }, { "docid": "206298", "title": "", "text": "Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation. Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'." }, { "docid": "153185", "title": "", "text": "\"If the price used to be 2.50 but by the time you get in an order it's 2.80, you're going to have to pay 2.80. You can't say, \"\"I want to buy it at the price from an hour ago\"\". If you could, everybody would wait for the price to go up, then buy at the old price and have an instant guaranteed profit. Well, except that when you tried to sell, I suppose the buyer could say, \"\"I want to pay the lower price from last July\"\". So no, you always buy or sell at the current price. If you submit an order after the markets close, your broker should buy the stock for you as soon as possible the next morning. There's no strict queue. There are thousands of brokers out there, they don't take turns. So if your broker has 1000 orders and you are number 1000 on his list, while some other broker has 2 orders and number 1 is someone else wanting to buy the same stock, then even if you got your order in first, the other guy will probably get the first buy. LIFO and FIFO refer to any sort of list or queue, but don't really make sense here. When the market opens a broker has a list of orders he received overnight, which he might think of as a queue. He presumably works his way down the list. But whether he follows a strict and simple first-in-first-out, or does biggest orders first, or does buys for stocks he expects to go up today and sells for stocks he expects to go down today first, or what, I don't know. Does anybody on this forum know, are there rules that say brokers have to go through the overnight orders FIFO, or what is the common practice?\"" }, { "docid": "84870", "title": "", "text": "My interpretation of that sentence is that you can't do the buying/selling of shares outright (sans margin) because of the massive quantity of shares he's talking about. So you have to use margin to buy the stocks. However, because in order to make significant money with this sort of strategy you probably need to be working dozens of stocks at the same time, you need to be familiar with portfolio margin. Since your broker does not calculate margin calls based on individual stocks, but rather on the value of your whole portfolio, you should have experience handling margin not just on individual stock movements but also on overall portfolio movements. For example, if 10% (by value) of the stocks you're targeting tend to have a correlation of -0.8 with the price of oil you should probably target another 10% (by value) in stocks that tend to have a correlation of +0.8 with the price of oil. And so on and so forth. That way your portfolio can weather big (or even small) changes in market conditions that would cause a margin call on a novice investor's portfolio." }, { "docid": "307832", "title": "", "text": "I don't believe from reading the responses above that Questrade is doing anything 'original' or 'different' much less 'bad'. In RRSPs you are not allowed to go into debt. So the costs of all trades must be covered. If there is not enough USD to pay the bill then enough CAD is converted to do so. What else would anyone expect? How margin accounts work depends on whether the broker sets up different accounts for different currencies. Some do, some don't. The whole point of using 'margin' is to buy securities when you don't have the cash to cover the cost. The result is a 'short' position in the cash. Short positions accrue interest expense which is added to the balance once a month. Every broker does this. If you buy a US stock in a USD account without the cash to cover it, you will end up with USD margin debt. If you buy US stock in an account that co-mingles both USD and CAD assets and cash, then there will be options during the trade asking if you want to settle in USD or CAD. If you settle in CAD then obviously the broker will convert the necessary CAD funds to pay for it. If you settle in US funds, but there is no USD cash in the account, then again, you have created a short position in USD." }, { "docid": "57711", "title": "", "text": "The traditional role of a stockbroker is to arrange for the buying and selling of stock by finding buyers and sellers at an agreed upon price. The broker does not purchase the stock for himself but merely arranges for the stock to be traded. A trader is one who purchases stock with the hope of selling it for a gain. The trader will use a broker to help with the purchase and sale of a stock." }, { "docid": "495600", "title": "", "text": "\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\"" }, { "docid": "183136", "title": "", "text": "\"They may be confused. The combination of \"\"my wife received stock when younger\"\" and \"\"her father just died\"\" leaves questions. A completed gift, when she was a kid, means she has a basis (cost) same as the original owner of that stock. This may need to be researched. The other choice is that she gets a price based on the date of dad's death, a stepped up basis, if it was his, but she got it when he passed. No offense to them, but brokers are not always qualified to offer tax advice. How/when exactly did she get to own the stock. Upon second reading it appears I answered this from a tax perspective. You seem to have issues of ownership. What exactly does the broker tell you? In whose name is the statement for the account holding these shares? Scott, saw your update. For the accounts I have for my 13 year old, I am custodian, but the tax ID is her social security number. When 21, she doesn't need my permission to sell anything, just valid ID. What exactly does the broker tell her?\"" }, { "docid": "365465", "title": "", "text": "\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"" }, { "docid": "123649", "title": "", "text": "It depends on the way you have directed the order and the execution agreement you have signed with your broker. In case of DMA (direct market access) you would direct your order to the specific exchange - and that exchange would post your offer, assuming you did not tag it as hidden. However, if you just gave your order to the broker (be it via telephone, email or even online), they may not have to display your order to the market or chose which exchange to sell it on. It will also depend where the stock is listed. For most US listed and OTC stocks, regulation NMS applies where your order should have been executed against if it went to the exchanges. Check your account opening docs and agreements, particulary the execution agreement. In there it will tell you how your order should be treated. In case where the broker stipulates that you have DMA or that they will direct your order to Lit markets (public exchanges and not market making firms and dark-pools) then you may have a case - you would need to request information to whcih exchange your broker sent the order to. In case that you gave them discretion on routing of your order - read the fine print. The answer lies there. Regarding NBBO missing you quote as quantycuenta suggested above is also a possibility, however Reg NMS should take care of this. Do you have stock and date & time of your order?" }, { "docid": "161254", "title": "", "text": "Day trading is probably the most often tried and failed activity in the financial world. People think they can parlay $1,000 investment into $1,000,000 in a week with little or no knowledge on how to evaluate stocks and or companies. They think they can just look at where the line graphs' been and forecast where it's going to be next week. Unfortunately if it were that simple everyone would be making money hand over fist in the market. So in short, the reason day trading is considered a risky venture is because most of the people that attempt to do it are willfully ignorant. They intentionally choose not to read about day trading. They intentionally choose not to learn about how to read a company's financial report and they intentionally choose not to learn how to compare one stock to another. They also don't consider the fact that most of their data is 15 or more min old because of the shady rules brokers have worked into the system. Real everyday investors that make money in the market do it by careful evaluation of the purchase they are about to make. Guess what, even they lose time to time. That's the game!" } ]

[ { "docid": "431754", "title": "", "text": "Charging very high prices for additional standard services: See Commission & Fees: https://brokerage-static.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20Retail%20Commisions%20and%20Fees%20Schedule.pdf Link is down in the footer, to the left..." } ]

[ { "docid": "161254", "title": "", "text": "Day trading is probably the most often tried and failed activity in the financial world. People think they can parlay $1,000 investment into $1,000,000 in a week with little or no knowledge on how to evaluate stocks and or companies. They think they can just look at where the line graphs' been and forecast where it's going to be next week. Unfortunately if it were that simple everyone would be making money hand over fist in the market. So in short, the reason day trading is considered a risky venture is because most of the people that attempt to do it are willfully ignorant. They intentionally choose not to read about day trading. They intentionally choose not to learn about how to read a company's financial report and they intentionally choose not to learn how to compare one stock to another. They also don't consider the fact that most of their data is 15 or more min old because of the shady rules brokers have worked into the system. Real everyday investors that make money in the market do it by careful evaluation of the purchase they are about to make. Guess what, even they lose time to time. That's the game!" }, { "docid": "443605", "title": "", "text": "\"Surprising that you have a \"\"finance background,\"\" but don't know what a cold-calling broker does - he calls people he's never met and tries to bullshit them into buying stock or making some other trade. You can call people from contact lists obtained from marketing firms, people who hopefully fit a certain income and age bracket best suited to investing. For some people it's ok, for others it's complete hell. If you fall into the latter category, your salary being based on how much trading you generate every month can make it even worse. If you want an idea of cold-calling, call 100 people today at random from the phonebook and try to convince them that they need to buy something.\"" }, { "docid": "585269", "title": "", "text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"" }, { "docid": "551627", "title": "", "text": "I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be." }, { "docid": "72024", "title": "", "text": "\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\"" }, { "docid": "564870", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer to your question is \"\"no\"\". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account. If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days. Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker. Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership. Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house.\"" }, { "docid": "329662", "title": "", "text": "\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\"" }, { "docid": "192900", "title": "", "text": "This is the bird's eye view of how shorting works: When you place an order to sell a stock short, your broker attempts to grab the desired number of shares from any accounts of its other customers and makes them available for you to sell. If no other customers own shares of this stock, then generally you are out of luck (It is more complicated like that in practice, but this is just an overview). Your odds are better if the particular stock has a large float (i.e. a large number of shares that are actually available for trading) and its short ratio is low (which means relatively few shares are currently being sold short). Also, a large brokerage may be more likely to have access to the shares than a small niche-market broker. The example you've given, Angie's List (ANGI) is a $600M small-cap with a comparatively low float, and though I haven't been able to glean the short ratio, it appears that a lot of investors are bearish on this stock and probably already had the same idea to short it. There is really no way to find out if a specific broker has shares in inventory available for shorting, short of (forgive the pun) checking directly with the broker." }, { "docid": "593445", "title": "", "text": "\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"" }, { "docid": "474384", "title": "", "text": "From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution." }, { "docid": "142110", "title": "", "text": "\"He didn't sell in the \"\"normal\"\" way that most people think of when they hear the term \"\"sell.\"\" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during \"\"before-hours\"\" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation.\"" }, { "docid": "3463", "title": "", "text": "You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems." }, { "docid": "500534", "title": "", "text": "Yes, it can buy back the call, but much before stock hits the $30 mark. Let us say you got 1$ from selling the call. So the total money in your account is 4$ + 1 $ = 5 $. When stock hits 10$ (your strike), the maintenance margin is 5$. As soon as stock goes past 10, your maintenance margin is violated. So broker will buy back your call (at least IB does that, it does not wait for a margin call). Now if the stock gapped up from 8 to 30,then yes, broker will buy it back at 30, so your account will have a negative balance. Assume the call cost 20$ when stock hit 30, your balance is: 5 - (30-10) = -15. Depending on broker, I suppose they will ask you to bring your account balance back up to positive. If they don't do that, they risk going out of business." }, { "docid": "3750", "title": "", "text": "\"The implication is market irrationality is stronger than market rationality. Aka nothing makes sense when TSLA climbs to $400 or when CMG rises to $750. I wouldn't say there is a systematic flaw in valuation. I think there is just a lot of ignorance. Markets are more open to household investors than ever before. You used to go to your broker and ask him what's up and he'd give you the inside scoop since you pay them money. Now you go onto marketwatch and get some random nobody's opinion on everything and make stock selections based on that. But eventually the chickens come home to roost and things will correct itself. Big players will jump ship and cause signals to other traders to jump ship. The public can pump stocks up pretty high but it doesn't just go to infinity. Eventually someone will stop and say, \"\"wtf is going on\"\" and start selling. Stocks are sold on a basis of a limit order book so it's real prices that people are paying. People don't care about prices currently because most don't have any finance knowledge but want to invest their own money. They just hear about Tesla doing something amazing (from some clickbait article or news outlet) and can't stop thinking about buying Tesla. They go to Chipotle and think \"\"wow this place is so good and hip, they must be a great investment\"\". The markets have been filled with more subjective analysis than ever before especially with so much low quality information at your fingertips. Equally ignorant people startin blogs about investment and personal finance being shepherds for other ignorant people. In the end they all lose. People who exclaim \"\"this stock is going up to $250 easily\"\" with literally zero quantitative analysis or even a baseline reference point to back it up are prime examples of this. Ignorance of markets and cheap money almost always lead to market runs that end catastrophically. Dot com bubble, 1929 market crash, 2008, it's always the same. People who have no business taking loans out or buying on margin or leveraging positions with debt only to get fucked over once things are brought back down to Earth. After 2 runs of QE, we now have cheap money and with everyone being a crier for their personal investment strategy, we now also have rampant ignorance. I don't expect things to last but no one can call the bottom or the top, or else you'd be very very rich. Have a safe portfolio, don't try to time the markets. Have a strategy that hedges against unexpected change, don't try to gamble on this change. Because it's ultimately impossible to predict the movement of every single person on this earth that invests their money into markets. So don't try. Just be prepared. ---- To expand further into valuation theory: at the end of the day, people invest their money to make more money. It's as simple as that. If your money doesn't grow in an investment vehicle, it's ultimately a shit investment. But no one values intrinsic value of a company's equity before they decide whether or not $380 for TSLA is a good/bad deal. As a result, stocks can be pumped up way higher and people still see the gains on their stocks through capital gains fueled by other optimistic investors. Non-zero sum goes both ways. People can make shitloads of money on stock without an equitable loser--people can also lose shitloads on stock without any real winner emerging from the rubble. When this bubble bursts, lots and lots of people will lose money on TSLA when people's expectations become rational and they stop paying $300 a share for a negative or 70 PE ratio. It's insane what multipliers people will pay for these companies without even realizing the implication--if you buy a share of a company with a PE ratio of 70, you just paid 70 times their earnings for a share. In an ideal world where they released every single penny of earnings as dividends, it would take you 70 periods to reclaim your money on that share. This obviously doesn't take into account capital gains, but capital gains aren't supposed to be this irrational to where a stock can be pumped up into 70x PE ratio in the first place. It's a whole messed up web of confusion and irrationality and eventually something will catalyze a reaction. Imagine a market where everyone just agreed to pump up a single stock to infinity and everyone just rakes in shitloads of money. Would this work? Of course not. It's literally a pyramid scheme that relies on future generations to constantly inject capital--no real value is being created by this scheme. It requires constantly more future generations to continue adding money into the scheme and will crash once people stop pumping money into it. The same thing will happen here. Everyone \"\"agreed\"\" to pump up TSLA (in a sense) but eventually people will realize this is stupid as shit and the pyramid will come tumbling down because there is nothing they receive from this scheme other than the money from other people. It's essentially moving money around, making 0 use of it, until people stop pumping money into the system and everyone realizes that nothing of real value had been produced through the use of this money. Ultimately the only thing that creates real value is the money that is returned to shareholders from an outside party--the company you're invested in. Real value is not created when people exchange stock and money. So why do these transactions create higher values in equity? The basis of equity valuation states that dividends are the only way for companies to raise the price of their stock, going off the traditional Dividend Discount Model. And theoretically, that's the only logical explanation. Buying and trading stock does nothing for the company, minus T Stock they might own. Ultimately the only party creating real value is the underlying company. If they aren't creating real value, then their stock should not be increasing, period. The way they create value is by efficiently utilizing assets to generate returns on investment which can be returned to investors through dividends. Dividends can only be increased (while maintaining an equitable payout ratio) by generating more net income that can increase the actual pool of money that can be allocated back to investors. TSLA does not do this. TSLA regularly loses money and overpromises. There is no logical explanation for any of this except that everyone is irrational. Obviously theory is not the same as in practice but the theory is important here because it's really the basis for any investment at all. At the end of the day, a share of stock is the right to a share of the company's equity. People own equity in companies because companies generate money that it returns back to its owners. That's what a company does. That's what an owner does. If you own shares of a company, you're an owner. And if your company does not return more money back to you YoY, then why are you invested in them? Ultimately, you're riding a capital gains wave that will eventually subside once market irrationality succumbs to rationality. And it always does because the real value always catches up to the fake value that is caused by pumping and dumping stocks.\"" }, { "docid": "581848", "title": "", "text": "During a stock split the only thing that changes is the number of shares outstanding. Typically a stock splits to lower its price per share. Sometimes if a company's value is falling it will do a reverse split where X shares will be exchanged for Y shares. This is typically done to avoid being de-listed from an exchange if the price per share falls below a certain threshold, usually $1. Again the only thing changing is the number of shares outstanding. A 20 for 1 reverse split means for every 20 shares outstanding the shareholder will be granted one new share. Example X Co. has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $100 per share. It does a 1 for 10 split. Now there are 10,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10 per share. Example Y Co has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $1 per share. It does a 10 for 1 reverse split. Now there are 100,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10. Quickly looking at the news for ASTI it looks like it underwent a 20 for 1 reverse split. You should probably look at your statements and ask your broker how the arithmetic worked in your case. Investopedia links for Reverse Stock Split and Stock Split" }, { "docid": "321487", "title": "", "text": "Humans also coped fine before the advent of computers. Does that mean we should revert back to how things were before they came about? Anyway you haven't said why HFT is inherently bad. Well, you did make one point at the start but I think it's a weak one. You said that HFT screws those without access to HFT? HFT system aren't free you know. I could say that me having instant access to stock markets through a computer screws over those who still rely in calling their broker to place an order. Does that mean that trading through computers should be banned? I know you'll probably argue the difference in the magnitude of the capital requirements and that almost everybody has access to a computer but not an HFT system, but where do you draw the line? Should bloomberg terminals be banned? They're out of reach for a lot of investors due to the cost." }, { "docid": "573077", "title": "", "text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"" }, { "docid": "124395", "title": "", "text": "\"As Kurt Vonnegut said, the way to make money is to be there when large amounts of money are changing hands and take a little for yourself; they'll never notice. That's what transaction costs are: when a fund buys or sells stocks a bit of the money goes to the folks who handle the transaction. When you personally buy or sell stocks a bit of the money goes to the broker in the form of a fee. (and, no, no fee brokers don't work for free; they just hide the fee by not getting you the best possible price). So frequent transactions (i.e., higher portfolio turnover) mean that those little bits of money are going to the intermediaries more often. That's what \"\"higher transaction costs\"\" refers to -- the costs are higher than in a fund that buys and sells less often. In short, those higher transaction costs are a consequence of higher turnover; nothing nefarious there.\"" }, { "docid": "480967", "title": "", "text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "70156", "title": "", "text": "Banks use quite a few parameters to arrive at the decision for card approval. The credit score is just one input. There are multiple other inputs it would source, for example total years in job, the number of years in current job, income streams, etc ... the exact formula is a trade secret and varies from Bank to Bank" } ]

[ { "docid": "302412", "title": "", "text": "\"You have a lack of credit history. Lending is still tight since the recession and companies aren't as willing to take a gamble on people with no history. The secured credit card is the most direct route to building credit right now. I don't think you're going to be applicable for a department store card (pointless anyways and encourages wasteful spending) nor the gas card. Gas cards are credit cards, funded through a bank just like any ordinary credit card, only you are limited to gas purchases at a particular retailer. Although gas cards, department store cards and other limited usage types of credit cards have less requirements, in this post-financial crisis economy, credit is still stringent and a \"\"no history\"\" file is too risky for banks to take on. Having multiple hard inquiries won't help either. You do have a full-time job that pays well so the $500 deposit shouldn't be a problem for the secured credit card. After 6 months you'll get it back anyways. Just remember to pay off in full every month. After 6 months you'll be upgraded to a regular credit card and you will have established credit history.\"" }, { "docid": "26695", "title": "", "text": "You can't ask insurers to use a particular score -- they have a state-approved underwriting model that they must follow consistently. Insurance companies make money by not paying claims, and poor credit score (including limit access to credit) increases the probability that you will file a small claim. Why? If you get into a minor accident (say $750 of damage) and have a $500 deductible, you are much less likely to file a claim to get $250 if you have access to a cash or credit lines to make the repairs yourself. If you feel that you are going to be penalized for closing credit card accounts, the solution is simple -- don't close them. Other than an event where you need to sever a relationship with a co-owner of an account (ie, you break up with your significant other, dissolve a business, etc) or avoid paying an annual fee, there is no advantage to you closing a revolving credit account, ever. If you cannot control your spending, throw the card in the shredder. Eventually, the credit card company will close your account for inactivity, which affects your credit to a lesser degree. (The big exception is if you carry sufficient balances on other cards, your credit utilization ratio goes up materially.)" }, { "docid": "521010", "title": "", "text": "\"In general what you will find is that a prepaid debit card will allow you to make any sort of purchase that is not also used as a \"\"Security\"\" against possibly open ended charges. A hotel wants to have a method of payment on file that they can potentially charge for damages to a room for example. The same goes for a car rental. Another limitation you will discover is when you are getting close to the amount of money that remains on the card. A restaurant will typically send through a preauthorization for the bill amount + 25%(for example) to account for a tip. If you have $60 left on your card and the bill is $50, the preauth may not be approved. Some prepaid debit cards, particularly those that are non-reloadable, start charging a service fee just for having the card after a certain period of time. This seems to be after a year, but YMMV. Lastly make sure that the card you get is reloadable. Some, like gift cards and rebate cards are sold to the buyer with a fixed amount on them and you cannot add additional money to them.\"" }, { "docid": "487067", "title": "", "text": "The original poster indicates that he lives in the UK, but there are likely strong similarities with the US banking system that I am more familiar with: The result is that you are likely going to be unable to be approved for 10 checking accounts opened in rapid succession, at least in the US. Finally, in the US, there is no need to have checking accounts with a bank in order to open a credit card with them (although sometimes it can help if you have a low credit score)." }, { "docid": "320774", "title": "", "text": "\"One is a choice the other is not. While they are both liabilities on the balance sheet, in the real world they are quite different. We do not feel as much ownership over our money that goes to interest payments as we do over our tax payments. Taxes pay for our government and the services it provides. Interest, on the other hand, is what we pay in order to have a bank loan us money. Similar to paying for a good or service obtained from some other business, we do not feel we have a say in what the bank does with that money. If we disapprove of a business' practices, we stop doing business with them; assuming there are other choices. We can not practically avoid dealing with our government. We certainly feel that we should have a say in what is done with our tax money. I doubt there is anyone in the world that completely approves of their government's spending. It is very easy to feel marginalized with regard to our tax payments. For example, some people feel resentment because their taxes fund the welfare rolls. All that said, I believe there is little overlap between the two groups. It seems to me that you are referring to those with large amounts of high interest (e.g. credit card) debt. I doubt that a large percentage of them are scouring the tax laws, looking for deductions and loopholes. If they had that mindset, they would also be working hard to get out of the hole they are in. In summary, we choose to pay a financial adviser, to take out a loan or to obtain a credit card. We do not choose to pay taxes. Since taxes are supposed to pay for our government and things which should benefit everyone, we want a say in what is done with it. This is also the case because it is forced on us. (\"\"Fine son, I'll lend you some money, but I don't want you buying cigarettes with it.\"\") Since our say is limited and we likely will not approve of everything our government does, we want to exert what control we do have: reduce our payments as best we can.\"" }, { "docid": "197093", "title": "", "text": "\"This question has the [united kingdom] tag, so the information about USA or other law and procedures is probably only of tangential use. Except for understanding that no, this is not something to ignore. It may well indicate someone trying to use your id fraudulently, or some other sort of data-processing foul-up that may adversely impact your credit rating. The first thing I would do is phone the credit card company that sent the letter to inform them that I did not make his application, and ask firmly but politely to speak to their fraud team. I would hope that they would be helpful. It's in their interests as well as yours. (Added later) By the way, do not trust anything written on the letter. It may be a fake letter trying to lure or panic you into some other sort of scam, such as closing your \"\"compromised\"\" bank account and transferring the money in it to the \"\"fraud team\"\" for \"\"safety\"\". (Yes, it sounds stupid, but con-men are experts at what they do, and even finance industry professionals have fallen victim to such scams) So find a telephone number for that credit card company independently, for example Google, and then call that number. If it's the wrong department they'll be able to transfer you internally. If the card company is unhelpful, you have certain legal rights that do not cost much if anything. This credit company is obliged to tell you as an absolute minimum, which credit reference agencies they used when deciding to decline \"\"your\"\" application. Yes, you did not make it, but it was in your name and affected your credit rating. There are three main credit rating agencies, and whether or not the bank used them, I would spend the statutory £2 fee (if necessary) with each of them to obtain your statutory credit report, which basically is all data that they hold about you. They are obliged to correct anything which is inaccurate, and you have an absolute right to attach a note to your file explaining, for example, that you allege entries x,y, and z were fraudulently caused by an unknown third party trying to steal your ID. (They may be factually correct, e.g. \"\"Credit search on \"\", so it's possible that you cannot have them removed, and it may not be in your interests to have them removed, but you certainly want them flagged as unauthorized). If you think the fraudster may be known to you, you can also use the Data Protection Act on the company which write to you, requiring them to send you a copy of all data allegedly concerning yourself which it holds. AFAIR this costs £10. In particular you will require sight of the application and signature, if it was made on paper, and the IP address details, if it was made electronically, as well as all the data content and subsequent communications. You may recognise the handwriting, but even if not, you then have documentary evidence that it is not yours. As for the IP address, you can deduce the internet service provider and then use the Data Protection act on them. They may decline to give any details if the fraudster used his own credentials, in which case again you have documentary evidence that it was not you ... and something to give the police and bank fraud investigators if they get interested. I suspect they won't be very interested, if all you uncover is fraudulent applications that were declined. However, you may uncover a successful fraud, i.e. a live card in your name being used by a criminal, or a store or phone credit agreement. In which case obviously get in touch with that company a.s.a.p. to get it shut down and to get the authorities involved in dealing with the crime. In general, write down everything you are told, including phone contact names, and keep it. Confirm anything that you have agreed in writing, and keep copies of the letters you write and of course, the replies you receive. You shouldn't need any lawyer. The UK credit law puts the onus very much on the credit card company to prove that you owe it money, and if a random stranger has stolen your id, it won't be able to do that. In fact, it's most unlikely that it will even try, unless you have a criminal record or a record of financial delinquency. But it may be an awful lot of aggravation for years to come, if somebody has successfully stolen your ID. So even if the first lot of credit reference agency print-outs look \"\"clean\"\", check again in about six weeks time and yet again in maybe 3 months. Finally there is a scheme that you can join if you have been a victim of ID theft. I've forgotten its name but you will probably be told about it. Baically, your credit reference files will be tagged at your request with a requirement for extra precautions to be taken. This should not affect your credit rating but might make obtaining credit more hassle (for example, requests for additional ID before your account is opened after the approval process). Oh, and post a letter to yourself pdq. It's not unknown for fraudsters to persuade the Post Office to redirect all your mail to their address!\"" }, { "docid": "96150", "title": "", "text": "\"TL;DR: It doesn't matter. At a point of sufficient credit score, your income is far more important, for loan approval, than your credit score. Apparently this was a big mistake because it caused my score to drop to 744 Not really, except for the questionability of opening a margin account. A credit score of 744 is sufficient for the best rates. Credit score algorithms are dynamic and advice that may have been good in years past may not be applicable today. Pay your bills and don't have unnecessary credit, that will lead to your best credit score. For me, despite not following conventional wisdom, I am \"\"enjoying\"\" the highest credit score of my life. I have closed accounts that are just unnecessary and have done some other things that the experts say I should not do to keep a high credit score. However, all that doesn't matter. I do not have a need for credit and will likely never have a need beyond my rebate card. I feel like this is also true for you. What difference does it make if you have an 822 or a 744? Probably none. At that point, your income counts more toward loan eligibility.\"" }, { "docid": "119104", "title": "", "text": "Three big ones that are common in almost all banks (though, individually, they may have other criteria): Other criteria I've seen (while working in the banking industry - varying by bank): the average balance you keep on deposit accounts (checking/savings/CDs/etc), number of overdraft fees in the past 12 months (one bank I worked for wouldn't approve a credit card if a customer had more than 5 overdrafts in the past year), the length of time a customer had been with the bank. Note that a credit card only company, like AmEx, may have different criteria in that they don't offer all the other type of accounts that other other banks do." }, { "docid": "110953", "title": "", "text": "I do this all the time, my credit rating over time plotted on a graph looks like saw blades going upward on a slope I use a credit alert service to get my credit reports quarterly, and I know when the credit agencies update their files (every three months), so I never have a high balance at those particular times Basically, I use the negative hard pulls to propel my credit score upwards with a the consequentially lowered credit utilization ratio, and the credit history. So here is how it works for me, but I am not an impulse buyer and I wouldn't recommend it for most people as I have seen spending habits: Month 1: charge cards, pay minimum balance (raises score multiple points) Month 2: PAY OFF ALL CREDIT CARDS, massive deleveraging using actual money I already have (raises score multiple points) Month 3: get credit report showing low balance, charge cards, pay minimum balance ask for extensions of credit, AND followup on new credit line offers (lowers score several points per credit inquiry) Month 4: charge cards, pay minimum balance, discretionally approving hard pulls - always have room for one or two random hard pulls, such as for a new cell phone contract, or renting a car, or employment, etc Month 5: PAY OFF CREDIT CARDS using actual money you have. (the trick is to NEVER really go above a 15% credit utilization ratio, and to never overleverage. Tricky because very quickly you will get enough credit to go bankrupt) Month 6: get credit report showing low balances, a slight dip in score from last quarter, but still high continue." }, { "docid": "278671", "title": "", "text": "If it costs more to fix the car than the car is worth, then those repairs are not worth it. Hit craigslist and look for another junker that runs, but is in your cash price range. Pay to get it looked at by a mechanic as a condition of sale. Use consumer reports to try and find a good model. Somebody in your position does not need a $15K car. You need a series of $2K or $4K cars that you will replace more often, but pay cash for. Car buying, especially from a dealer financed, place isn't how I would recommend building your credit back up. EDIT in response to your updates: Build your credit the smart way, by not paying interest charges. Use your lower limit card, and annually apply for more credit, which you use and pay off each and every month. Borrowing is not going to help you. Just because you can afford to make payments, doesn't automatically make payments a wise decision. You have to examine the value of the loan, not what the payments are. Shop for a good price, shop for a good rate, then purchase. The amount you can pay every month should only be a factor than can kill the deal, not allow it. Pay cash for your vehicle until you can qualify for a low cost loan from a credit union or a bank. It is a waste of money and time to pay a penalty interest rate because you want to build your credit. Time is what will heal your credit score. If you really must borrow for the purchase, you must secure a loan prior to shopping for a car. Visit a few credit unions and get pre-qualified. Once you have a pre-approved loan in place, you can let the deal try and beat your loan for a better deal. Don't make the mistake of letting the dealer do all the financing first." }, { "docid": "571801", "title": "", "text": "In most cases, a debit card can be charged like a credit card so there is typically no strict need for a credit card. However, a debit card provides weaker guarantees to the merchant that an arbitrary amount of money will be available. This is for several reasons: As such, there are a few situations where a credit card is required. For example, Amazon requires a credit card for Prime membership, and car rental companies usually require a credit card. The following does not apply to the OP and is provided for reference. Debit cards don't build credit, so if you've never had a credit card or loan before, you'll likely have no credit history at all if you've never had a credit card. This will make it very difficult to get any nontrivially-sized loan. Also, some employers (typically if the job you're applying for involves financial or other highly sensitive information) check credit when hiring, and not having credit puts you at a disadvantage." }, { "docid": "264631", "title": "", "text": "\"Transferring the balance of a credit card is what they call moving your debt from one credit card to another credit card or loan. A debit card, however, is not debt. It is a card that is tied to a checking account with money in it. You can't transfer debt to your checking account. If you have enough money in your checking account to cover the balance of your credit card, you can pay it off. That is a really good thing to do, because the balance on your credit card is costing you a lot in interest charges each month. Were you perhaps thinking of \"\"transferring a balance\"\" from your debit card's checking account to a new credit card, where you would then have a new debt on the credit card, and extra cash in your debit card's checking account? This is possible with most credit cards, and is usually called a cash advance. However, just to caution you, cash advances typically have high interest rates. Often you will see promotions where they will offer low (or no) interest rate for a short time, but this is just a trick to entice you to borrow extra, knowing that if you need the money now, you'll most likely still need it in 6 months when the promotion expires. I don't recommend it.\"" }, { "docid": "2018", "title": "", "text": "\"As i see it, with a debit card, they are taken kinda out of the game. They are not lending money, it seems really bad for them. Not exactly. It is true that they're not lending money, but they charge a hefty commission from the retailers for each swipe which is pure profit with almost no risk. One of the proposals considered (or maybe approved already, don't know) in Congress is to cap that hefty commission, which will really make the debit cards merely a service for the checking account holder, rather than a profit maker for the bank. On the other hand, it's definitely good for individuals. I disagree with that. Debit cards are easier to use than checks, but they provide much less protection than credit cards. Here's what I had to say on this a while ago, and seems like the community agrees. But, why do we really need a credit history to buy some of the more expensive stuff Because the system is broken. It rewards people in debt by giving them more opportunities to get into even more debts, while people who owe nothing to noone cannot get a credit when they do need one. With the current system the potential creditor can only asses the risk of someone who has debt already, they have no way of assessing risks of someone with no debts. To me, all this credit card system seems like an awfully nice way to make loads of money, backed by governments as well. Well, credit cards have nothing to do with it. It's the credit scores system that is broken. If we replace the \"\"card\"\" with \"\"score\"\" in your question - then yes, you're thinking correctly. That of course is true for the US, in other countries I have no knowledge on how the creditors assess the risks.\"" }, { "docid": "395520", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking, granting rights to one bank account (e.g. making a joint account) does not extend rights to other accounts or otherwise let one joint owner create new obligations on the other owner (e.g. opening a line of credit that the other owner must pay for), except to the extent of the joint account. I assume there are no UK rules that would change this feature. The other party can of course withdraw all the money without need for your approval. This also means that the joint account could be exposed to all the creditors of either party. If your account joint tenant has huge debts, the creditors could theoretically look to the joint account for satisfaction. At least, that would be an issue under US law. Frankly, it may be simpler to get a separate account for the other person (if possible) and make transfers with online banking. It could also make sense to get a rechargeable banking card, if those are in the UK, which works like a debit card and can be reloaded through various means (sometimes a call, sometimes online deposits, sometimes in physical stores). There may be fees to getting such a card or a second account, of course. The benefit is that the cardholder has no access to your account and you control recharging. Such cards are widely available in the US to people who otherwise would not qualify for traditional bank accounts. Note also the FATCA complication with adding a US person to your account. My understanding is that a number of non-US banks will simply close the accounts of Americans, rather than deal with FFI hassles under FATCA." }, { "docid": "138645", "title": "", "text": "\"These are two different ways of processing payments. They go through different systems many times, and are treated differently by the banks, credit card issuers and the stores. Merchants pay different fees on transactions paid by debit cards and by credit cards. Debit transactions require PIN, and are deducted from your bank account directly. In order to achieve that, the transaction has to reach the bank in real time, otherwise it will be declined. This means, that the merchant has to have a line of communications open to the relevant processor, that in turn has to be able to connect to the bank and get the authorization - all that while on-line. The bank verifies the PIN, authorizes the transaction, and deducts the amount from your account, while you're still at the counter. Many times these transactions cannot be reversed, and the fraud protections and warranties are different from credit transactions. Credit transactions don't have to go to your card issuer at all. The merchant can accept credit payment without calling anyone, and without getting prior authorizations. Even if the merchant sends the transaction for authorization with its processor, if the processor cannot reach the issuing bank - they can still approve the transaction under certain conditions. This is, however, never true with debit cards (even if used as \"\"credit\"\"). They're not deducted from your bank account, but accumulated on your credit card account. They're posted there when the actual transaction reaches the card issuer, which may be many days (and even many months) after the transaction took place. Credit transactions can be reversed (in some cases very easily), and enjoy from a higher level of fraud protection. In some countries (and most, if not all, of the EU) fraudulent credit transactions are never the consumer's problem, always the bank's. Not so with debit transactions. Banks may be encouraging you to use debit for several reasons: Merchants will probably prefer credit because: Consumers will probably be better off with credit because:\"" }, { "docid": "421743", "title": "", "text": "\"never carry a balance on a credit card. there is almost always a cheaper way to borrow money. the exception to that rule is when you are offered a 0% promotion on a credit card, but even then watch out for cash advance fees and how payments are applied (typically to promotional balances first). paying interest on daily spending is a bad idea. generally, the only time you should pay interest is on a home loan, car loan or education loan. basically that's because those loans can either allow you to reduce an expense (e.g. apartment rent, taxi fair), or increase your income (by getting a better job). you can try to make an argument about the utility of a dollar, but all sophistry aside you are better off investing than borrowing under normal circumstances. that said, using a credit card (with no annual fee) can build credit for a future car or home loan. the biggest advantage of a credit card is cash back. if you have good credit you can get a credit card that offers at least 1% cash back on every purchase. if you don't have good credit, using a credit card with no annual fee can be a good way to build credit until you can get approved for a 2% card (e.g. citi double cash). additionally, technically, you can get close to 10% cash back by chasing sign up bonuses. however, that requires applying for new cards frequently and keeping track of minimum spend etc. credit cards also protect you from fraud. if someone uses your debit card number, you can be short on cash until your bank fixes it. but if someone uses your credit card number, you can simply dispute the charge when you get the bill. you don't have to worry about how to make rent after an unexpected 2k$ charge. side note: it is a common mis-conception that credit card issuers only make money from cardholder interest and fees. card issuers make a lot of revenue from \"\"interchange fees\"\" paid by merchants every time you use your card. some issuers (e.g. amex) make a majority of their revenue from merchants.\"" }, { "docid": "277477", "title": "", "text": "The details of credit score calculation tend to change periodically, but the fundamentals are mostly consistent. Pay your bills, keep your average account age high, overpay your credit card minimums, and keep your overall debt low. And do soft pulls on your credit report to see what's happening. First, the simplest route: pay all your bills early or on time. Automatic deduction may be useful in this regard, especially for bills with predictable amounts. A corollary to this tip is to never leave an unpaid bill. What often happens to young people is in the course of moving around they leave the final bill unpaid and it gets reported to collections. Make sure you follow up online with all bills, even after canceling the service. Second, average account age and oldest account age matter. Open an account like a credit card and never close it, so you'll have an older account (hopefully a zero-fee card). Try to keep other accounts open rather than closing them (no need to cancel a zero-fee credit card) so your average account age stays higher. A card that works on internal systems (like a gift card) is not going to show up on a credit report; a card that works like any VISA/MC is likely going to show up. The rule of thumb is if they need your SSN to run a credit check for the application, then the card will appear on a credit report. You can pull your credit report to find out if the card is listed (you may have to allow time for lag before the card appears, but I'm not sure how long that might be). Third, a tip for extra credit score is to pay more than the minimum required on credit card bills. You can achieve this by either using your credit card at least once a month or by leaving a small hanging balance each month so there's always something to overpay next month. Credit card reporting will be either: unpaid, underpaid, minimum paid, or overpaid. Minimum payment helps your score and overpayment helps more. If you can use your credit card every month, that will give you something to overpay every month. Otherwise, you can leave a small debt left on the card but still pay over the monthly minimum. However, your total debt load, especially debt carried on your cards, counts against your score; aim for less than 10% of your limit. Finally, of course, is to pull your credit report periodically. You need to know what others are seeing. Since debt load utilization matters, make sure the reported card maximum is correct on your credit report. Talk to your bank or account issuer if the limit is wrong. If a collection appears, then you need to handle it. Often you can negotiate with the collector, but be careful to negotiate how they will report the resolution. You want them to agree to remove any negative information (either in exchange for payment or because of a mistake). Failing that, you want them to mark it paid in full or satisfied in full; letting them notate your score that you only partially paid is what you want to avoid, since it most signals someone with cash flow problems and credit issues. They control their reporting to credit bureaus, so if the person on the phone demurs, ask to speak to their supervisor or someone with negotiating authority. Try to get any agreements in writing. Remember that your total debt load is a factor in your credit score. Home loans and student loans do affect credit score. If you take on a smaller home loan, then it will affect your credit less harshly (and leave you with smaller monthly payments)." }, { "docid": "9814", "title": "", "text": "\"Ever wonder why certain businesses won't accept certain credit cards? (The sign above the register saying \"\"Sorry, we don't accept AmericanExpress\"\"). It's because they don't want to pay that credit card company's transaction fees. One of the roles of the credit card company is to facilitate the transaction process between the customer (you) and the store. And now that using credit cards over cash or check is so ingrained in our culture, it creates extra work for the customer to make purchases at an establishment that is cash-only. Credit card companies know this, and so do businesses. So businesses will partner with credit card companies so that customers can use their cards. This way, everything is handled electronically (this can also benefit the business, since there's added security as they're not dealing with cash directly, and they don't have to manually count as much cash later). However a business may only budget a certain amount of their profits they want taken by credit card transactions. So if a company's fees are too high (say AmericanExpress, for example) and they are banking on you already having a Visa card, the company isn't going to go out of its way to provide the AmericanExpress option for you. If it were free for the business to use a credit card company's service at their stores, then they would all just provide the option for every card! So the credit card company making money is all contingent on you spending your money by using their credit card. You use the card, and the store pays the company for the transaction.\"" }, { "docid": "498751", "title": "", "text": "\"Sign up with credit karma. It will give you two scores for free and will show you credit cards you have a good chance in being approved for. Plus it will evaluate your score showing you the 6 items that effect your score and give you steps to improve them or tell you how long you have to wait until they roll off. Plus I would look at a credit union and see if they have any \"\"fresh start\"\" programs. You should be well on your way. the thing that is probably hurting your credit is your utilization. If you can just use 10% of your available credit.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "119104", "title": "", "text": "Three big ones that are common in almost all banks (though, individually, they may have other criteria): Other criteria I've seen (while working in the banking industry - varying by bank): the average balance you keep on deposit accounts (checking/savings/CDs/etc), number of overdraft fees in the past 12 months (one bank I worked for wouldn't approve a credit card if a customer had more than 5 overdrafts in the past year), the length of time a customer had been with the bank. Note that a credit card only company, like AmEx, may have different criteria in that they don't offer all the other type of accounts that other other banks do." } ]

[ { "docid": "406853", "title": "", "text": "If you have no credit score it is generally far easier and more affordable to establish credit the cheapest way possible, which is usually in the form of a small credit card (student card if you are a student, low credit line unsecured, or even secured if you need). Your local bank/credit union will usually be keen to offer you something to start out, but you can also apply online to some of the major credit card vendors. As always, look out for annual fees, etc. In general, trying to get a larger loan to establish credit will cost you a lot as you will not qualify for any legitimate 0% or ultra-low APR car loans - those are reserved for people with established and generally pretty good credit. I expect you'll find a car loan that will have a lower APR than you could get investing your money otherwise - especially if you do not have established excellent credit - to simply be a phantom (you won't find it), and even if you could it is more risky than it is worth. Furthermore, if establishing credit is important to you (such as for buying a house down the road), you can build an excellent credit score without ever having a car loan. So you don't have to buy a car on borrowed money just to hope to get approved for a house some day - it's just not a requirement. Finally, I urge you to make a decision on the best car for you in your situation, ignoring the credit score - especially if you are more than 3-5+ years away from buying a house. Everything else about buying a car is more important - the actual cost of the car, year, mileage, suitability for your needs, gas mileage, maintenance and insurance costs, etc. Then, at the very end of your decision making process, ensure that buying the car would not put you dangerously low on savings by squeezing your emergency fund. Decide if you really need a loan or as expensive of a car, considering the costs over the expected life of you owning the car (or at least the next 2-5 years). Never get trapped into just thinking about monthly payments, which hide the true cost of loans and buying beyond what you can afford to purchase today." }, { "docid": "504989", "title": "", "text": "\"First I would like to say, do not pay credit card companies in an attempt to improve your credit rating. In my opinion it's not worth the cash and not fair for the consumer. There are many great resources online that give advice on how to improve your credit score. You can even simulate what would happen to your score if you did \"\"this\"\". Credit Karma - will give you your TransUnion credit score for free and offers a simulation calculator. If you only have one credit card, I would start off by applying for another simply because $700 is such a small limit and to pay a $30 annual fee seems outrageous. Try applying with the bank where you hold your savings or checking account they are more likely to approve your application since they have a working relationship with you. All in all I would not go out of my way and spend money I would not have spent otherwise just to increase my credit score, to me this practice is counter intuitive. You are allowed a free credit report from each bureau, once annually, you can get this from www.annualcreditreport.com, this won't include your credit score but it will let you see what banks see when they run your credit report. In addition you should check it over for any errors or possible identity theft. If there are errors you need to file a claim with the credit agency IMMEDIATELY. (edit from JoeT - with 3 agencies to choose from, you can alternate during the year to pull a different report every 4 months. A couple, every 2.) Here are some resources you can read up on: Improve your FICO Credit Score Top 5 Credit Misconceptions 9 fast fixes for your credit scores\"" }, { "docid": "89161", "title": "", "text": "\"You ask about the difference between credit and debit, but that may be because you're missing something important. Regardless of credit/debit, there is value in carrying two different cards associated with two different accounts. The reason is simply that because of loss, fraud, or your own mismanagement, or even the bank's technical error, any card can become unusable for some period of time. Exactly how long depends what happened, but just sending you a new card can easily take more than one business day, which might well be longer than you'd like to go without access to any funds. In that situation you would be glad of a credit card, and you would equally be glad of a second debit card on a separate account. So if your question is \"\"I have one bank account with one debit card, and the only options I'm willing to contemplate are (a) do nothing or (b) take a credit card as well\"\", then the answer is yes, take a credit card as well, regardless of the pros or cons of credit vs debit. Even if you only use the credit card in the event that you drop your debit card down a drain. So what you can now consider is the pros and cons of a credit card vs managing an additional bank account -- unless you seriously hate one or more of the cons of credit cards, the credit card is likely to win. My bank has given me a debit card on a cash savings account, which is a little scary, but would cover most emergencies if I didn't have a credit card too. Of course the interest rate is rubbish and I sometimes empty my savings account into a better investment, so I don't use it as backup, but I could. Your final question \"\"can a merchant know if I give him number of debit or credit card\"\" is already asked: Can merchants tell the difference between a credit card and embossed debit card? Yes they can, and yes there are a few things you can't (or might prefer not to) do with debit. The same could even be said of Visa vs. Mastercard, leading to the conclusion that if you have a Visa debit you should look for a Mastercard credit. But that seems to be less of an issue as time goes on and almost everywhere in Europe apparently takes both or neither. If you travel a lot outside the EU then you might want to be loaded down with every card under the sun, and three different kinds of cash, but you'd already know that without asking ;-)\"" }, { "docid": "24138", "title": "", "text": "You're going to have a huge problem getting approved for anything as long as you have an unpaid bill on your report. Pay it and make sure its reported as paid in full - ASAP. Once that settled, your credit will start to improve slowly. Can't do anything about that, it will take time. You can make the situation improve a bit faster by lending money to yourself and having it reported regularly on your report. How? Easy. Get a secured credit card. What does it mean? You put X amount of money in a CD and the bank will issue you a credit card secured by that CD. Your credit line will be based on the amount in that CD, and you'll probably pay some fees to the bank for the service (~$20-50/year, shop around). You might get lucky and find a secured card without fees, if you look hard enough. Secured cards are reported as revolving credit (just as any other credit card) and are easy to get because the bank doesn't take the risk - you do. If you default on your payments - your CD goes to cover the debt, and the card gets cancelled. But make absolutely sure that you do not default. Charge between 10% and 30% of the credit limit each month, not more. Pay the balance shown on your credit card statement in full every month and by the due date shown on your monthly statement. It will take a while, but you would typically start noticing the improvement within ~6-12 months. Stop applying for stuff. Not store cards, not car loans, you're not going to get anything, and will just keep dragging your scores down. Each time you have a pull on your report, the score goes down. A lot of pulls, frequent pulls - the score goes down a lot. Lenders can see when one is desperate, and no-one wants to lend money to desperate people. Optimally lenders want to lend money to people who doesn't need loans, but in order to keep the business running they'll settle for slightly less - people who don't usually need loans, and pay the loans they do have on time. You fail on both, as you're desperate for a loan and you have unpaid bills on your report." }, { "docid": "257644", "title": "", "text": "I notice that a lot happened four months ago. You were denied credit twice. Your income went up from $20k to $60k. I'm wondering if you were denied credit based on your $20k income. Since you couldn't provide proof of your income I wonder if they used $0 for your income. Debt to income ratio is one significant factor included in the credit score calculation. You may not have a lot of debt, but if you don't have any income even a few hundred dollars on a credit card would throw your debt to income ratio into a panic. I'm assuming that your change from $20k to $60k income involved a change of jobs. Perhaps now you can provide proof of income. You would certainly need to do that before being approved for a mortgage. Well that's my two cents about what may (or may not) have gone wrong last time. As for what to do next I would agree that the most helpful thing you could do is check your credit score and fix any errors that might negatively impact your credit score. (There might also be non-errors that need addressed such as open credit accounts that you thought you had closed.) When building credit history, time is on your side. If you just go on living your life and paying your bills promptly, your credit will slowly climb to an acceptable level. Unfortunately in the time frame you mentioned (~1 year) there isn't really enough time to build it significantly. You bring up a valid point about credit applications reducing your credit score. Of course, that effect is somewhat minimal and temporary (2 yrs according to the thread linked to above). But again 1 year is not enough to recover. If you're considering applying for additional credit as a means to improve your credit score it may be too late to reap the benefits before your mortgage application. Of course if you could pay off any debts, that would help your debt to income ratio. But it would also reduce any house down payment you could save up and thereby increase the amount of your mortgage. Better just save those pennies (or preferably Washingtons and Benjamins) to put toward a down payment." }, { "docid": "346852", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think credit cards support depositing money into to begin with. Anyone could deposit money to a Credit Card acccount. All they need is your bank's name, Visa/Mastercard, and 16 digit number. It is done through the \"\"Pay Bills / Make Payments\"\" function in online banking. So tell me, what does it mean that PayPal will transfer the money to my VISA card You can use the new balance for spending via Credit Card, the effect is same as making a payment from your chequing account to credit card account. Will it simply just get transferred to my bank account by the local bank after that Some banks would refund the excess amount from your Credit Card to your Chequing Account after a while, but most don't. People keep credit balance on credit card to make a purchaes larger than credit limit. For example, if your credit limit is $1000, balance is $0, and you made $500 payment to the credit card, you can make a purchase of $1500 without asking for credit limit increase.\"" }, { "docid": "335859", "title": "", "text": "As has been stated, you don't need to actively bank with a credit union to apply for one of their credit cards. That said, one benefit to having account activity, and significant capital with a CU, is to increase the likelihood of having a larger credit line granted to you, when you do apply. If you are going to use the card sparingly however, then this is a non issue. That said, if you really want to maximize card benefits, then you want to look for cards with large sign up bonuses (e.g. Chase Sapphire, or Ink Bold if you have a business) and sign up exclusively for those bonuses. These cards offer rewards in excessive value of $1000 in travel services (hotels/plane tickets), or $500 cash back if you prefer straight cash back redemptions. If you prefer to keep it really simple, you can sign up for a cash back card, like the Amex Fidelity, which offers 2% cash back everywhere, with no annual fee (albeit the cash back is through their investment account, which you don't actually have to 'invest' with). Personally, I have the Penfed card, and use it exclusively for gas (5% cash back). I also have a Charles Schwab bank account, which I keep funded exclusively for ATM withdrawals (free ATM usage, worldwide, 100% fee reimbursement). I use the accounts exclusively for the benefit they provide me, and no more and have never had an issue. I also have 3 dozen other credit cards which I signed up for exclusively for the sign up bonus, but that's outside the scope of this question. I only mention it because you seem to believe it is difficult to get approved for a new credit line. If your credit is good however, you won't have a problem. For a small idea, of how to maximize credit card bonus categories, I would advise you read this. As mentioned in the article, its possible to get rewards almost everywhere you shop. In short, anytime you use cash, you are missing out on a multitude of benefits a credit card offers you (e.g. see the benefits of a visa signature card) in addition to points/cash back." }, { "docid": "97162", "title": "", "text": "Your plan isn't bad, but it probably isn't worth the cost for the small amount of credit building it will achieve. If you do decide to continue with it though, you'll save in interest if you make the big payment now rather than in 6 months. In other words, you can take the minimum payment, multiply it by 5, subtract that amount from the total you owe and pay the difference immediately. This way you'll still get the 6 months of reporting to the credit bureaus, but you'll pay less interest since you'll have less principle each month. I would recommend applying for the credit card right now. I believe you'll probably get approved now. If you do, then pay off the car loan without thinking about it. (If you don't get approved, think about it, then probably still pay it off.) Regarding the full coverage insurance, even after the loan is paid off and you aren't required to have it, you may still want to keep it. Even if you're the best driver on earth, if someone hits you and doesn't have insurance, or they have insurance and drive off, or a deer runs in front of you, etc, you'll lose your car and won't be reimbursed. Also, as Russell pointed out in the comments below, without collision coverage your insurance company has no incentive to work on your behalf when someone else hits you, so even if it's not your fault you may still not get reimbursed. So, I wouldn't pass on the full coverage unless your car isn't worth very much or you can stomach losing it if something happens. Good luck, and congrats on being able to pay for a car in full at 19 years old." }, { "docid": "76248", "title": "", "text": "First, before we talk about anything having to do with the credit score, we need the disclaimer that the exact credit score formulas are proprietary secrets that have not been revealed. Therefore, all we have to go on are broad generalities that FICO has given us. That having been said, the credit card debt utilization portion of your score generally has at least two components: an overall utilization, and a per-card utilization. Your overall utilization is taken by adding up all your credit card debt and all your credit limits and dividing. Using your numbers above, you are sitting at about 95%. The per-card utilization is the individual utilization of each card. Your five cards range in utilization from 69% to 100%. Paying one card over another has no affect on your overall utilization, but obviously will change the per-card utilization of the one you pay first. So, to your question: Is it better on the credit score to have one low-util card and one high-util card, or to have two medium-util cards? I haven't read anything that definitively answers this question. Here is my advice to you: The big problem you have is the debt, not the credit score. Your credit card debt should be treated like an emergency that needs to be taken care of as quickly as you possibly can. Instead of trying to optimize your credit score, you should be trying to minimize the number of days until all of your credit cards are completely paid off. The credit score will take care of itself once you get your financial situation back on track. There is debate about the order in which one should pay off their debts, but the fact of the matter is that the order is not as significant as the intensity at which you pay them all off. Dedicate yourself to getting rid of the debts as fast as possible, and it won't matter much which order they get paid off in. Finally, to answer your question, I recommend that you attack the card debt one at a time instead of trying to pay them off evenly. Not because it will optimize your credit score, but because it will help you focus your debt-reduction energy as you work on resolving your debt emergency. Fortunately, the credit utilization portion of the credit score has no history, so once you pay all of these off, the utilization portion of your score will get better immediately, and the path you took to get there will be irrelevant. After the credit cards are completely paid off, and you have resolved never to spend money that you don't have again, it is time to work on the student loans...." }, { "docid": "591566", "title": "", "text": "\"Could the individual [directly] use the credit cards for the down-payment? No, not directly. Indirectly, either via Cash Advance or \"\"Balance Transfer\"\" to a bank account with a promotional rate could work, however you may have to show the money sitting in a bank account and ready to go before the loan will be approved, which means the money you took out on the credit cards will show up when they pull your credit (unless you somehow timed it perfectly, and even if you did that you'd be breaking the law by lying on the disclosure statement about your current debts.) If he could, are there any negative consequences from doing so (other than probable high monthly payments on the cards)? Definitely. Let's assume we're talking about the indirect method of cash advance or balance transfer, since that is actually possible. There are 3 things to compare: Final thought: Most of the time the rate you pay on a non-mortgage loan will be higher than that of the mortgage, and furthermore mortgage interest is oftentimes tax deductible, so it would rarely ever make sense to shift would-be mortgage debt into another type of loan, down payment or otherwise.\"" }, { "docid": "277477", "title": "", "text": "The details of credit score calculation tend to change periodically, but the fundamentals are mostly consistent. Pay your bills, keep your average account age high, overpay your credit card minimums, and keep your overall debt low. And do soft pulls on your credit report to see what's happening. First, the simplest route: pay all your bills early or on time. Automatic deduction may be useful in this regard, especially for bills with predictable amounts. A corollary to this tip is to never leave an unpaid bill. What often happens to young people is in the course of moving around they leave the final bill unpaid and it gets reported to collections. Make sure you follow up online with all bills, even after canceling the service. Second, average account age and oldest account age matter. Open an account like a credit card and never close it, so you'll have an older account (hopefully a zero-fee card). Try to keep other accounts open rather than closing them (no need to cancel a zero-fee credit card) so your average account age stays higher. A card that works on internal systems (like a gift card) is not going to show up on a credit report; a card that works like any VISA/MC is likely going to show up. The rule of thumb is if they need your SSN to run a credit check for the application, then the card will appear on a credit report. You can pull your credit report to find out if the card is listed (you may have to allow time for lag before the card appears, but I'm not sure how long that might be). Third, a tip for extra credit score is to pay more than the minimum required on credit card bills. You can achieve this by either using your credit card at least once a month or by leaving a small hanging balance each month so there's always something to overpay next month. Credit card reporting will be either: unpaid, underpaid, minimum paid, or overpaid. Minimum payment helps your score and overpayment helps more. If you can use your credit card every month, that will give you something to overpay every month. Otherwise, you can leave a small debt left on the card but still pay over the monthly minimum. However, your total debt load, especially debt carried on your cards, counts against your score; aim for less than 10% of your limit. Finally, of course, is to pull your credit report periodically. You need to know what others are seeing. Since debt load utilization matters, make sure the reported card maximum is correct on your credit report. Talk to your bank or account issuer if the limit is wrong. If a collection appears, then you need to handle it. Often you can negotiate with the collector, but be careful to negotiate how they will report the resolution. You want them to agree to remove any negative information (either in exchange for payment or because of a mistake). Failing that, you want them to mark it paid in full or satisfied in full; letting them notate your score that you only partially paid is what you want to avoid, since it most signals someone with cash flow problems and credit issues. They control their reporting to credit bureaus, so if the person on the phone demurs, ask to speak to their supervisor or someone with negotiating authority. Try to get any agreements in writing. Remember that your total debt load is a factor in your credit score. Home loans and student loans do affect credit score. If you take on a smaller home loan, then it will affect your credit less harshly (and leave you with smaller monthly payments)." }, { "docid": "421743", "title": "", "text": "\"never carry a balance on a credit card. there is almost always a cheaper way to borrow money. the exception to that rule is when you are offered a 0% promotion on a credit card, but even then watch out for cash advance fees and how payments are applied (typically to promotional balances first). paying interest on daily spending is a bad idea. generally, the only time you should pay interest is on a home loan, car loan or education loan. basically that's because those loans can either allow you to reduce an expense (e.g. apartment rent, taxi fair), or increase your income (by getting a better job). you can try to make an argument about the utility of a dollar, but all sophistry aside you are better off investing than borrowing under normal circumstances. that said, using a credit card (with no annual fee) can build credit for a future car or home loan. the biggest advantage of a credit card is cash back. if you have good credit you can get a credit card that offers at least 1% cash back on every purchase. if you don't have good credit, using a credit card with no annual fee can be a good way to build credit until you can get approved for a 2% card (e.g. citi double cash). additionally, technically, you can get close to 10% cash back by chasing sign up bonuses. however, that requires applying for new cards frequently and keeping track of minimum spend etc. credit cards also protect you from fraud. if someone uses your debit card number, you can be short on cash until your bank fixes it. but if someone uses your credit card number, you can simply dispute the charge when you get the bill. you don't have to worry about how to make rent after an unexpected 2k$ charge. side note: it is a common mis-conception that credit card issuers only make money from cardholder interest and fees. card issuers make a lot of revenue from \"\"interchange fees\"\" paid by merchants every time you use your card. some issuers (e.g. amex) make a majority of their revenue from merchants.\"" }, { "docid": "82472", "title": "", "text": "\"It's rarely advisable to pay interest for something you can afford with cash. Just because you have no credit or loan history doesn't mean you aren't credit worthy. When applying for loans or credit, the lending institutions look at your credit report, not just your credit score. There are lots of things that show up on the reports they receive including (but not limited to): Right now, so many people are focused on their credit score, they're taking on unnecessary debt and potentially losing money in the long run. Yes, having a higher credit score will ultimately be beneficial, but your score will start growing naturally as you live your life. Unless of course you can and do pay for everything with cash. The concept of monitoring your score and striving to get it as high as possible is being shoved down our throats by advertisers at the moment. Don't fall for it. Rather than taking out a loan, which will cost you money in interest and actually show up as a closed account once it's paid off, you might be better served by applying for a credit card and using it sparingly just to start getting that credit history together. (Add usual \"\"don't spend more than you can pay back\"\" mantra here). Get a card with no annual fee and maybe some cash back options, and use it as the auto-payment for a utility if possible. You build credit history, increase your score, and it doesn't cost you any more than you'd be paying anyways. With regards to the investment question: With little to no credit history, you're not going to be approved for a loan with a low enough interest rate anyways. Think double digits. With a co-signer, you'll get a better rate, but then you need a co-signer. I don't know the exact math, but in today's market I'd say you'd need a loan interest rate of 2% or lower for investing to be worth thinking about. I believe this answer helps clarify the loan to invest math: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/26193/30798\"" }, { "docid": "524149", "title": "", "text": "\"I've been using YNAB4 for the last few years, and I like it so much that I haven't switched to the web version (new YNAB) yet. However, I have played around with the web version a little, and here is what I have discovered. Despite the different look of the credit card account and the lengthy dissertation on the credit card differences in the Transition Guide, credit cards are handled almost exactly the same in the new YNAB as they were in YNAB4. You enter credit card spending transactions in the same way as YNAB4. When you enter a transaction, money is pulled out of the budget category you select. The only difference is that in YNAB4, this money was considered \"\"gone.\"\" Now, that money moves from your budget category into the new credit card category. When it comes time to pay the credit card bill, you also enter this transaction in the same way as before. It is entered as a transfer of money from your checking account to your credit card account. The only difference here is that with new YNAB, the funds are deducted from your credit card category. This is handled automatically, so you don't have to think about it if you don't want to. If you always pay your credit card bill in full, you never have to budget money manually into the credit card category. The money will already be there from when you entered the credit card spending transactions. The only time you would manually budget money into the credit card spending category is if you have old credit card debt that you are trying to pay off. A quick example, in pictures: I start out with $10,000 in my checking account, and no credit card debt: I've got all $10,000 in my \"\"Fun Money\"\" category: Now, I spend $100 at the Store: You can see that, just like in YNAB4, the credit card account is now in the red $100, and the checking account balance has not changed. In the categories, my Fun Money category is down $100 to $9,900, just like it would be in YNAB4. The only difference is that there is now $100 in the new Credit Card Payments category. When it is time to pay the bill, I enter an account transfer, just like in YNAB4: Note that the Credit Card balance is back to $0, and the Checking Account balance is now down to $9,900. The Credit Card Payment budget category is now magically back to $0: The above example starts with a zero balance on the credit card. However, most people will have a non-zero balance on their credit card when they first start a budget. In YNAB4, when you added a credit card with a (negative) balance, the debt was shown in a budget category called \"\"Pre-YNAB Debt.\"\" You then added money to this budget category until it went to zero, and then you didn't need this budget category anymore. With new YNAB, credit card balances are not shown in budget categories. If you add a credit card account with a balance, the debt is not shown in the budget categories. To pay off this debt, you can fund the Credit Card Payments category. After this existing balance amount is paid off, you won't need to fund the Credit Card Payments category anymore as long as you properly assign each new credit card purchase to a funded budget category.\"" }, { "docid": "2064", "title": "", "text": "8 hard inquiries spread over two years is not a negative factor, with a score of 750. Real question #1: How much of your credit limits are you currently using? Less than 30% of your credit limits is good. Less than 15% is even better, 10% is great You don't need to wait X amount of days after applying for a mortgage or a card to increase your chances of getting approved for something else. You do need to be conscious of how many hard pulls you have done in a reporting period though, but again as I said, 8 spread over two years is not a whole lot. Real question #2: What negative things do you have in your credit history? Young age, income, delinquent payments, bankruptcies, low limits? Some of these negative factors are catch-22's (low limits, young age = low limits because of age and young credit history) but these contribute to how much institutions would be willing to lend you" }, { "docid": "317461", "title": "", "text": "I have the mortgage from Lender A. Can I get a HELOC from Lender B? Yes. Do banks pull my credit to approve a HELOC account? Yes. How is it reported to the credit bureaus and how does it affect my credit (Let's say my limit is $30k and I use all of $30k)? It is reported as HELOC and the current balance. Similar to credit cards (in fact, some banks report it exactly as credit cards). Anything unique about it's tax deduction? Same as mortgage, except that the limit is $100K unless used for home improvement. Anything else to watch out for? LTV - Loan to Value. This is the ratio of your overall home value to the indebtedness secured by the home. Currently, your LTV is 93% (you have 7% equity). For HELOC, most banks require the LTV, including the HELOC, not to exceed 75%. So the chances you'll get a HELOC are pretty slim." }, { "docid": "252762", "title": "", "text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\"" }, { "docid": "516050", "title": "", "text": "This is a question with a flawed premise. Credit cards do have two-factor authentication on transactions they consider more at risk to be fraudulent. I've had several times when I bought something relatively expensive and unusual for me, where the CC either initially declined and sent me a text asking to confirm immediately (after which they would approve the charges), or approved but sent me a text right away asking to confirm (after which they'd automatically dispute if I told them to). The first is legitimately what you are asking for; the second is presumably for less risky but still some risk transactions). Ultimately, the reason they don't allow it for every transaction is that not enough people would make use of it to be worth their time to implement it. Particularly given it slows down the transaction significantly (and look at the complaints at the ~10-15 seconds extra EMV authentication takes, imagine that as a minute or more), I think you'd get a single digit percentage of people using that service." }, { "docid": "384192", "title": "", "text": "Technically, it's only when you need to pass money through. However consider that the length the account has been open builds history with the financial institution, so I'd open ASAP. Longer history with the bank can help with getting approved for things like business credit lines, business cards, and other perks, though if you're not making money with that business, seek out a bank that does not charge money to have a business account open with them." } ]

[ { "docid": "182758", "title": "", "text": "Bigger than the three mentioned above is on-time payment and/or collections activity. If your report shows you have not paid accounts on time, or have accounts in collections, that is almost guaranteed decline except for the least desirable cards. Another factor is number of hard inquiries. If you have been on a recent application spree, you will get declined for too many recent inquiries. Wait 12-18 months for the inquiries to roll off your report. Applications for business cards are a little tricky depending on whether you are applying as an individual or as an employee of a corporation. I usually stay away from these as you can be liable for company debts you did not charge under the right circumstances." } ]

[ { "docid": "430622", "title": "", "text": "So what if someone gets approved for a larger credit card balance and gambles it away? There's nothing tangible left except for maybe some norepinephrine left in your system... Honestly if the student loan system dried up for anything in like Liberal Arts, universities would scramble to fill positions in their schools and maybe tuitions would come down to an affordable level. Right now it's a joke. People are willing to pay for school and living on res when they get qualified for 100k in student loans. If the student loans weren't there perhaps they'd live with their parents and work to support their education. Tuitions should fall to affordable levels if that were the case." }, { "docid": "82472", "title": "", "text": "\"It's rarely advisable to pay interest for something you can afford with cash. Just because you have no credit or loan history doesn't mean you aren't credit worthy. When applying for loans or credit, the lending institutions look at your credit report, not just your credit score. There are lots of things that show up on the reports they receive including (but not limited to): Right now, so many people are focused on their credit score, they're taking on unnecessary debt and potentially losing money in the long run. Yes, having a higher credit score will ultimately be beneficial, but your score will start growing naturally as you live your life. Unless of course you can and do pay for everything with cash. The concept of monitoring your score and striving to get it as high as possible is being shoved down our throats by advertisers at the moment. Don't fall for it. Rather than taking out a loan, which will cost you money in interest and actually show up as a closed account once it's paid off, you might be better served by applying for a credit card and using it sparingly just to start getting that credit history together. (Add usual \"\"don't spend more than you can pay back\"\" mantra here). Get a card with no annual fee and maybe some cash back options, and use it as the auto-payment for a utility if possible. You build credit history, increase your score, and it doesn't cost you any more than you'd be paying anyways. With regards to the investment question: With little to no credit history, you're not going to be approved for a loan with a low enough interest rate anyways. Think double digits. With a co-signer, you'll get a better rate, but then you need a co-signer. I don't know the exact math, but in today's market I'd say you'd need a loan interest rate of 2% or lower for investing to be worth thinking about. I believe this answer helps clarify the loan to invest math: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/26193/30798\"" }, { "docid": "395520", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking, granting rights to one bank account (e.g. making a joint account) does not extend rights to other accounts or otherwise let one joint owner create new obligations on the other owner (e.g. opening a line of credit that the other owner must pay for), except to the extent of the joint account. I assume there are no UK rules that would change this feature. The other party can of course withdraw all the money without need for your approval. This also means that the joint account could be exposed to all the creditors of either party. If your account joint tenant has huge debts, the creditors could theoretically look to the joint account for satisfaction. At least, that would be an issue under US law. Frankly, it may be simpler to get a separate account for the other person (if possible) and make transfers with online banking. It could also make sense to get a rechargeable banking card, if those are in the UK, which works like a debit card and can be reloaded through various means (sometimes a call, sometimes online deposits, sometimes in physical stores). There may be fees to getting such a card or a second account, of course. The benefit is that the cardholder has no access to your account and you control recharging. Such cards are widely available in the US to people who otherwise would not qualify for traditional bank accounts. Note also the FATCA complication with adding a US person to your account. My understanding is that a number of non-US banks will simply close the accounts of Americans, rather than deal with FFI hassles under FATCA." }, { "docid": "308889", "title": "", "text": "\"Square charges a 2.75% fee (which the merchant pays), so you would be losing money if you only got a 1.5% cashback bonus. I would guess that the real reason Square prohibits you from getting cash is because of Visa/MC, state and federal regulations. Visa/MC probably prohibit it for regular merchants due primarily to laws that are designed to prevent money-laundering. Certain merchants (like casinos) are allowed to give you cash advances against a credit card, but regular merchants are not allowed to do this. It is much more difficult to get Visa/MC to approve merchants to handle cash advances and they are subject to many additional regulations. Services like Western Union will let you send cash with a regular credit card, but they are classified as \"\"money transmitters\"\" and must comply with additional state and federal regulations. If Square were to allow cash advances, this would likely subject them to a bunch of additional regulations. It would cost them more to comply with these regulations and is outside their business model, so they simply prohibit it.\"" }, { "docid": "110953", "title": "", "text": "I do this all the time, my credit rating over time plotted on a graph looks like saw blades going upward on a slope I use a credit alert service to get my credit reports quarterly, and I know when the credit agencies update their files (every three months), so I never have a high balance at those particular times Basically, I use the negative hard pulls to propel my credit score upwards with a the consequentially lowered credit utilization ratio, and the credit history. So here is how it works for me, but I am not an impulse buyer and I wouldn't recommend it for most people as I have seen spending habits: Month 1: charge cards, pay minimum balance (raises score multiple points) Month 2: PAY OFF ALL CREDIT CARDS, massive deleveraging using actual money I already have (raises score multiple points) Month 3: get credit report showing low balance, charge cards, pay minimum balance ask for extensions of credit, AND followup on new credit line offers (lowers score several points per credit inquiry) Month 4: charge cards, pay minimum balance, discretionally approving hard pulls - always have room for one or two random hard pulls, such as for a new cell phone contract, or renting a car, or employment, etc Month 5: PAY OFF CREDIT CARDS using actual money you have. (the trick is to NEVER really go above a 15% credit utilization ratio, and to never overleverage. Tricky because very quickly you will get enough credit to go bankrupt) Month 6: get credit report showing low balances, a slight dip in score from last quarter, but still high continue." }, { "docid": "219181", "title": "", "text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month." }, { "docid": "96150", "title": "", "text": "\"TL;DR: It doesn't matter. At a point of sufficient credit score, your income is far more important, for loan approval, than your credit score. Apparently this was a big mistake because it caused my score to drop to 744 Not really, except for the questionability of opening a margin account. A credit score of 744 is sufficient for the best rates. Credit score algorithms are dynamic and advice that may have been good in years past may not be applicable today. Pay your bills and don't have unnecessary credit, that will lead to your best credit score. For me, despite not following conventional wisdom, I am \"\"enjoying\"\" the highest credit score of my life. I have closed accounts that are just unnecessary and have done some other things that the experts say I should not do to keep a high credit score. However, all that doesn't matter. I do not have a need for credit and will likely never have a need beyond my rebate card. I feel like this is also true for you. What difference does it make if you have an 822 or a 744? Probably none. At that point, your income counts more toward loan eligibility.\"" }, { "docid": "129574", "title": "", "text": "\"Johnny. I recently bought my first home as well, and I have worked in the credit business (not mortgage), so I think I can answer some of your questions. Disclaimer first that I'm in NY, and home buying does vary from state to state. In my experience, pre-qual is not too different from pre-approval. Neither represents any real committment on the part of the bank (i.e. they can still deny approval at any point), and both are based on pulling your credit bureau and calculating ratios based on your stated (probably not documented) financial information. It's theoretically possible that a seller would choose a pre-approved buyer over a pre-qualified buyer, all other things being equal, but all other things are seldom equal. Remember also that you don't need to ultimately get a mortgage from the same bank that you use for the pre-qual. The pre-qual just shows that you are probably credit-worthy and serves to give you some credibility with sellers. Once you have an accepted offer and need to find a real mortgage, you can shop around for the best rate and best loan structure. Banks don't need to have pulled your credit to quote rates, but they will need to have a general idea of your FICO range. Once you find the bank you like with the best rate and actually apply for the loan, they will pull a hard bureau, and if your scores are different from what you said before, the rate may change, but within the same range, you'll generally be ok. Also, banks do not necessarily pull all 3 bureaus; they may only pull 1, as it costs them for each pull. 2 potential downsides to this approach: Also, make sure you have a mortgage/funding clause in your contract, as banks are unpredictable, and make sure you have a great real estate lawyer, not a legal \"\"factory\"\" - the extra few hundred $ are worth it. Don't overthink this credit stuff too much. Find a good house for a good price, and get a no-nonsense mortgage that you fully understand - no exotic stuff. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "170481", "title": "", "text": "Good credit is calculated (by many lenders) by taking your FICO score which is calculated based upon what is in your credit report. Building credit generally means building up your FICO score. Your FICO score is impacted my many factors, one small one of which is your utilization ratio of your installment loans like student loans. This is the ratio of the current balance to your original balance. To improve your score (slightly) you would want a lower ratio. I would recommend paying your student loan down to 75% ratio as fast as you can and then you can go back to $50/month. A much better way to improve your FICO score is to have revolving credit. Your student loans are not revolving, they are installment loans. Therefore, you should open at least one credit card (assuming you currently have none) right away. The longer you have had a credit card open, the better your FICO score gets. Your revolving credit utilization ratio is way more important than your installment loan ratio. Therefore, to maximize your FICO, try to never have more than 10% utilization on your revolving credit report to the credit bureaus each month. Only the current month's ratio affects your score at any given moment. You can ensure you don't go above 10% by paying your balance before the statement cuts each month to get it below 10% way before any payment would be due. (You should always pay your remaining credit card statement balance in full each month by the due date after the statement cuts to avoid any interest charges.) Note that there is a slight FICO advantage to having at least one major bank credit card instead of just only credit union credit cards. Also, never let all your revolving credit report a zero balance in a month, you must always have at least $1 reporting to the credit bureaus on at least one of your open credit cards or your FICO score will take a big negative hit. If you cannot get a normal credit card, go to a credit union and find one that offers secured credit cards, or a bank that does. A secured credit card is where you place a deposit with the bank that they hold and give you a credit limit to match your security. Ideally it would be a card that graduates to unsecured after your demonstrate good history with them. For example, the Navy Federal Credit Union secured card unsecures for many people. I also believe the Wells Fargo Bank credit card (you can join if there is a family member who served or a roomate who did) also will unsecure. The reason you want it to unsecure and not be forced to open a new account to get an unsecured account is that you want your average age and oldest age of open revolving credit accounts to be as high as possible as this is another impact on your FICO score. Credit unions that anyone can join include, Digital Federal Credit Union, the Pentagon Federal Credit Union (which offers a secured card that does not graduate), and The State Department Federal Credit Union (also offers secured card that I think does not graduate). One other method to boost your FICO score is to get added as an authorized user on one of your parent's credit cards that has been open a long time. Not all lenders will report such an authorized user, however, ones that are known to do so are: Bank of America, Citi Bank, and Capital One. It is a good sign that it will report if they ask for the social security number of the authorized user. However, note that the Authorized User addition can have no impact if the lender is using one of the newer versions of the FICO scoring model, only the older versions reward you for the age of accounts for which you are an authorized user. A very long term boost is to open your first American Express card underwritten directly by Amex such as their Zync card which is pretty easy to get. The advantage of American express is that they remember the date your first credit card was opened with them and if you open new accounts in the future they will back date the date of their opening to match the date your first card was opened. If you let your membership lapse, be sure to record the account number and date opened in your personal files so that you can help them locate it again if you reopen as they can have trouble if it has been on the order of ten years or more. Finally, note that the number of accounts opened in the last twelve months is a small negative mark on your score (along with number of inquiries), so if you open a lot of accounts all at once, in addition to bringing down your average age of accounts, you will also get dinged for how many were opened in the last year." }, { "docid": "451453", "title": "", "text": "\"A retail revolving account is essentially a credit card offered by a store (or chain of stores) and usable only at that store. In my area, the Sears department store's \"\"Sears card\"\" would be a good example. Stores offer these to capture a bit more profit from the transaction. They don't have to pay someone else's processing fees, and they get to keep any interest you pay. Of course they also accept the costs that go along with retail lending. It operates just like any other revolving-credit card. Read the fine print of the agreement to see what the grace period is, if any, and what APR they're charging after that. These cards also serve as a marketing tool. Some stores don't accept any other card. Some can do \"\"instant approvals\"\" to encourage you to make a large purchase now rather than continuing to shop around. Some may offer special deals only if you use their card -- I paid 0% interest for a year on my refrigerator, which was convenient for me. And so on. Gasoline stations also used to offer their own cards... though these days it's common for them to offer a branded version of one of the major credit cards instead.\"" }, { "docid": "176596", "title": "", "text": "\"Parts of what you want are possible, but taken as a whole, you're out of luck. First of all, there is no master database of every cardholder in the country. The only way to check if information is correct is to ask the issuing bank. The AVS system is a way to automate doing so, but it's possible to call the bank directly and verbally verify the address. That means you're subject to the whims of what the issuing bank chooses to support. Banks that are part of the Visa and MasterCard networks generally only verify the numeric parts (address, apartment number, zipcode). AmEx can also verify the cardholder name. But if the bank doesn't have support for validating something, you can't validate it. Separately, there is a \"\"verify-only\"\" transaction which some processors support, which will do exactly what you want: Return AVS values without ever charging the card. However, processors require you to have the \"\"approved merchant account\"\" you don't want to have to have. Without being a merchant, you shouldn't have access to other people's credit cards anyway. Would you really want anyone in the country to be able to verify anyone else's address whenever they want? In short, whatever purpose you have for wanting this probably falls into one of three categories:\"" }, { "docid": "89457", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the answer depends very much on where you are. I believe the other answer covers north america. On contrast, in (continental) Europe, giving the account and bank number (IBAN and BIC) is a (the most) common way to enable someone to send money to you. E.g. in Germany, you need much more than account number and bank number to withdraw money: To \"\"push\"\" money to another account (wire transfer from your account to someone who gave you the other account + bank numbers), you either have to hand-sign a certain form, or (online) certain credentials (e.g. login & password / PIN + TAN) are needed. I.e. for defrauding you, the other would need to get your online credentials (for mTAN also your mobile phone, for chipTAN a TAN generator of your bank [easy] and your bank card, for (i)TAN your TAN list) or fake your signature. There are also ways to allow someone to pull money from your account, see e.g. direct debit For that you sign that the other side is allowed to withdraw specified amounts of money (at specified dates). This is either between you and the other (i.e. your bank cannot check and doesn't reject withdrawals that are not authorized). However, the other side needs to have signed a contract with their bank that they'll only try to withdraw money they're entitled to. or you sign such a thing with your bank (then they do know whether the other side is allowed to withdraw money, and you can tell the bank that you won't accept any further withdrawals from XYZ). In the first case, the withdrawal technically still needs your approval. In order not to create a huge risk of fraud, the rejecting here is really easy: If you tell your bank that you reject the payment, The practical rule is that the payment is approved if you didn't reject within the first 6 weeks after the bank sent the account statement. In other words, until 4 1/2 months after the withdrawal (in case you have a bank that does only quarterly account statements), the one to get the money cannot be really sure that he actually has the money. I think (but I'm not completely sure, maybe someone else can comment/edit) that these two possibilities are also what is used with debit card payments (EC/Maestro card - these are much more common here than real credit card payments). -- end of Germany specific example --\"" }, { "docid": "279534", "title": "", "text": "Utilization is near real-time. What that means is that what is reported is what is taken in terms of debt-to-income (DTI) ratios. When a mortgage broker pulls your credit, they will pull the latest balances with the minimum payments. This is what is taken to determine DTI along with your gross monthly income. If you do not pay your account in full before the statement date, then you more than likely will have to wait an additional statement cycle before it reports to the credit bureaus. Therefore, your utilization is dynamic and the history of your utilization month-to-month is not recorded forever. Only the current balance. What is maintained and reported is your payment history. So you want to never be late if you want to be approved anytime soon for a mortgage. A lower DTI will not help your interest rate. As long as you stay away from the maximum DTI for the mortgage vehicle you are attempting to be approved for (VA, FHA, Conventional, etc), then your DTI should not be a concern. If you are borderline at the time of underwriting, you can take the opportunity and pay off the balances. The mortgage company can then do what is called a credit supplement which entails contacting those lenders where you have proven you have a zero balance and manually input the zero balance cards, that have not yet reported to the bureaus, in your final application to the mortgage company for underwriting approval." }, { "docid": "509739", "title": "", "text": "I came to US as an international student several years ago, and I have also experienced the same situation like most of the international students in finding ways to build credit history. Below I list out some possible approaches you may want to consider: I. Get a student job at campus (recommended) I think the best way is to get a student job in university, say a teaching assistant or student helper. In this case, you can be provided with a social security number and start to build your own credit history. II. Get credit card You can also consider to apply for a credit card. There are indeed some financial institutions that can provide credit cards for international students with no or limited credit scores requirement, say Discover and Bank of America. However, it is relatively hard to get approved, simply because hey may put more restriction in other aspects. For example, you may be required to keep sufficient bank balance above several thousand dollars during a period of time, or you should prove that you have relatives with citizenship in US who can provide your financial aid if needed. III. Apply for a loan (recommended) Getting a loan product is another alternative to get out of this difficult situation, but most of people don’t realize that. There are some FinTech start-ups in United States that specifically focus on international students’ loan financing. One representative example is Westbon (Westbon ), an online lending company that specializes in providing car loan for international students with no SSN or credit history. I once used their loan product to finance a Honda Accord, and Westbon reported my loan transaction records to US credit bureau during my repayment process. Later when I officially got my SSN number, I found my credit history has been automatically synchronized and I don’t have to start from all over again. It never be an easy journey for international students to build credit history in United States. What approach you should make really depends on you own situation. I hope the information above can be useful and good luck for your credit journey!" }, { "docid": "119104", "title": "", "text": "Three big ones that are common in almost all banks (though, individually, they may have other criteria): Other criteria I've seen (while working in the banking industry - varying by bank): the average balance you keep on deposit accounts (checking/savings/CDs/etc), number of overdraft fees in the past 12 months (one bank I worked for wouldn't approve a credit card if a customer had more than 5 overdrafts in the past year), the length of time a customer had been with the bank. Note that a credit card only company, like AmEx, may have different criteria in that they don't offer all the other type of accounts that other other banks do." }, { "docid": "516050", "title": "", "text": "This is a question with a flawed premise. Credit cards do have two-factor authentication on transactions they consider more at risk to be fraudulent. I've had several times when I bought something relatively expensive and unusual for me, where the CC either initially declined and sent me a text asking to confirm immediately (after which they would approve the charges), or approved but sent me a text right away asking to confirm (after which they'd automatically dispute if I told them to). The first is legitimately what you are asking for; the second is presumably for less risky but still some risk transactions). Ultimately, the reason they don't allow it for every transaction is that not enough people would make use of it to be worth their time to implement it. Particularly given it slows down the transaction significantly (and look at the complaints at the ~10-15 seconds extra EMV authentication takes, imagine that as a minute or more), I think you'd get a single digit percentage of people using that service." }, { "docid": "138645", "title": "", "text": "\"These are two different ways of processing payments. They go through different systems many times, and are treated differently by the banks, credit card issuers and the stores. Merchants pay different fees on transactions paid by debit cards and by credit cards. Debit transactions require PIN, and are deducted from your bank account directly. In order to achieve that, the transaction has to reach the bank in real time, otherwise it will be declined. This means, that the merchant has to have a line of communications open to the relevant processor, that in turn has to be able to connect to the bank and get the authorization - all that while on-line. The bank verifies the PIN, authorizes the transaction, and deducts the amount from your account, while you're still at the counter. Many times these transactions cannot be reversed, and the fraud protections and warranties are different from credit transactions. Credit transactions don't have to go to your card issuer at all. The merchant can accept credit payment without calling anyone, and without getting prior authorizations. Even if the merchant sends the transaction for authorization with its processor, if the processor cannot reach the issuing bank - they can still approve the transaction under certain conditions. This is, however, never true with debit cards (even if used as \"\"credit\"\"). They're not deducted from your bank account, but accumulated on your credit card account. They're posted there when the actual transaction reaches the card issuer, which may be many days (and even many months) after the transaction took place. Credit transactions can be reversed (in some cases very easily), and enjoy from a higher level of fraud protection. In some countries (and most, if not all, of the EU) fraudulent credit transactions are never the consumer's problem, always the bank's. Not so with debit transactions. Banks may be encouraging you to use debit for several reasons: Merchants will probably prefer credit because: Consumers will probably be better off with credit because:\"" }, { "docid": "257644", "title": "", "text": "I notice that a lot happened four months ago. You were denied credit twice. Your income went up from $20k to $60k. I'm wondering if you were denied credit based on your $20k income. Since you couldn't provide proof of your income I wonder if they used $0 for your income. Debt to income ratio is one significant factor included in the credit score calculation. You may not have a lot of debt, but if you don't have any income even a few hundred dollars on a credit card would throw your debt to income ratio into a panic. I'm assuming that your change from $20k to $60k income involved a change of jobs. Perhaps now you can provide proof of income. You would certainly need to do that before being approved for a mortgage. Well that's my two cents about what may (or may not) have gone wrong last time. As for what to do next I would agree that the most helpful thing you could do is check your credit score and fix any errors that might negatively impact your credit score. (There might also be non-errors that need addressed such as open credit accounts that you thought you had closed.) When building credit history, time is on your side. If you just go on living your life and paying your bills promptly, your credit will slowly climb to an acceptable level. Unfortunately in the time frame you mentioned (~1 year) there isn't really enough time to build it significantly. You bring up a valid point about credit applications reducing your credit score. Of course, that effect is somewhat minimal and temporary (2 yrs according to the thread linked to above). But again 1 year is not enough to recover. If you're considering applying for additional credit as a means to improve your credit score it may be too late to reap the benefits before your mortgage application. Of course if you could pay off any debts, that would help your debt to income ratio. But it would also reduce any house down payment you could save up and thereby increase the amount of your mortgage. Better just save those pennies (or preferably Washingtons and Benjamins) to put toward a down payment." }, { "docid": "483354", "title": "", "text": "5 STAR BUSINESS CREDIT BUILDER http://www.5starbusinesscreditbuilder.com/ Robert Wade info@5starbusinesscreditbuilder.com +17029034068 Las Vegas, Nevada 89133 You know how frustrating getting business credit and financing can be when you are trying everything and getting nowhere? I solve this. I help you get business credit for your company EIN that’s not linked to you personally, or your personal credit. Secure HIGH-limit vendor, store, fleet, and cash credit in your business name without a personal guarantee or personal credit check. No collateral or cash flow is required for approval. I also help you secure business loans and credit lines with great terms, even if you’ve been told “no” at your bank. Access low interest credit lines and long term loans, and get funding in 72 hours or less. I help you get approved even if you are a startup, have credit issues, or have no collateral. Contact me now for your no-cost business credit and financing consultation to learn more about the credit and financing you can qualify for now. ??? http://www.5starbusinesscreditbuilder.com/" } ]

[ { "docid": "362778", "title": "", "text": "The major reason to start an LLC for side work is if you want the additional personal liability protection afforded by one. If you're operating as a sole proprietor, you may be exposing yourself to liability: debts and judgments against your business can put your personal assets at risk! So, if you're intending to continue and grow your side work in the future, you ought to consider the LLC sooner than later. It's also an important legal decision and you should consider seeking a professional opinion. The Wall Street Journal has a brief guide titled How to Form an LLC. Here are some notable excerpts: A limited liability company, or LLC, is similar to a partnership but has the legal protections of personal assets that a corporation offers without the burdensome formalities, paperwork and fees. [...] Some states charge annual fees and taxes that can diminish the economic advantage of choosing to become an LLC. Among LLC advantages: pass-through taxation – meaning the profits and losses “pass through” the business to the individuals owning the business who report this information on their own personal tax returns. The result can be paying less in taxes, since profits are not taxed at both the business level and the personal level. Another plus: Owners aren’t usually responsible for the company’s debts and liabilities. [...] Also check out onstartups.com's Startup 101: Should You Form An Inc. or An LLC? Here are some additional articles that discuss the advantages / disadvantages of forming an LLC:" } ]

[ { "docid": "51674", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;&gt; ...but we need to start getting over number three. &gt; &gt;I strongly disagree. It shows Republicans will undermine the spirit of the system and the will of the people to serve their own ends. When a group shows they will exploit anything they can to take advantage of you, you do not work with them. &gt; Mitch McConnell was *in the Senate* for the Bork nomination. The year before Antonio Scalia had been confirmed 98-0, as had ever been the case... from McConnell's POV, that's where the amorphous \"\"spirit of the system\"\" was broken. And low and behold, when he came to power, he didn't work with them. Your sentiment is almost literally exactly what got us in this shithole. If turnabout is fair play, this *never ends*. &gt;&gt; Besides that, it's completely extraneous to the topic at hand... &gt; &gt;It is not. The topic at hand is healthcare, not \"\"things liberals are (righteously) pissed about\"\". &gt; &gt;Question for you: how many times do you think Democrats should reach across the aisle only to be either rebuffed, insulted, misrepresented in the media, or taken advantage of before you would support a hard line like mine above? As many times as it takes to find someone on the other side to work with to actually accomplish anything. If this big repeal bill fails, that's a start. \"\"The republicans\"\" will do a lot of whining and shit throwing, but the reality is it will have happened because a handful of Republicans prioritized actually helping the people in their states over party rhetoric and desparation for a \"\"win\"\". McConnel's \"\"shoring up\"\" talk could lead to a half-decent outcome... at the very least it'd be a change in the optics. No GOP senator who failed to Repeal is going to want to talk about health care at all come re-election time, so they have a bit of political cover to quietly give ground in terms of the structure of the shoring up. Or maybe not. But we have to allow for the possibility. The tea party was born out of people on the right taking a Hard Line, and the actual work of government has suffered immeasurably for it. Deeper trenches just lead to a longer war.\"" }, { "docid": "396657", "title": "", "text": "The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below: I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term. There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing." }, { "docid": "80742", "title": "", "text": "I don't know Australian law, but I will give my US perspective here. The custom in the US is for officers and directors to be indemnified by the corporation, and that LLCs have an even broader power to indemnify (even to remove the duty of loyalty!). Moreover, directors will typically be able to purchase D&O insurance to protect them from loss in the event of liability. For US corporations (not LLCs), the duty of care (prudence) requires that directors behave responsibly in weighing major decisions, and consult experts and specialists before coming to rash decisions. It usually becomes a court case in the context of a large public company in the midst of an acquisition event. The only people with standing (in the US) are shareholders. If all the other shareholders are directors, then it may be hard for them to blame you. Additionally, if you are concerned about the propriety of your actions, there may be sources to rely on. First, discussion with your fellow directors can be a helpful guide (though will not usually immunize you from any accusation of wrongdoing), and disclosure tends to cure almost any accusation of breaching the duty of loyalty. Second, boards often secure the advice of legal counsel, and sometimes bring on lawyers as members or will outright hire counsel for the board. Third, there may be services that will provide you with generic advice (e.g. UK Companies House and US-based IOD), which might set you at ease a little bit. I don't know the details of Australian law, as I say. But my sense of common law countries is that, like the US, they are primarily concerned about negligence (incompetently or imprudently neglecting to understand the business and make informed decisions), disloyalty (fraudulently engaging in self-interested transactions that either hurt the company or should have been offered to the company), and recklessness (not bothering to seek out information). As long as you are active, informed, engaged, and not engaging in secret deals outside the company (especially deals where either side is competing with the company), then that would be more than sufficient under the US standard. If you are concerned about liability, then inquire into indemnifications by the company (in the US, the company can usually pay all legal costs of directors), insurance, and legal counsel. I imagine your business partners are no more savvy than you are. My impression is you are overreacting to relatively rare and exotic expression of corporate law (at least in the US). But I'll close by repeating that I don't know Australian corporate law." }, { "docid": "155490", "title": "", "text": "This new roof should go on the 2016 LLC business return, but you probably won't be able to expense the entire roof as a repair. A new roof is most likely a capital improvement, which means that it would need to be depreciated over many years instead of expensed all in 2016. The depreciation period for a residential rental property is 27.5 years. Please consider seeking a CPA or Enrolled Agent for the preparation of your LLC business return. See also: IRS Tangible Property Regulations FAQ list When you made the loan to the LLC (by paying the contractor and making a contract with the LLC), did you state an interest rate? If not, you and your brother should correct the contract so that an interest rate is stated, then follow it. The LLC needs to pay you interest until the loan is paid off. You need to report the interest income on your personal return, and the LLC needs to report the interest expense in its business return." }, { "docid": "148346", "title": "", "text": "The average of a dozen good answers is close to what would be right, the wisdom of crowds. But any one answer will be skewed by one's own opinions. The question is missing too much detail. I look at $400K as $16K/yr of ongoing withdrawals. How much do you make now? When the kids are all in school full time, can your wife work? $400K seems on the low side to me, especially with 3 kids. How much have you saved for college? The $150K for your wife is also a bit low. Without a long tangent on the monetary value of the stay at home spouse, what will you spent on childcare if she passes? Term life also has a expiration date. When my daughter was born, my wife and I got 20 year term. She is now 16, her college account fully funded, and we are semi-retired. The need for insurance is over. If one of us dies, the survivor doesn't need this big of a house, and will have more than they need to be comfortable in a downsized one. My belief is that the term value should bridge the gap to the kids getting through college and the spouse getting resettled. Too much less, I'd have left my wife at risk. Too much more, she'd be better off if I were dead. (I say that half joking, the insurance company will often limit the size policy to something reasonable.)" }, { "docid": "501743", "title": "", "text": "\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Within a tight range, say 1-3%, inflation is somewhat benign. There's a nice inflation widget at The Inflation Calculator which helps me see that an item costing $1000 in 1975 would now (2010) be about $4000, and $1000 from 1984 till now, just over $2000. I chose those two years to make a point. First, I am 48, I graduated college in 1984, so in my working life I've seen the value of the dollar drop by half. On the other hand it only took 9 years from 75-84 to see a similar amount of inflation occur. I'd suggest that the 26 year period is far more acceptable than the 9. Savers should be aware of their real return vs what was a result of inflation. I'm not incensed either way but logically have to acknowledge the invisible tax of inflation. I get a (say) 6% return, pay 2% in tax, but I'm not ahead by 4%, 3% may be lost to inflation. On the flip side, my mortgage is 3.5%, after taxes that's 2.625%, but less than 0% after (long term) inflation. So as a debtor, I am benefiting by the effect of inflation on what I owe. Interesting also to hear about deflation as we've grown used to it in the case of electronics but little else. Perhaps the iPad won't drop in price, but every year it will gain features and competitors will keep the tablet market moving. Yet people still buy these items. Right now, there's not enough spending. I'd suggest that, good financial advice aside, people as a whole need to start spending to get the economy moving. The return of some inflation would be a barometer of that spending starting to occur.\"" }, { "docid": "241764", "title": "", "text": "There are a lot of things that can be specified in the LLC agreement / charter, such as unequal distribution profits, sales restrictions, classes of ownership, etc. You should read your LLC paperwork. That said, you are generally allowed to sell ownership in an LLC in a private transaction. If you advertise the share of the LLC for sale, it's probably a violation of SEC rules. So Craig's List is a bad idea. Word of mouth or a broker is the way to go. I am not a lawyer or accountant -- you should double check this information; it might be wrong." }, { "docid": "500883", "title": "", "text": "\"I personally believe if one (average) income could support the needs of a family (nothing extravagant) and the parents had options (instead of only one of the parents having the ability to work for an income that supports a family) it would be better. At the micro view, there would be less grudges and more time for family. I feel bad now bc I'm stretched so thin I don't even have time to watch a tv show with our kids during the week. In our situation, my husband never finished school (his mom let him drop out in the 7th grade) so his work options are very limited. He has had to work out of town jobs since before we started dating. I graduated high school but due to having kids early, I put off college. Because of the expense of daycare, I stayed at home with the kids for about 5 years. The plan is I get my degree next fall, get a decent paying job to support the family and he can figure out what he wants to do as a career and be able to pursue it without having the pressure of HAVING to make an income to support a family. I have been nudging him to at least get an online high school diploma in the mean time but I think he is self conscious and scared he can't do it. We aren't the \"\"Keeping up with the Jones\"\" kind of people. I'm just trying to reach some goals and be financially stable and not worry about if we have enough money in the bank for bills or if the car breaks down if we are screwed. A teacher's job is very time consuming so it definitely will be a challenge if you don't work a job that allows you to help out. At my internship this summer the CFO was able to just leave and bring his daughter to work whenever he needed to. That luxury is not afforded to many. Also on a side note- when you have kids, please make an effort to take your paternity leave if your job offers it. You deserve it! Employees shouldn't feel bad for taking the benefits their company offers. Gender equality ftw!\"" }, { "docid": "55841", "title": "", "text": "\"I posted a comment in another answer and it seems to be approved by others, so I have converted this into an answer. If you're talking about young adults who just graduated college and worked through it. I would recommend you tell them to keep the same budget as what they were living on before they got a full-time job. This way, as far as their spending habits go, nothing changes since they only have a $500 budget (random figure) and everything else goes into savings and investments. If as a student you made $500/month and you suddenly get $2000/month, that's a lot of money you get to blow on drinks. Now, if you put $500 in savings (until 6-12 month of living expenses), $500 in investments for the long run and $500 in vacation funds or \"\"big expenses\"\" funds (Ideally with a cap and dump the extra in investments). That's $18,000/yr you are saving. At this stage in your life, you have not gotten used to spending that extra $18,000/yr. Don't touch the side money except for the vacation fund when you want to treat yourself. Your friends will call you cheap, but that's not your problem. Take that head start and build that down payment on your dream house. The way I set it up, is (in this case) I have automatics every day after my paychecks come in for the set amounts. I never see it, but I need to make sure I have the money in there. Note: Numbers are there for the sake of simplicity. Adjust accordingly. PS: This is anecdotal evidence that has worked for me. Parents taught me this philosophy and it has worked wonders for me. This is the extent of my financial wisdom.\"" }, { "docid": "572242", "title": "", "text": "I did not file taxes on last season winnings as I’ve received conflicting advise (particularly regarding self-employment taxes). I have all my documentation to support my winnings should I file as a professional gambler. Oh dear. Get a GOOD tax adviser (licensed as EA, CPA or Attorney in Nevada) who's specializing in providing services to people like you and have it resolved ASAP. You're in major non-compliance. If you earned by gambling more than you earned by working in years, and you haven't reported that on your taxes - you may very well find yourself in jail. As to your original question - why on earth would you have a corporation for gambling? Or LLC... Why? What's the liability that you want to shield yourself of? It's your money that you're risking, and the risk is that you lose it, how is LLC or Corp going to help you in any way? Gambling winnings are reported as miscellaneous income (whether you're professional or just got lucky once with a slot machine - no matter), and if you're a pro (and it sounds like that since you're doing it systematically and in order to make profits), then yes, you pay SE taxes on it. Whoever told you anything else told you to break the law. Which you did, unfortunately." }, { "docid": "245447", "title": "", "text": "\"For simplicity, let's start by just considering cash back. In general, cash back from credit cards for personal use is not taxable, but for business use it is taxable (sort of, I'll explain later). The reason is most personal purchases are made with after tax dollars; you typically aren't deducting the cost of what you purchased from your personal income, so if you purchase something that costs $100 and you receive $2 back from the CC company, effectively you have paid $98 for that item but that wouldn't affect your tax bill. However, since businesses typically deduct most expenses, that same $100 deduction would have only been a $98 deduction for business tax purposes, so in this case the $2 should be accounted for. Note, you should not consider that $2 as income though; that would artificially inflate your revenue. It should be treated as a negative expense, similar to how you would handle returning an item you purchased and receiving a CC refund. Now for your specific questions: Part 1: As a small business owner, I wish to attend an annual seminar to improve my business. I have enough credit card reward points to cover the airfare, hotel, and rental car. Will those expenses still be deductible at the value displayed on the receipt? Effectively no, these expenses are not deductible. If you deduct them they will be completely counter-acted by the \"\"refund\"\" you receive for the payments. Part 2: Does it matter if those points are accrued on my personal credit card, rather than a business credit card? This is where it gets hairy. Suppose your company policy is that employees make purchases with their own personal credit cards and submit receipts for reimbursement. In this case the employer can simply reimburse and would not know or care if the employee is racking up rewards/points/cashback. The trick is, as the employee, you must always purchase business related items normally so you have receipts to show, and if you receive cashback on the side there seems to be a \"\"don't ask, don't tell\"\" rule that the IRS is OK with. It works the same way with heavy business travelers and airline miles- the free vacations those users get as perks are not treated as taxable income. However, I would not go out of my way to abuse this \"\"loophole\"\". Typically, things like travel (airfare, hotel, car rental, meals) are expected. But I wouldn't go purchase 100 company laptops on your personal card and ask the company to reimburse you. The company should purchase those 100 laptops on a company card and effectively reduce the sale price by the cashback received. (Or more realistically, negotiate a better discount with your account rep and just cut them a check.) Part 3: Would there be any difference between credit card points and brand-loyalty points? If the rental car were paid for with points earned directly on the rental car company's loyalty system (not a CC), would that yield a different result? There is no difference. Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. This is why when you volunteer and work 10 hours for a charity, you can't call that a \"\"donation\"\" of any amount of money because there is no actual payment made that would show up on a bank statement. Instead you could have billed the charity for your 10 hours of work, and then turned around and donated that same amount back to them, but it ends up being a wash.\"" }, { "docid": "35810", "title": "", "text": "Making a game is hard enough, focus on that. If/when you start getting close to having something to sell, then if you're serious and want the company to grow into a full time venture, briefly consult with a lawyer and possibly accountant to set this up. It will save you a lot of time researching what you have to do and a lot of headache from potentially doing things wrong. If you want to try to do it on your own, I'd recommend getting a book on starting a business because there is more to know than a single post can cover. You'll probably have to file for a DBA (doing business as) at your city hall in order to be allowed to refer to yourself as the name of your company (otherwise you have to use your personal name). Initiating that will likely initiate annual business taxes in your town in addition to the cheap filing fee. You also want to consider how you will handle trademark (of your business and game) and copyright (of your game). If this is going to grow, you'll have to have contracts written for either employees or for freelancers who might produce assets for you. You may also need to consider writing an EULA for your game, privacy policies, etc. Additionally, you'll likely have to file with your state to collect and send sales tax. You'll also want to meticulously track costs and revenue related to your business. Formally starting a business will likely open you up to property, sales and income tax. For example, where I am, was even taxed on the equipment the business uses (e.g. computers). This is why it makes sense to wait until you're closer to having a product before you try to formally start a business and to consult with professionals on the best way. The type of business you should form will depend on the scope you plan for the company and the amount of time/money you're willing to put in. A sole proprietorship (what you are by default) means there is no difference legally/financially between you as an individual and you as a company. This may be suitable if this is just a hobby, but not if you intend it to grow because that means any lawsuit directed at your company and its money is also directed at you and your money. The differences between an LLC and corporation are more nuanced and involve differences in legal and tax treatment, however, they both shield you from the previously mentioned problem. If you want this to be more than a hobby you should form either an LLC or a corporation. Do some research on the differences and how they might apply to you and in your state." }, { "docid": "367029", "title": "", "text": "\"When I was getting my Business Admin degree, WFM was the hot thing because of the current \"\"green revolution\"\" and I had tons of access to management at all levels because of my job. So I pretty much built all the work on my degree around them. Nothing quite like having interviews with regional buyers and store managers as a primary source on a paper or project. Quite frankly, I think Mackey was pretty much just lucky. Most of the people I interacted with while I worked there had zero sense when it came to any sort of long term strategic positioning within the industry (which is why the activist investors have been pushing to get Mackey to sell). Now that they've actually begun to have competent competition, the cracks have really started to show. Honestly, instead of trying to expand at a breakneck pace like they started to five-seven years, they should have looked internally and instead begun to examine all the cost-saving measures they could on their supply-chain, management structure, and IT systems while they were the darling of both consumers and the markets, and had the profits. Instead, they attempted to triple the size of the business in just a decade (funded by increasing the prices of their products even more), and really destroyed all the cultural goodwill they had going for them. Then they started expanding into areas that weren't as affluent, trying to do these longshot deals with no cohesive strategy other than \"\"people like us, they'll show up.\"\" Seven or eight years ago, people were excited when they heard I worked for Whole Foods, and wanted to ask me a million questions. Now they find out I worked at Whole Foods and they're just like \"\"Fucking A that place is insanely expensive, and all the employees seem miserable.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "578196", "title": "", "text": "\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"" }, { "docid": "440506", "title": "", "text": "I have researched this question extensively in previous years as we have notoriously high taxes in California, while neighboring a state that has zero corporate income tax and personal income tax. Many have attempted pull a fast one on the California taxation authorities, the Franchise Tax Board, by incorporating in Nevada or attempting to declare full-year residence in the Silver State. This is basically just asking for an audit, however. California religiously examines taxpayers with any evidence of having presence in California. If they deem you to be a resident in California, and they likely will based on the fact that you live in California (physical presence), you will be subject to taxation on your worldwide income. You could incorporate in Nevada or Bangladesh, and California will still levy its taxation on any business income (Single Member LLCs are disregarded as separate corporate entities, but still taxed at ordinary income rates on the personal income tax basis). To make things worse, if California examines your Single Member LLC and finds that it is doing business in California, based on the fact that its sole owner is based in California all year long, you could feasibly end up with additional penalties for having neglected to file your LLC in California (California LLCs are considered domestic, and only file in California unless they wish to do business in other states; Nevada LLCs are considered foreign to California, requiring the owner to file a domestic LLC organization in Nevada and then a foreign LLC organization in California, which still gets hit with the minimum $800 franchise fee because it is a foreign LLC doing business in California). Evading any filing responsibility in California is not advisable. FTB consistently researches LLCs, S-Corporations and the like to determine whether they've been organized out-of-state but still principally operated in California, thus having a tax nexus with California and the subsequent requirement to be filed in California and taxed by California. No one likes paying taxes, and no one wants to get hit with franchise fees, especially when one is starting a new venture and that minimum $800 assessment seems excessive (in other words, you could have a company that earns nothing, zero, zip, nada, and still has to pay the $800 minimum fee), but the consequences of shirking tax laws and filing requirements will make the franchise fee seem trivial in comparison. If you're committed to living in California and desire to organize an LLC or S-Corp, you must file with the state of California, either as a domestic corporation/LLC or foreign corporation/LLC doing business in California. The only alternatives are being a sole proprietor (unincorporated), or leaving the state of California altogether. Not what you wanted to hear I'm sure, but that's the law." }, { "docid": "172594", "title": "", "text": "\"One thing I would add to TTT's answer: One of the benefits of using an LLC for your business is right there in the name - \"\"limited liability\"\". It provides a level of protection for your personal assets should your business go bankrupt, get sued, and so forth. However, if someone can show that there's no real separation between your LLC's activities and your personal activities, then they can \"\"pierce the corporate veil\"\" and go after your personal assets. If this loan is really purely personal and not related to your business activities, you may create a paper trail that can later be used in this way. My advice would be to just avoid the whole thing and make the loan from personal funds. I don't see any upside to doing this out of the LLC funds.\"" }, { "docid": "192495", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, and the math that tells you when is called the Kelly Criterion. The Kelly Criterion is on its face about how much you should bet on a positive-sum game. Imagine you have a game where you flip a coin, and if heads you are given 3 times your bet, and if tails you lose your bet. Naively you'd think \"\"great, I should play, and bet every dollar I have!\"\" -- after all, it has a 50% average return on investment. You get back on average 1.5$ for every dollar you bet, so every dollar you don't bet is a 0.5$ loss. But if you do this and you play every day for 10 years, you'll almost always end up bankrupt. Funny that. On the other hand, if you bet nothing, you are losing out on a great investment. So under certain assumptions, you neither want to bet everything, nor do you want to bet nothing (assuming you can repeat the bet almost indefinitely). The question then becomes, what percentage of your bankroll should you bet? Kelly Criterion answers this question. The typical Kelly Criterion case is where we are making a bet with positive returns, not an insurance against loss; but with a bit of mathematical trickery, we can use it to determine how much you should spend on insuring against loss. An \"\"easy\"\" way to undertand the Kelly Criterion is that you want to maximize the logarithm of your worth in a given period. Such a maximization results in the largest long-term value in some sense. Let us give it a try in an insurance case. Suppose you have a 1 million dollar asset. It has a 1% chance per year of being destroyed by some random event (flood, fire, taxes, pitchforks). You can buy insurance against this for 2% of its value per year. It even covers pitchforks. On its face this looks like a bad deal. Your expected loss is only 1%, but the cost to hide the loss is 2%? If this is your only asset, then the loss makes your net worth 0. The log of zero is negative infinity. Under Kelly, any insurance (no matter how inefficient) is worth it. This is a bit of an extreme case, and we'll cover why it doesn't apply even when it seems like it does elsewhere. Now suppose you have 1 million dollars in other assets. In the insured case, we always end the year with 1.98 million dollars, regardless of if the disaster happens. In the non-insured case, 99% of the time we have 2 million dollars, and 1% of the time we have 1 million dollars. We want to maximize the expected log value of our worth. We have log(2 million - 20,000) (the insured case) vs 1% * log(1 million) + 99% * log(2 million). Or 13.7953 vs 14.49. The Kelly Criterion says insurance is worth it; note that you could \"\"afford\"\" to replace your home, but because it makes up so much of your net worth, Kelly says the \"\"hit it too painful\"\" and you should just pay for insurance. Now suppose you are worth 1 billion. We have log(1 billion - 20k) on the insured side, and 1%*log(999 million) + 99% * log(1 billion) on the uninsured side. The logs of each side are 21.42 vs 20.72. (Note that the base of the logarithm doesn't matter; so long as you use the same base on each side). According to Kelly, we have found a case where insurance isn't worth it. The Kelly Criterion roughly tells you \"\"if I took this bet every (period of time), would I be on average richer after (many repeats of this bet) than if I didn't take this bet?\"\" When the answer is \"\"no\"\", it implies self-insurance is more efficient than using external insurance. The answer is going to be sensitive to the profit margin of the insurance product you are buying, and the size of the asset relative to your total wealth. Now, the Kelly Criterion can easily be misapplied. Being worth financially zero in current assets can easily ignore non-financial assets (like your ability to work, or friends, or whatever). And it presumes repeat to infinity, and people tend not to live that long. But it is a good starting spot. Note that the option of bankruptcy can easily make insurance not \"\"worth it\"\" for people far poorer; this is one of the reasons why banks insist you have insurance on your proprety. You can use Kelly to calculate how much insurance you should purchase at a given profit margin for the insurance company given your net worth and the risk involved. This can be used in Finance to work out how much you should hedge your bets in an investment as well; in effect, it quantifies how having money makes it easier to make money.\"" }, { "docid": "524414", "title": "", "text": "\"My family instilled in me early on that hard work was important, and the output of that work was its reward. My grandparents really made in impression with me about telling the truth and being fair (probably after I was busted for lying and cheating about something) -- I remember my grandfather talking about the solem trust associated with shaking hands over something. I remember opening a savings account at school on bank day and being really excited about the interest accruing... but my folks never really allowed us to spend it on toys or other stuff. I didn't really think about money at all until I was probably about 10 or 11, when I started watching \"\"Wall Street Week\"\" on PBS with my dad on Friday night and bombarding him with dozens of questions. Then games like Sim City really got me going... my grandmother was always amazed that I was talking about bonding construction projects. I think that before 10 or so, kids needn't concern themselves with money, but should understand responsibility, the rewards that come from working hard, and the consequences for not doing so.\"" }, { "docid": "377466", "title": "", "text": "\"A lot of investors prefer to start jumping into tools and figuring out from there, but I've always said that you should learn the theory before you go around applying it, so you can understand its shortcomings. A great starting point is Investopedia's Introduction to Technical Analysis. There you can read about the \"\"idea\"\" of technical analysis, how it compares to other strategies, what some of the big ideas are, and quite a bit about various chart patterns (cup and handle, flags, pennants, triangles, head & shoulders, etc). You'll also cover ideas like moving averages and trendlines. After that, Charting and Technical Analysis by Fred McAllen should be your next stop. The material in the book overlaps with what you've read on Investopedia, but McAllen's book is great for learning from examples and seeing the concepts applied in action. The book is for new comers and does a good job explaining how to utilize all these charts and patterns, and after finishing it, you should be ready to invest on your own. If you make it this far, feel free to jump into Fidelity's tools now and start applying what you've learned. You always want to make the connection between theory and practice, so start figuring out how you can use your new knowledge to generate good returns. Eventually, you should read the excellent reference text Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets by John Murphy. This book is like a toolbox - Murphy covers almost all the major techniques of technical analysts and helps you intuitively understand the reasoning behind them. I'd like to quote a part of a review here to show my point: What I like about Mr. Murphy is his way of showing and proving a point. Let me digress here to show you what I mean: Say you had a daughter and wanted to show her how to figure out the area of an Isosceles triangle. Well, you could tell her to memorize that it is base*height/2. Or if you really wanted her to learn it thoroughly you can show her how to draw a parallel line to the height, then join the ends to make a nice rectangle. Then to compute the area of a rectangle just multiply the two sides, one being the height, the other being half the base. She will then \"\"derive\"\" this and \"\"understand\"\" how they got the formula. You see, then she can compute the area under a hexagon or a tetrahedron or any complex object. Well, Mr. Murphy will show us the same way and \"\"derive\"\" for us concepts such as how a resistance line later becomes a support line! The reson for this is so amusing that after one reads about it we just go \"\"wow...\"\"\"\" Now I understand why this occurs\"\". Murphy's book is not about strategy or which tools to use. He takes an objective approach to describing the basics about various tools and techniques, and leaves it up to the reader to decide which tools to apply and when. That's why it's 576 pages and a great reference whenever you're working. If you make it through and understand Murphy, then you'll be golden. Again, understand the theory first, but make sure to see how it's applied as well - otherwise you're just reading without any practical knowledge. To quote Richard Feynman: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Personally, I think technical analysis is all BS and a waste of time, and most of the top investors would agree, but at the end of the day, ignore everyone and stick to what works for you. Best of luck!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "157233", "title": "", "text": "\"An LLC is overkill for 99% of 1 man small businesses. Side-businesses should remain as sole proprieterships until they get much larger and need the benefits of the LLC laws. You can still bill through a company name if you want to start building a brand: And set aside 25% of your gross income for Uncle Sam. He wants you to file a Schedule C with your regular 1040 at tax time. He doesn't care about your company. He just wants your social security number with a big fat check stuck to it. Be sure to maximize your tax savings by tracking your expenses like a hawk. Every mile is worth 50 cents. I recommend using a tracking system like the TaxMinimiser.com (buy the $4 version to see if you like it). Bottom line: EARN MONEY. Don't set up a \"\"corporation\"\".\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "84858", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer to your question is...it depends. Depending on the state you, your friend, and the LLC are located in, it can be very easy to run afoul of state banking laws, or to somehow violate some other statute pertaining to the legal activities an LLC may undertake by doing something like a loan. It is not unusual (or illegal) for officers or employees of a business entity to be loaned money by the company they work for, so something of this nature wouldn't be an issue with regulatory agencies. Having your LLC loan money to a friend who isn't an employee or officer of your LLC just might not be kosher though. The best advice I can give is that you should call the state banking commission or similar agency in your state and ask them whether what you want to do is alright. The LAST thing you want is to end up with auditors or regulators sniffing around your business, even if you haven't done anything wrong, and you certainly don't want to run the risk of accidentally \"\"piercing the corporate veil\"\", as someone else here astutely pointed out. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "349348", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm assuming that when you say \"\"convert to S-Corp tax treatment\"\" you're not talking about actually changing your LLC to a Corporation. There are two distinct pieces of the puzzle here. First, there's your organizational form. Your state, which is where the business is legally formed and recognized, creates the LLC or Corporation. \"\"S-Corp\"\" doesn't come into play here: your company is either an LLC or a Corporation. (There are a handful of other organizational types your state might have, e.g. PLLC, Limited Partnership, etc.; none of these are immediately relevant to this discussion). Second, there's the tax treatment you receive by the IRS. If your company was created by the state as an LLC, note that the IRS doesn't recognize LLCs as a distinct organizational type: you elect to be taxed as an individual (for single member LLCs), a partnership (for multiple member LLCs), or as a corporation. The former two elections are \"\"pass through\"\" -- there's no additional level of taxation on corporate profits, everything just passes through to the owners. The latter election introduces a tax on corporate profits. When you elect pass-through treatment, a single-member LLC files on Schedule C; a multiple-member LLC will prepare a form K-1 which you will include on your 1040. If your company was created by the state as a Corporation (not an LLC), you could still elect pass-through taxation if your company qualifies under the rules in Subchapter S (i.e. \"\"an S-Corp\"\"). States do not recognize \"\"S-Corp\"\" as part of the organizational process -- that's just a tax distinction used by the IRS (and possibly your state's tax authorities). In your case, if you are a single-member LLC (and assuming there are no other reasons to organize as a corporation), talking about \"\"S-Corp tax treatment\"\" doesn't make any sense. You'll just file your schedule C; in my experience it's fairly simple. (Note that this is based on my experience of single- and multiple-member LLCs in just two states. Your state may have different rules that affect state-level taxation; and the rules may change from year to year. I've found that hiring a good CPA to prepare the forms saves a good bit of stress and time that can be better applied to the business.)\"" }, { "docid": "267158", "title": "", "text": "\"The issues are larger than taxes. If one of you receives the check, then breaks off 25% of it for themselves and sends three checks out to each of you that will be indicated on that person's taxes. You three will then all recognize your portion of the income on your taxes and it's all settled. It's no big deal, it's a bit rag-tag but it'll get the job done. I've done little ad-hoc partnership work with people this way and it's not a problem. This is why you should really be more formal. What if this entity contracting you guys sues you? Who has the liability, if only one of you was paid? What if the money is sent to one of you and that person dies before paying you? What if you all get another client? What if this contracting entity has another project? The partnership needs to have the liability. The partnership needs to receive the money. The partnership needs to be named on whatever contract you all sign. The partnership can be a straight partnership, or maybe the four of you take a 25% stake in an LLC or Inc arrangement. Minimally, you should sit down with your partners so everyone knows everyone else's responsibilities, and you should write it all down. It probably sounds like overkill, and I'm sure your partners are you buddies and \"\"we're tight and nothing bad could come between us.\"\" I've done some partnership work with more than one friend, we've always been fine. Some ventures are successful, some aren't; I'm still very good friends with all of them. Writing things down manages expectations and when money starts moving around, everyone is happier when everyone has a solid expectation of who gets what.\"" }, { "docid": "206878", "title": "", "text": "\"Not to mention. Since I posted my comment, I've suffered from self shutdowns of my PC (started with instant shutdowns). Only restoring multiple times from multiple restore points as seemed to have solved the problem for now. I'm telling you, we are under foreign attack, and India is part of it. Also, when I'm not using my PC I shut it down and turn off the power strip access to it. Used to unplug it too. Also in the past year, my refrigerator, dryer, main TV in living room, and most recently my washer (mechanical recurring) and PC have suffered electrical failures. BEWARE those who claim to be advancing/helping you. Anyway I believe someone is sending me a message about evil in our midst. Pop culture should obviously indicate to you, if you know history as a matter of fact, not conjecture, that things are deteriorating quickly, and various nefarious factions are jockeying for position. And they are not, never have been, from the side of \"\"good\"\", though they ALL claimed to be. They punish/torment/destroy whom they deem (their whims) to be \"\"evil\"\". Though they are NEVER the arbiter of such things. Horrible things are coming to the US. Past sins. Don't complain. Find redemption, salvation as you can. Survival (personal) is not paramount. GOOD (as you see it) is. Just make sure you're not actually evil. I'm clobbered here. Though I try to reveal truth. I try to debate, initiate discourse. I am shut down, for various nebulous reasons that my accusers use commonly.\"" }, { "docid": "416268", "title": "", "text": "\"Did it show just your address, or was your name on it as well? You didn't share how long you've lived at the address either, so it makes me wonder whether a former tenant is the one who filed that paperwork. It's also possible that someone used your address when making a filing. Whether that was deliberate or accidental is hard to discern, as is their intent if it was intentional. It could be accidental -- someone picked \"\"CA\"\" for California when they meant to pick \"\"CO\"\" for Colorado or \"\"CT\"\" for Connecticut...These things do happen. It can't make you feel any better about the situation though. You should be able to go online to the California Secretary of State's website (here) and look up everything filed by the LLC with the state. That will show who the founders were and everything else that is a matter of public record on the LLC. At the very least, you can obtain the registered agent's name and address for the LLC, which you can then use to contact them and ask why your address is listed as the LLC's business address. Once you have that info, you can then contact the Secretary of State and tell them it isn't you so they can do whatever is necessary to correct this. This doesn't sound like a difficult matter to clear up, but it's important to do your homework first and gather as much information as you can before you call the state. Answering \"\"I don't know\"\" won't get you very far with them compared to having the best answers you can about where the mistake started. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "574941", "title": "", "text": "Awesome info, this is what I was looking for. I live in FL so i will look into LLC laws. Is there a difference in obtaining loans for multi-unit properties, or any special requirements? This would be my first purchase so I'm trying to decide if I should start with a multi-unit or a large home. I read something about a first time home buyers and the FHA allowing one to put down less of an initial investment. Im assuming this is if you are actually going to be living in the home or property? Would it make sense to have separate entities for specific types of units? For example One separate corporation per multi-unit property, but have multiple single family homes under another single entity? Thanks for the help. *quick add-on, would you know how long the corporation would have had to exist before being able to obtain a loan? For example, would XYZ, LLC. have to have been around for 3 years prior to the loan, or could i just incorporate the month before going to the bank?" }, { "docid": "582571", "title": "", "text": "\"You're confusing so many things at once here...... First thing first: we cannot suggest you what to do business-wise since we have no idea about your business. How on Earth can anyone know if you should sell the software to someone or try to distribute to customers yourself? How would we know if you should hire employees or not? If you say you don't need employees - why would you consider hiring them? If you say you want to sell several copies and have your own customers - why would you ask if you should sell your code to someone else? Doesn't make sense. Now to some more specific issues: I heard sole proprietary companies doesn't earn more than 250k and it's better to switch to corporation or LLC etc. because of benefits. I heard it was snowing today in Honolulu. So you heard things. It doesn't make them true, or relevant to you. There's no earning limit above which you should incorporate. You can be sole proprietor and make millions, and you can incorporate for a $10K/year revenue business. Sole proprietorship, incorporation (can be C-Corp or S-Corp), or LLC - these are four different types of legal entity to conduct business. Each has its own set of benefits and drawbacks, and you must understand which one suits you in your particular situation. For that you should talk to a lawyer who could help you understand what liability protection you might need, and to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) who can help you understand the tax-related costs and benefits of each choice. On the other hand I heard that if I create LLC company, in case of failure, they can get EVERYTHING from me, what's this all about? No. This is not true. Who are \"\"they\"\", how do you define \"\"failure\"\", and why would they get anything from you at all? Even without knowing all that, your understanding is wrong, because the \"\"LL\"\" in LLC stands for LIMITED liability. The whole point of forming LLC or Corporation is to limit your own personal liability. But mere incorporation or forming LLC doesn't necessarily mean your liability is limited. Your State law defines what you must do for that limited liability protection, and that includes proper ways to run your business. Again - talk to your lawyer and your tax adviser about what it means to you. I'm totally unfamiliar with everything related to taxes/companies/LLC/corporation etc Familiarize yourself. No-one is going to do it for you. Start reading, ask specific questions on specific issues, and get a proper legal and tax advice from licensed professionals.\"" }, { "docid": "250498", "title": "", "text": "\"From a tax/legal perspective, any income is taxable no matter how derived. On the other hand, if you're asking, \"\"When has my hobby crossed over from being something that I do on the side to something I should consider doing full-time?\"\" Different set of answers. Firstly, do you want to place that burden on your hobby? If you're doing it purely for fun, do you want to \"\"marry your mistress\"\"? Once you start depending on it for income, the money you earn is no longer fun-money and must now be used to pay legitimate expenses, taxes and other commitments. Secondly, will it support you or will you need other side projects? Consider your total income package now, including whatever you make from your hobby. How much would change if you switched your commitments and, perhaps, lost some of that revenue? Lastly, if you started your hobby to be a break from the routine, what will now break you from the routine of your now ex-hobby? All that said, if you're genuinely pleased by the income and overall profitability of the hobby, excited by the opportunities available and see a engaging and stimulating new career ahead of you then go for it.\"" }, { "docid": "7981", "title": "", "text": "\"Hey, I hear ya on this situation. I also graduated from a good school (Finance/Comp Sci) with a mediocre GPA and had difficulty securing a full time position in finance. My best advice is to network the shit out of alumni you can connect to through LinkedIn or your schools alumni network homepage. People are MUCH more open to talking than you would typically think. Like your friends said, getting into IBD as an analyst is ideal as it gives you a great line on your resume, shows you worked hard, and has amazing training. Now comes the really shitty part of this conversation, if you've already graduated college, it's next to impossible to get into a bulge bracket as an analyst. Your best bet in this case would be to try to get into a mid-cap or boutique IB and work your way from there. Again though, networking means 100x more than anything else. Now the good news, investment research is very different from investment banking. Yes, equity research is within an investment bank (sell-side and buy-side), but it is very different from investment banking (see Chinese Walls). It's easier to make the transition into research without formal recruiting than it is to get into IB directly. Couple things to keep in mind, KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELL-SIDE AN BUY-SIDE. I'm not talking about just one buys stuff the other tries to get you to buy it. I'm talking about conflicts of interest on the sell-side, personalities, types of research, what your role entails, org structure, etc. SELL-SIDE IS EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THAN BUY-SIDE!! Buy-side is MUCH less flexible than sell-side in recruiting, also. Do you currently own stocks, trade, track stocks all day long, etc.? If the answer is no to any of those, buy-side is really really hard. They want people who live and breath investing, markets, news, companies, because that's what they do. Also, training is effectively non-existent on the buy-side due to the size of the shops (some can have $10b with 10 people including admins). Now lets talk sell-side. This is where I'd recommend you put your resources if you're really passionate about it. They tend to hire people without experience more often into entry-level jobs (b/c most are larger investment banks that use research to promote underwriting/investment business). Also, you need to have a pitch, but not as extensive as on the buy-side (those 1-2 pagers I talked about). The best advice I can offer is to hop on a Bloomberg/TR/CapIQ terminal if you can and just start finding email addresses of sell-side analysts (they publish them in their reports), and start writing the analysts directly expressing your interest in the business and your desire to talk with them. Be frank about where you are in your career, but show a true passion for research, and that you are \"\"hungry.\"\" Attach your resume and keep the email short, a few sentences with maybe some bullets about how you could help that company. Spend the time to personalize it to that person. Follow up with a phone call in 1-2 weeks. They will appreciate the candidness and you'll find them to be very receptive. Even if these analysts don't have a job available right there, if they like you, they will pass you on to someone who might. This is how networking works, that guy might not have a job, but someone is always hiring, and its a tight knit community. The other option is to work for any finance firm in some role for 3-5 years then go back to get an MBA. With an MBA from a top school you can basically transition into anything. PM me if you ever want to talk over IM. I'd be happy to chat.\"" }, { "docid": "292748", "title": "", "text": "\"I really have to use the business card for personal expenses, please assume that in your answer. This is very hard to believe. You must do that? Why not just have the company pay you $1600 each month? Then you can use that money for whatever you want. Why can't you do this? (I cannot think of a legitimate reason...) How to integrate the personal expenses in company? Anyway, to answer your question, what I've done when I accidentally used my corporate card for a personal expense is to code the expense as a payment to me similar to if a check had been written to me. If you aren't ever paying yourself, then you should just pay the company back the $1600 every month. As a side note, I highly recommend you don't do this. By doing this on a regular basis you are opening the door for piercing the corporate veil. This means that the financial protections provided by the LLC could potentially be stripped away since personal and corporate funds are being mixed. The unfortunate end result is that personal assets could end up being fair game too in a judgement against the company. Even if you aren't an owner, your relative could be considered to be \"\"using business money for personal expenses\"\", namely, letting a relative spend business funds for personal use. How to show more expenses and lessen the profit? If you're referring to the personal expenses, then you absolutely do not want to do this! That's illegal and worthy of stiff penalties, which possibly include jail time for tax evasion. Better to just have the company pay you and then the entire payment is deductible and reduces the profit of the company.\"" }, { "docid": "299211", "title": "", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"" }, { "docid": "129428", "title": "", "text": "Thanks for your reply. I agree shooting down the majority of Chinese as being shady is perhaps unfair. I was just left with a really bad taste after all the crazy situations I was in during those 10 years. I am sure they have some strong opinions about Americans also. On the USA side I did bring my usual law firm in on a consultation and even contacted and consulted with a firm who specializes in Transportation Law. My wife and the Chinese side thought that was a waste of money - but it was valuable on answering many of the questions you bought up, including things like a DOT registration and so on. As for it being salvageable, I think not, as I cannot work with someone I don’t trust. The “recovery” is not much - just under $3000, as it was caught before the warehouse lease was signed/etc. part of the problem was I required a “good faith” payment from them before the lease signing which they did not do. The Chinese side is scared of me for some of the reasons I alluded too in my original post - and they have agreed to pay that amount on Monday. I will give them a receipt for their payment, and move on without any further action. I think my wife has learned a lot from this - I have perhaps also - both about my wife and what she is willing to do and how much she wants to start a business. I agree that my demeanor is perhaps not 100% when I feel slighted - I will try to temper that some in future - but most importantly - through clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Thanks again!" }, { "docid": "592654", "title": "", "text": "\"When I was in a similar situation (due to my stocks going up), I quit my job and decided that if I live somewhat frugally, I wouldn't have to work again (I haven't). But I fell victim to some scams, didn't invest wisely, and tried to play as a (minor) philantropist. Bad move. I still have enough money to live on, and want to buy a home of my own, but with the rise in real estate costs in ALL the \"\"good\"\" major cities my options are very limited. There is a LOT of good advice being given here; I wish someone had given me that kind of advice years ago. $1,200,000 sounds like a lot but it's not infinity. Side comment: I've seen lots of articles that claim to help you figure out how much money you need in retirement but why do they all start out by asking you \"\"how much money do you need in retirement?\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "80742", "title": "", "text": "I don't know Australian law, but I will give my US perspective here. The custom in the US is for officers and directors to be indemnified by the corporation, and that LLCs have an even broader power to indemnify (even to remove the duty of loyalty!). Moreover, directors will typically be able to purchase D&O insurance to protect them from loss in the event of liability. For US corporations (not LLCs), the duty of care (prudence) requires that directors behave responsibly in weighing major decisions, and consult experts and specialists before coming to rash decisions. It usually becomes a court case in the context of a large public company in the midst of an acquisition event. The only people with standing (in the US) are shareholders. If all the other shareholders are directors, then it may be hard for them to blame you. Additionally, if you are concerned about the propriety of your actions, there may be sources to rely on. First, discussion with your fellow directors can be a helpful guide (though will not usually immunize you from any accusation of wrongdoing), and disclosure tends to cure almost any accusation of breaching the duty of loyalty. Second, boards often secure the advice of legal counsel, and sometimes bring on lawyers as members or will outright hire counsel for the board. Third, there may be services that will provide you with generic advice (e.g. UK Companies House and US-based IOD), which might set you at ease a little bit. I don't know the details of Australian law, as I say. But my sense of common law countries is that, like the US, they are primarily concerned about negligence (incompetently or imprudently neglecting to understand the business and make informed decisions), disloyalty (fraudulently engaging in self-interested transactions that either hurt the company or should have been offered to the company), and recklessness (not bothering to seek out information). As long as you are active, informed, engaged, and not engaging in secret deals outside the company (especially deals where either side is competing with the company), then that would be more than sufficient under the US standard. If you are concerned about liability, then inquire into indemnifications by the company (in the US, the company can usually pay all legal costs of directors), insurance, and legal counsel. I imagine your business partners are no more savvy than you are. My impression is you are overreacting to relatively rare and exotic expression of corporate law (at least in the US). But I'll close by repeating that I don't know Australian corporate law." }, { "docid": "31462", "title": "", "text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"" }, { "docid": "222726", "title": "", "text": "\"What is the right way to handle this? Did you check the forms? Did the form state $0 tax due on the FTB LLC/Corp form (I'm guessing you operate as LLC/Corp, since you're dealing with the Franchise Tax)? The responsibility is ultimately yours. You should cross check all the numbers and verify that they're correct. That said, if the CPA filled the forms incorrectly based on your correct data - then she made a mistake and can be held liable. CPA filing forms from a jurisdiction on the other end of the country without proper research and knowledge may be held negligent if she made a grave mistake. You can file a law suit against the CPA (which will probably trigger her E&O insurance carrier who'll try to settle if there's a good chance for your lawsuit to not be thrown away outright), or complain to the State regulatory agency overseeing CPAs in the State of her license. Or both. Am I wrong for expecting the CPA should have properly filled out and filed my taxes? No, but it doesn't shift the responsibility from you. How can I find out if the CPA has missed anything else? Same as with doctors and lawyers - get a second opinion. Preferably from a CPA licensed in California. You and only you are responsible for your taxes. You may try to pin the penalties and interest on the CPA if she really made a mistake. California is notorious for very high LLC/Corp franchise tax (cost of registering to do business in the State). It's $800 a year. You should have read the forms and the instructions carefully, it is very prominent. It is also very well discussed all over the Internet, any search engine would pop it up for you with a simple \"\"California Franchise Tax for LLC/Corp\"\" search. CA FTB is also very aggressive in assessing and collecting the fee, and the rules of establishing nexus in CA are very broad. From your description it sounds like you were liable for the Franchise tax in CA, since you had a storage facility in CA. You may also be liable for sales taxes for that period.\"" }, { "docid": "488117", "title": "", "text": "My logic for prices was this: S&amp;P500/indexes price is based on the overall market for S&amp;P500, generally. So my thought was that it should be correlated to the price of the Vix because as market volatility occurred, the price of the Vix would go up and vice Versa when the market goes down. However, I just started running these analyses as a side project and am still learning the right measures to make better observations. So I'm all for any advice in that regard." }, { "docid": "457805", "title": "", "text": "Delaware llc incorporation When someone want to do some business, but the person want to have some extremely flexible business so that he can able to start up with low cost and with affordable franchise text they Delaware llc incorporation is a very good choice for doing so. It mainly help to customize the corporation and can also help to choose that option which user want to have." }, { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "&gt; I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. &gt; Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. &gt; The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. &gt; A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. &gt; Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. &gt; Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." } ]

[ { "docid": "580817", "title": "", "text": "\"Not all of the reason to start an LLC is liability (although that is implicit). There are two main reasons as far as I have experienced it: I always recommend that people set things up properly from the beginning. If you do start to grow, or if you need to cut your losses, it can be very difficult to separate yourself from the company if it isn't set up entirely apart from you. I was once told, \"\"Run your small company as you would wish it to be.\"\" Don't get into bad habits at the beginning. They become bad habits in big companies later on.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "387510", "title": "", "text": "\"If my wife and I tried this, we'd call it grounds for divorce. However, I think most long term couples actually do this, and it is just a budget. It is common practice for two spouses to deposit money into a single checking account. All of the household expenses are then paid from that single account. Same as you describe: if I spend money from the joint checking that is less money available to my wife. Based on your dollar amount, I'd have to say great work on thinking about saving early on in life. I think though, if you are actually starting out, getting into the habit of saving a \"\"dime of every dollar\"\" would be more beneficial. At some point your income will increase, and when it does so should your savings. By \"\"paying yourself first\"\" your savings will keep pace with your spending and you will be a happier person when you income starts to fall again.\"" }, { "docid": "192591", "title": "", "text": "\"I also spend countless hours of my own time studying. It's the only way to continue to move forward in the tech world. I have to disagree with you on this point: \"\"Given the fact that tech is ever evolving, no one should ever be surprised to find out that there are long hours involved\"\" That's is the complete opposite of what should happen. Evolving technology should make our lives easier. I see that in my current position which allows me to telecommute whenever I feel like it. Hell I could probably move across the country and maintain my current position. We're pretty much post startup mode at this point though. My last position was for a fortune 100 shipping company. Was required to work 12 hour swing shifts. Required to be on 8 am meetings when I worked 6pm-6am. Why? Because \"\"fuck you\"\" that's why (this is the reasoning coming from my manager). Also I find it crazy that so many people have an issue with the use of the word fuck. What are we children? The fucking point of the post is to slap you in the fucking face. I also find it much more entertaining to read then your standard business journal. \"\"Sadly, her reputation with prospective employers might be influenced by her choice of words in the interest of \"\"fucking glory.\"\"\"\" When you clear of half a million I don't think you are exactly on the job hunt. Even if she was someone would be stupid to not hire her the second she walked in the door on the track record of creating successful products. Also I personally have had ups and downs trying to escape working for others. I made my employer over 75k last quarter alone. They don't pay me that much a year. From dec-feb of last year I made double my yearly salary online. I've also lost more than I care to mention investing in new ideas. I'm young and stupid. I didn't need to recklessly spend the money the way I did but somethings you learn the hardway. The point is that if you own the product/business you reap the rewards. That also means possible taking a hit for losses, but if you succeed it is going to be well worth it. This idea isn't for everyone. Business/product creators need people who want to work hourly while they earn the big bucks. I'm starting to see that I need to build my own dreams not some investors.\"" }, { "docid": "333681", "title": "", "text": "I did my own taxes previously using both H&R Block Tax Cut and TurboTax. When I had a simple return and was single, it worked great. Once I got married it was a little more complicated. When I started a small side business, I switched to an accountant. He does a great job of adjusting deductions between my wife and I and filing separately. This minimizes the amount of taxes we have to pay. It has been a few years since I used the software, but I did not see the ability to easily make adjustments like that." }, { "docid": "440506", "title": "", "text": "I have researched this question extensively in previous years as we have notoriously high taxes in California, while neighboring a state that has zero corporate income tax and personal income tax. Many have attempted pull a fast one on the California taxation authorities, the Franchise Tax Board, by incorporating in Nevada or attempting to declare full-year residence in the Silver State. This is basically just asking for an audit, however. California religiously examines taxpayers with any evidence of having presence in California. If they deem you to be a resident in California, and they likely will based on the fact that you live in California (physical presence), you will be subject to taxation on your worldwide income. You could incorporate in Nevada or Bangladesh, and California will still levy its taxation on any business income (Single Member LLCs are disregarded as separate corporate entities, but still taxed at ordinary income rates on the personal income tax basis). To make things worse, if California examines your Single Member LLC and finds that it is doing business in California, based on the fact that its sole owner is based in California all year long, you could feasibly end up with additional penalties for having neglected to file your LLC in California (California LLCs are considered domestic, and only file in California unless they wish to do business in other states; Nevada LLCs are considered foreign to California, requiring the owner to file a domestic LLC organization in Nevada and then a foreign LLC organization in California, which still gets hit with the minimum $800 franchise fee because it is a foreign LLC doing business in California). Evading any filing responsibility in California is not advisable. FTB consistently researches LLCs, S-Corporations and the like to determine whether they've been organized out-of-state but still principally operated in California, thus having a tax nexus with California and the subsequent requirement to be filed in California and taxed by California. No one likes paying taxes, and no one wants to get hit with franchise fees, especially when one is starting a new venture and that minimum $800 assessment seems excessive (in other words, you could have a company that earns nothing, zero, zip, nada, and still has to pay the $800 minimum fee), but the consequences of shirking tax laws and filing requirements will make the franchise fee seem trivial in comparison. If you're committed to living in California and desire to organize an LLC or S-Corp, you must file with the state of California, either as a domestic corporation/LLC or foreign corporation/LLC doing business in California. The only alternatives are being a sole proprietor (unincorporated), or leaving the state of California altogether. Not what you wanted to hear I'm sure, but that's the law." }, { "docid": "349348", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm assuming that when you say \"\"convert to S-Corp tax treatment\"\" you're not talking about actually changing your LLC to a Corporation. There are two distinct pieces of the puzzle here. First, there's your organizational form. Your state, which is where the business is legally formed and recognized, creates the LLC or Corporation. \"\"S-Corp\"\" doesn't come into play here: your company is either an LLC or a Corporation. (There are a handful of other organizational types your state might have, e.g. PLLC, Limited Partnership, etc.; none of these are immediately relevant to this discussion). Second, there's the tax treatment you receive by the IRS. If your company was created by the state as an LLC, note that the IRS doesn't recognize LLCs as a distinct organizational type: you elect to be taxed as an individual (for single member LLCs), a partnership (for multiple member LLCs), or as a corporation. The former two elections are \"\"pass through\"\" -- there's no additional level of taxation on corporate profits, everything just passes through to the owners. The latter election introduces a tax on corporate profits. When you elect pass-through treatment, a single-member LLC files on Schedule C; a multiple-member LLC will prepare a form K-1 which you will include on your 1040. If your company was created by the state as a Corporation (not an LLC), you could still elect pass-through taxation if your company qualifies under the rules in Subchapter S (i.e. \"\"an S-Corp\"\"). States do not recognize \"\"S-Corp\"\" as part of the organizational process -- that's just a tax distinction used by the IRS (and possibly your state's tax authorities). In your case, if you are a single-member LLC (and assuming there are no other reasons to organize as a corporation), talking about \"\"S-Corp tax treatment\"\" doesn't make any sense. You'll just file your schedule C; in my experience it's fairly simple. (Note that this is based on my experience of single- and multiple-member LLCs in just two states. Your state may have different rules that affect state-level taxation; and the rules may change from year to year. I've found that hiring a good CPA to prepare the forms saves a good bit of stress and time that can be better applied to the business.)\"" }, { "docid": "84858", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer to your question is...it depends. Depending on the state you, your friend, and the LLC are located in, it can be very easy to run afoul of state banking laws, or to somehow violate some other statute pertaining to the legal activities an LLC may undertake by doing something like a loan. It is not unusual (or illegal) for officers or employees of a business entity to be loaned money by the company they work for, so something of this nature wouldn't be an issue with regulatory agencies. Having your LLC loan money to a friend who isn't an employee or officer of your LLC just might not be kosher though. The best advice I can give is that you should call the state banking commission or similar agency in your state and ask them whether what you want to do is alright. The LAST thing you want is to end up with auditors or regulators sniffing around your business, even if you haven't done anything wrong, and you certainly don't want to run the risk of accidentally \"\"piercing the corporate veil\"\", as someone else here astutely pointed out. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "222726", "title": "", "text": "\"What is the right way to handle this? Did you check the forms? Did the form state $0 tax due on the FTB LLC/Corp form (I'm guessing you operate as LLC/Corp, since you're dealing with the Franchise Tax)? The responsibility is ultimately yours. You should cross check all the numbers and verify that they're correct. That said, if the CPA filled the forms incorrectly based on your correct data - then she made a mistake and can be held liable. CPA filing forms from a jurisdiction on the other end of the country without proper research and knowledge may be held negligent if she made a grave mistake. You can file a law suit against the CPA (which will probably trigger her E&O insurance carrier who'll try to settle if there's a good chance for your lawsuit to not be thrown away outright), or complain to the State regulatory agency overseeing CPAs in the State of her license. Or both. Am I wrong for expecting the CPA should have properly filled out and filed my taxes? No, but it doesn't shift the responsibility from you. How can I find out if the CPA has missed anything else? Same as with doctors and lawyers - get a second opinion. Preferably from a CPA licensed in California. You and only you are responsible for your taxes. You may try to pin the penalties and interest on the CPA if she really made a mistake. California is notorious for very high LLC/Corp franchise tax (cost of registering to do business in the State). It's $800 a year. You should have read the forms and the instructions carefully, it is very prominent. It is also very well discussed all over the Internet, any search engine would pop it up for you with a simple \"\"California Franchise Tax for LLC/Corp\"\" search. CA FTB is also very aggressive in assessing and collecting the fee, and the rules of establishing nexus in CA are very broad. From your description it sounds like you were liable for the Franchise tax in CA, since you had a storage facility in CA. You may also be liable for sales taxes for that period.\"" }, { "docid": "540232", "title": "", "text": "&gt;That's why the CEO pay is so enormous, because the board can make that decision and none of the common shareholders have enough power to override it. As with any business, when you own less than 50% you have a say but are at the mercy of all the other shareholders. That's kinda the way things work. Don't like it? Don't buy a piece of the company. Want majority ownership of Intel corporation? Buy up 2.5bn shares and take controlling ownership. I still don't get what you're bitching about - that minority shareholders should have a majority say? That's the way owning a piece of any company works; a corporation or an LLC. The same bullshit you're spewing off about is the same bullshit that people bitch about in a democracy; they want their voice to count for more. You're vote is worth in a company based on the portion you own." }, { "docid": "267158", "title": "", "text": "\"The issues are larger than taxes. If one of you receives the check, then breaks off 25% of it for themselves and sends three checks out to each of you that will be indicated on that person's taxes. You three will then all recognize your portion of the income on your taxes and it's all settled. It's no big deal, it's a bit rag-tag but it'll get the job done. I've done little ad-hoc partnership work with people this way and it's not a problem. This is why you should really be more formal. What if this entity contracting you guys sues you? Who has the liability, if only one of you was paid? What if the money is sent to one of you and that person dies before paying you? What if you all get another client? What if this contracting entity has another project? The partnership needs to have the liability. The partnership needs to receive the money. The partnership needs to be named on whatever contract you all sign. The partnership can be a straight partnership, or maybe the four of you take a 25% stake in an LLC or Inc arrangement. Minimally, you should sit down with your partners so everyone knows everyone else's responsibilities, and you should write it all down. It probably sounds like overkill, and I'm sure your partners are you buddies and \"\"we're tight and nothing bad could come between us.\"\" I've done some partnership work with more than one friend, we've always been fine. Some ventures are successful, some aren't; I'm still very good friends with all of them. Writing things down manages expectations and when money starts moving around, everyone is happier when everyone has a solid expectation of who gets what.\"" }, { "docid": "416268", "title": "", "text": "\"Did it show just your address, or was your name on it as well? You didn't share how long you've lived at the address either, so it makes me wonder whether a former tenant is the one who filed that paperwork. It's also possible that someone used your address when making a filing. Whether that was deliberate or accidental is hard to discern, as is their intent if it was intentional. It could be accidental -- someone picked \"\"CA\"\" for California when they meant to pick \"\"CO\"\" for Colorado or \"\"CT\"\" for Connecticut...These things do happen. It can't make you feel any better about the situation though. You should be able to go online to the California Secretary of State's website (here) and look up everything filed by the LLC with the state. That will show who the founders were and everything else that is a matter of public record on the LLC. At the very least, you can obtain the registered agent's name and address for the LLC, which you can then use to contact them and ask why your address is listed as the LLC's business address. Once you have that info, you can then contact the Secretary of State and tell them it isn't you so they can do whatever is necessary to correct this. This doesn't sound like a difficult matter to clear up, but it's important to do your homework first and gather as much information as you can before you call the state. Answering \"\"I don't know\"\" won't get you very far with them compared to having the best answers you can about where the mistake started. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "496309", "title": "", "text": "Maybe I can explain a little clearer: Your LLC is not a person, and cannot have taxes withheld on its behalf. Therefore, anyone paying your company should not withhold taxes. If they are paying you directly, and withholding taxes, they are treating you as an employee, and will probably issue a W2 instead of a 1099. Put it this way: Your LLC is a separate company providing services to that company. They shouldn't withhold taxes any more than they would when paying their ISP, or power company." }, { "docid": "51674", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;&gt; ...but we need to start getting over number three. &gt; &gt;I strongly disagree. It shows Republicans will undermine the spirit of the system and the will of the people to serve their own ends. When a group shows they will exploit anything they can to take advantage of you, you do not work with them. &gt; Mitch McConnell was *in the Senate* for the Bork nomination. The year before Antonio Scalia had been confirmed 98-0, as had ever been the case... from McConnell's POV, that's where the amorphous \"\"spirit of the system\"\" was broken. And low and behold, when he came to power, he didn't work with them. Your sentiment is almost literally exactly what got us in this shithole. If turnabout is fair play, this *never ends*. &gt;&gt; Besides that, it's completely extraneous to the topic at hand... &gt; &gt;It is not. The topic at hand is healthcare, not \"\"things liberals are (righteously) pissed about\"\". &gt; &gt;Question for you: how many times do you think Democrats should reach across the aisle only to be either rebuffed, insulted, misrepresented in the media, or taken advantage of before you would support a hard line like mine above? As many times as it takes to find someone on the other side to work with to actually accomplish anything. If this big repeal bill fails, that's a start. \"\"The republicans\"\" will do a lot of whining and shit throwing, but the reality is it will have happened because a handful of Republicans prioritized actually helping the people in their states over party rhetoric and desparation for a \"\"win\"\". McConnel's \"\"shoring up\"\" talk could lead to a half-decent outcome... at the very least it'd be a change in the optics. No GOP senator who failed to Repeal is going to want to talk about health care at all come re-election time, so they have a bit of political cover to quietly give ground in terms of the structure of the shoring up. Or maybe not. But we have to allow for the possibility. The tea party was born out of people on the right taking a Hard Line, and the actual work of government has suffered immeasurably for it. Deeper trenches just lead to a longer war.\"" }, { "docid": "7981", "title": "", "text": "\"Hey, I hear ya on this situation. I also graduated from a good school (Finance/Comp Sci) with a mediocre GPA and had difficulty securing a full time position in finance. My best advice is to network the shit out of alumni you can connect to through LinkedIn or your schools alumni network homepage. People are MUCH more open to talking than you would typically think. Like your friends said, getting into IBD as an analyst is ideal as it gives you a great line on your resume, shows you worked hard, and has amazing training. Now comes the really shitty part of this conversation, if you've already graduated college, it's next to impossible to get into a bulge bracket as an analyst. Your best bet in this case would be to try to get into a mid-cap or boutique IB and work your way from there. Again though, networking means 100x more than anything else. Now the good news, investment research is very different from investment banking. Yes, equity research is within an investment bank (sell-side and buy-side), but it is very different from investment banking (see Chinese Walls). It's easier to make the transition into research without formal recruiting than it is to get into IB directly. Couple things to keep in mind, KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELL-SIDE AN BUY-SIDE. I'm not talking about just one buys stuff the other tries to get you to buy it. I'm talking about conflicts of interest on the sell-side, personalities, types of research, what your role entails, org structure, etc. SELL-SIDE IS EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THAN BUY-SIDE!! Buy-side is MUCH less flexible than sell-side in recruiting, also. Do you currently own stocks, trade, track stocks all day long, etc.? If the answer is no to any of those, buy-side is really really hard. They want people who live and breath investing, markets, news, companies, because that's what they do. Also, training is effectively non-existent on the buy-side due to the size of the shops (some can have $10b with 10 people including admins). Now lets talk sell-side. This is where I'd recommend you put your resources if you're really passionate about it. They tend to hire people without experience more often into entry-level jobs (b/c most are larger investment banks that use research to promote underwriting/investment business). Also, you need to have a pitch, but not as extensive as on the buy-side (those 1-2 pagers I talked about). The best advice I can offer is to hop on a Bloomberg/TR/CapIQ terminal if you can and just start finding email addresses of sell-side analysts (they publish them in their reports), and start writing the analysts directly expressing your interest in the business and your desire to talk with them. Be frank about where you are in your career, but show a true passion for research, and that you are \"\"hungry.\"\" Attach your resume and keep the email short, a few sentences with maybe some bullets about how you could help that company. Spend the time to personalize it to that person. Follow up with a phone call in 1-2 weeks. They will appreciate the candidness and you'll find them to be very receptive. Even if these analysts don't have a job available right there, if they like you, they will pass you on to someone who might. This is how networking works, that guy might not have a job, but someone is always hiring, and its a tight knit community. The other option is to work for any finance firm in some role for 3-5 years then go back to get an MBA. With an MBA from a top school you can basically transition into anything. PM me if you ever want to talk over IM. I'd be happy to chat.\"" }, { "docid": "31462", "title": "", "text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"" }, { "docid": "468444", "title": "", "text": "My friend there is hope. I am 36 and went back to school 3 years ago. I will graduate in December with a BBA in Finance. I have a family, (3 girls-7,4,2), I Work almost full time, have I side business, and I am heavily involved in a society on campus (the Investment Society). I crashed an Burned out of school when I was 18/19. Here in Texas your grades always follow you. We have a renew program which wipes your slate clean, but I had 16 hours I wanted to use so I took the hit. There is a difference between overall GPA and career study GPA. You can sometimes get by on the latter. A GPA is important for getting your foot in the door and for companies who have no idea who you are. If you have an in with a company then GPA is not as important. But you have to bust it going back. Your main focus will be getting the internship with the company you know and knowing the shit out of the fields of study. I am part of that Investment Society on campus. We grind at the subjects of time value, statistics, accounting, fundamentals, economics, technical, management, forecasting, model building, analysis, and even coding. Coding will be your biggest asset on top of knowing the fields of study. If you can talk the shit out of the jargon, concepts, and knowledge then you will do really well. In Finance though you have to be a master of many fields to do well. I would recommend getting your hands on some CFA study material and hit the highlights. I am nearing the end of college and realized that the CFA study material is a blueprint for a finance degree. Also get your CFA cert ASAP out of college. While everything is still fresh. I am not going into the field directly, as I am starting a company, but others around me are landing jobs in New York and Chicago. We are a rather irrelevant school in San Antonio, but our grads are getting picked up by Goldman, Black Rock, and JP. If you know your shit and network well and are ambitious then you have a good shot. If I can reinvent my life with all I have on my plate, then this should be cake for you. By that I mean Sweet and enjoyable. Just develop a plan, and get it done." }, { "docid": "259081", "title": "", "text": "\"It is great that you want to learn more about the Stock Market. I'm curious about the quantitative side of analyzing stocks and other financial instruments. Does anyone have a recommendation where should I start? Which books should I read, or which courses or videos should I watch? Do I need some basic prerequisites such as statistics or macro and microeconomics? Or should I be advanced in those areas? Although I do not have any books or videos to suggest to you at the moment, I will do some more research and edit this answer. In order to understand the quantitative side of analyzing the stock market to have people take you serious enough and trust you with their money for investments, you need to have strong math and analytical skills. You should consider getting a higher level of education in several of the following: Mathematics, Economics, Finance, Statistics, and Computer Science. In mathematics, you should at least understand the following concepts: In finance, you should at least understand the following concepts: In Computer Science, you should probably know the following: So to answer your question, about \"\"do you need to be advanced in those areas\"\", I strongly suggest you do. I've read that books on that topics are such as The Intelligent Investor and Reminiscences of A Stock Operator. Are these books really about the analytics of investing, or are they only about the philosophy of investing? I haven't read the Reminiscences of A Stock Operator, but the Intelligent Investor is based on a philosophy of investing that you should only consider but not depend on when you make investments.\"" }, { "docid": "574941", "title": "", "text": "Awesome info, this is what I was looking for. I live in FL so i will look into LLC laws. Is there a difference in obtaining loans for multi-unit properties, or any special requirements? This would be my first purchase so I'm trying to decide if I should start with a multi-unit or a large home. I read something about a first time home buyers and the FHA allowing one to put down less of an initial investment. Im assuming this is if you are actually going to be living in the home or property? Would it make sense to have separate entities for specific types of units? For example One separate corporation per multi-unit property, but have multiple single family homes under another single entity? Thanks for the help. *quick add-on, would you know how long the corporation would have had to exist before being able to obtain a loan? For example, would XYZ, LLC. have to have been around for 3 years prior to the loan, or could i just incorporate the month before going to the bank?" }, { "docid": "252843", "title": "", "text": "FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do." }, { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "&gt; I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. &gt; Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. &gt; The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. &gt; A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. &gt; Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. &gt; Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." } ]

[ { "docid": "138065", "title": "", "text": "It really depends on the type of business you are running. If there is any chance of liability, you should protect yourself with an LLC. Then it is much more difficult for them to sue and take personal assets. For example, if you are a wedding photographer, you would want to be an LLC in case you lose someones pictures." } ]

[ { "docid": "259081", "title": "", "text": "\"It is great that you want to learn more about the Stock Market. I'm curious about the quantitative side of analyzing stocks and other financial instruments. Does anyone have a recommendation where should I start? Which books should I read, or which courses or videos should I watch? Do I need some basic prerequisites such as statistics or macro and microeconomics? Or should I be advanced in those areas? Although I do not have any books or videos to suggest to you at the moment, I will do some more research and edit this answer. In order to understand the quantitative side of analyzing the stock market to have people take you serious enough and trust you with their money for investments, you need to have strong math and analytical skills. You should consider getting a higher level of education in several of the following: Mathematics, Economics, Finance, Statistics, and Computer Science. In mathematics, you should at least understand the following concepts: In finance, you should at least understand the following concepts: In Computer Science, you should probably know the following: So to answer your question, about \"\"do you need to be advanced in those areas\"\", I strongly suggest you do. I've read that books on that topics are such as The Intelligent Investor and Reminiscences of A Stock Operator. Are these books really about the analytics of investing, or are they only about the philosophy of investing? I haven't read the Reminiscences of A Stock Operator, but the Intelligent Investor is based on a philosophy of investing that you should only consider but not depend on when you make investments.\"" }, { "docid": "450887", "title": "", "text": "\"I agree 100%. I am a search engine marketer with a large focus on adwords. I built my company which has $7mil of revenue a year in a little under 5 years using adwords as the backbone of my marketing. I have helped out lots of friends with small adwords campaigns. Here are a couple examples. My dad is a high end furniture maker. He sold to galleries for decades. They would mark his stuff up 100%. So a table that he sold to them for $2000 they would sell for $4000. I got him a basic website done and started an adwords campaign which costed me about $100 a month. After a year he was no longer selling to galleries. He was charging full retail for his work. That started 5 years ago. He was able to weather this financial crisis when other artists were closing up shop, all because of adwords. I have a friend who is a fisherman. He would sell most of his fish to a wholesale buyer for a low price then take what he thought he could sell retail down to the pier to sell to locals. I got him a website with a call to action which said \"\"sign up to receive alerts when the fresh fish is coming in\"\". I started an adwords campaign and ran it to only show ads to people near the pier. I spent about $10 a month. Over the course of two years he built a customer list of over 200 people who get an email every time he is coming in and they call and place orders. Now he knows how much he can sell retail (and that's a whole lot more than he did before). Both of these examples were game changers for these people and all done with minimal adwords expense. One thing you should do is do a google search from your house (should be in the area your dad wants to service) and search for \"\"plumber in [your location]\"\". Take a look at ads on the search engine results page. If you see lots of them for plumbers in your area then there will be competition and its a bit of a tougher road (but totally doable). If you don't see many ads then you are in luck and you will own it. I started with this book: http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Guide-Google-AdWords-Million/dp/1599180308 It changed my life. Once I because an adwords expert I felt I could do anything and I haven't been proven wrong. Good luck. If you need any help let me know.\"" }, { "docid": "107536", "title": "", "text": "Supposedly this also means that I am free from having to pay California corporate taxes? Not in the slightest. Since you (the corporate employee) reside in CA - the corporation is doing business in CA and is liable for CA taxes. Or, does this mean I am required to pay both CA taxes and Delaware fees? (In this case, minimal, just a paid agent from incorporate.com) I believe DE actually does have corporate taxes, check it out. But the bottom line is yes, you're liable for both CA and DE costs of doing corporate business (income taxes, registered agents, CA corp fee, etc). Is there any benefit at all for me to be a Delaware C-Corp or should I dissolve and start over. Or just re-incorporate as California LLC Unless you intend to go public anytime soon or raise money from VCs/investors - there's no benefit whatsoever in incorporating in DE. You should seek a legal advice with an attorney, of course, since benefits are legal issues (usually related to choosing jurisdiction for litigation etc). If you're a one-person freelancer, doing C-Corp was not the best decision as well. Tax-wise you'd be much better off with a S-Corp, or a LLC - both pass-through and have no (Federal) entity-level taxes. Corporate rates are generally higher than individual rates, and less deductions can be taken. In California, check with a CPA/EA licensed in the State, since both S-Corp and LLC would be taxed, and taxed differently." }, { "docid": "213185", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Hey, sole proprietorships called A sole proprietorship could incorporate as a Single Member LLC and elect to be taxed as a corporation. But you would still be subject to both sides of the FICA/Medicare taxes. &gt;and they're going to suck out five percent MORE of my GROSS How exactly does a LLC suck out 5% more of your gross? &gt;your payroll costs go through the roof. Again, payroll expenses are generally tax deductible. I'm just trying to help you here." }, { "docid": "506108", "title": "", "text": "\"LLC is, as far as I know, just a US thing, so I'm assuming that you are in the USA. Update for clarification: other countries do have similar concepts, but I'm not aware of any country that uses the term LLC, nor any other country that uses the single-member LLC that is disregarded for income tax purposes that I'm referring to here (and that I assume the recruiter also was talking about). Further, LLCs vary by state. I only have experience with California, so some things may not apply the same way elsewhere. Also, if you are located in one state but the client is elsewhere, things can get more complex. First, let's get one thing out of the way: do you want to be a contractor, or an employee? Both have advantage, and especially in the higher-income areas, contractor can be more beneficial for you. Make sure that if you are a contractor, your rate must be considerably higher than as employee, to make up for the benefits you give up, as well as the FICA taxes and your expense of maintaining an LLC (in California, it costs at least $800/year, plus legal advice, accounting, and various other fees etc.). On the other hand, oftentimes, the benefits as an employee aren't actually worth all that much when you are in high income brackets. Do pay attention to health insurance - that may be a valuable benefit, or it may have such high deductibles that you would be better off getting your own or paying the penalty for going uninsured. Instead of a 401(k), you can set up an IRA (update or various other options), and you can also replace all the other benefits. If you decide that being an employee is the way to go, stop here. If you decide that being a contractor is a better deal for you, then it is indeed a good idea to set up an LLC. You actually have three fundamental options: work as an individual (the legal term is \"\"sole proprietorship\"\"), form a single-member LLC disregarded for income tax purposes, or various other forms of incorporation. Of these, I would argue that the single-member LLC combines the best of both worlds: taxation is almost the same as for sole proprietorship, the paperwork is minimal (a lot less than any other form of incorporation), but it provides many of the main benefits of incorporating. There are several advantages. First, as others have already pointed out, the IRS and Department of Labor scrutinize contractor relationships carefully, because of companies that abused this status on a massive scale (Uber and now-defunct Homejoy, for instance, but also FedEx and other old-economy companies). One of the 20 criteria they use is whether you are incorporated or not. Basically, it adds to your legal credibility as a contractor. Another benefit is legal protection. If your client (or somebody else) sues \"\"you\"\", they can usually only sue the legal entity they are doing business with. Which is the LLC. Your personal assets are safe from judgments. That's why Donald Trump is still a billionaire despite his famous four bankruptcies (which I believe were corporate, not personal, bankrupcies). Update for clarification Some people argue that you are still liable for your personal actions. You should consult with a lawyer about the details, but most business liabilities don't arise from such acts. Another commenter suggested an E&O policy - a very good idea, but not a substitute for an LLC. An LLC does require some minimal paperwork - you need to set up a separate bank account, and you will need a professional accounting system (not an Excel spreadsheet). But if you are a single member LLC, the paperwork is really not a huge deal - you don't need to file a separate federal tax return. Your income will be treated as if it was personal income (the technical term is that the LLC is disregarded for IRS tax purposes). California still does require a separate tax return, but that's only two pages or so, and unless you make a large amount, the tax is always $800. That small amount of paperwork is probably why your recruiter recommended the LLC, rather than other forms of incorporation. So if you want to be a contractor, then it sounds like your recruiter gave you good advice. If you want to be an employee, don't do it. A couple more points, not directly related to the question, but hopefully generally helpful: If you are a contractor (whether as sole proprietor or through an LLC), in most cities you need a business license. Not only that, but you may even need a separate business license in every city you do business (for instance, in the city where your client is located, even if you don't live there). Business licenses can range from \"\"not needed\"\" to a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. In some cities, the business license fee may also depend on your income. And finally, one interesting drawback of a disregarded LLC vs. sole proprietorship as a contractor has to do with the W-9 form and your Social Security Number. Generally, when you work for somebody and receive more than $600/year, they need to ask you for your Social Security Number, using form W-9. That is always a bit of a concern because of identity theft. The IRS also recognizes a second number, the EIN (Employer Identification Number). This is basically like an SSN for corporations. You can also apply for one if you are a sole proprietor. This is a HUGE benefit because you can use the EIN in place of your SSN on the W-9. Instant identity theft protection. HOWEVER, if you have a disregarded LLC, the IRS says that you MUST use your SSN; you cannot use your EIN! Update: The source for that information is the W-9 instructions; it specifically only excludes LLCs.\"" }, { "docid": "477851", "title": "", "text": "\"Just brainstorming here, but my gut feeling is it should be possible to sell your home to yourself with the sole purpose of resetting your basis. Taken at face value it feels illegal, but since I think we all would agree that you could sell your house to a third party and purchase the identical house next door for the same price (thus resetting your basis), why can't you purchase the same home right back? If one is legal, it seems odd for the other not to be. That being said, I have no idea how to legally do it. Perhaps you truly need a third party to step in which you sell it to, and then buy it back from them sometime in the future. Or perhaps you could start an LLC and have it purchase your home from you. Either way, I highly suggest finding an expert real estate attorney/accountant before attempting this, and don't be surprised if you get multiple opposite opinions. I suspect this is a gray area which will highly depend on how tax \"\"aggressive\"\" you are willing to be.\"" }, { "docid": "367029", "title": "", "text": "\"When I was getting my Business Admin degree, WFM was the hot thing because of the current \"\"green revolution\"\" and I had tons of access to management at all levels because of my job. So I pretty much built all the work on my degree around them. Nothing quite like having interviews with regional buyers and store managers as a primary source on a paper or project. Quite frankly, I think Mackey was pretty much just lucky. Most of the people I interacted with while I worked there had zero sense when it came to any sort of long term strategic positioning within the industry (which is why the activist investors have been pushing to get Mackey to sell). Now that they've actually begun to have competent competition, the cracks have really started to show. Honestly, instead of trying to expand at a breakneck pace like they started to five-seven years, they should have looked internally and instead begun to examine all the cost-saving measures they could on their supply-chain, management structure, and IT systems while they were the darling of both consumers and the markets, and had the profits. Instead, they attempted to triple the size of the business in just a decade (funded by increasing the prices of their products even more), and really destroyed all the cultural goodwill they had going for them. Then they started expanding into areas that weren't as affluent, trying to do these longshot deals with no cohesive strategy other than \"\"people like us, they'll show up.\"\" Seven or eight years ago, people were excited when they heard I worked for Whole Foods, and wanted to ask me a million questions. Now they find out I worked at Whole Foods and they're just like \"\"Fucking A that place is insanely expensive, and all the employees seem miserable.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "361978", "title": "", "text": "I know that there are a lot service on the internet helping to form an LLC online with a fee around $49. Is it neccessarry to pay them to have an LLC or I can do that myself? No, you can do it yourself. The $49 is for your convenience, but there's nothing they can do that you wouldn't be able to do on your own. What I need to know and what I need to do before forming an LLC? You need to know that LLC is a legal structure that is designed to provide legal protections. As such, it is prudent to talk to a legal adviser, i.e.: a Virginia-licensed attorney. Is it possible if I hire some employees who living in India? Is the salary for my employees a expense? Do I need to claim this expense? This, I guess, is entirely unrelated to your questions about LLC. Yes, it is possible. The salary you pay your employees is your expense. You need to claim it, otherwise you'd be inflating your earnings which in certain circumstances may constitute fraud. What I need to do to protect my company? For physical protection, you'd probably hire a security guard. If you're talking about legal protections, then again - talk to a lawyer. What can I do to reduce taxes? Vote for a politician that promises to reduce taxes. Most of them never deliver though. Otherwise you can do what everyone else is doing - tax planning. That is - plan ahead your expenses, time your invoices and utilize tax deferral programs etc. Talk to your tax adviser, who should be a EA or a CPA licensed in Virginia. What I need to know after forming an LLC? You'll need to learn what are the filing requirements in your State (annual reports, tax reports, business taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc). Most are the same for same proprietors and LLCs, so you probably will not be adding to much extra red-tape. Your attorney and tax adviser will help you with this, but you can also research yourself on the Virginia department of corporations/State department (whichever deals with LLCs)." }, { "docid": "501743", "title": "", "text": "\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Within a tight range, say 1-3%, inflation is somewhat benign. There's a nice inflation widget at The Inflation Calculator which helps me see that an item costing $1000 in 1975 would now (2010) be about $4000, and $1000 from 1984 till now, just over $2000. I chose those two years to make a point. First, I am 48, I graduated college in 1984, so in my working life I've seen the value of the dollar drop by half. On the other hand it only took 9 years from 75-84 to see a similar amount of inflation occur. I'd suggest that the 26 year period is far more acceptable than the 9. Savers should be aware of their real return vs what was a result of inflation. I'm not incensed either way but logically have to acknowledge the invisible tax of inflation. I get a (say) 6% return, pay 2% in tax, but I'm not ahead by 4%, 3% may be lost to inflation. On the flip side, my mortgage is 3.5%, after taxes that's 2.625%, but less than 0% after (long term) inflation. So as a debtor, I am benefiting by the effect of inflation on what I owe. Interesting also to hear about deflation as we've grown used to it in the case of electronics but little else. Perhaps the iPad won't drop in price, but every year it will gain features and competitors will keep the tablet market moving. Yet people still buy these items. Right now, there's not enough spending. I'd suggest that, good financial advice aside, people as a whole need to start spending to get the economy moving. The return of some inflation would be a barometer of that spending starting to occur.\"" }, { "docid": "388713", "title": "", "text": "As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part." }, { "docid": "265177", "title": "", "text": "\"In regards to purchasing full coverage on your car even if you can afford to replace it, consider the hassle you have to deal with an accident that is not just the cost. As an example, my sister's car was stolen and wrecked. It was her problem to go recover the car on the other side of the state such that she would not be paying the storage \"\"fees\"\" imposed by the sheriff of the other county. Had she had insurance they would have taken care of it call. Another story is that I rented a car and side swiped in the parking lot by a hit and run. I was responsible for the minor damage. I started down the path of paying out of pocket because it was small enough that I did not want to submit a claim. The rental car agency started to pile on extra fees such that it was worth it to turn in a claim. My insurance company was savvy enough to be able to dispute the extra charges. After I submitted it to the insurance company I basically did nothing. They took care of everything. So, in summary, when you buy full coverage on your car, it is not just a financial decision. It is also about not having to deal with a hassle.\"" }, { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "&gt; I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. &gt; Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. &gt; The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. &gt; A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. &gt; Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. &gt; Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "592654", "title": "", "text": "\"When I was in a similar situation (due to my stocks going up), I quit my job and decided that if I live somewhat frugally, I wouldn't have to work again (I haven't). But I fell victim to some scams, didn't invest wisely, and tried to play as a (minor) philantropist. Bad move. I still have enough money to live on, and want to buy a home of my own, but with the rise in real estate costs in ALL the \"\"good\"\" major cities my options are very limited. There is a LOT of good advice being given here; I wish someone had given me that kind of advice years ago. $1,200,000 sounds like a lot but it's not infinity. Side comment: I've seen lots of articles that claim to help you figure out how much money you need in retirement but why do they all start out by asking you \"\"how much money do you need in retirement?\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "190699", "title": "", "text": "\"DO NOT buy this car. First, I want to say I love BMW's. There's a reason why they call them \"\"ultimate driving machine\"\" and why other car manufacturers compare their new models to BMWs. I own 330i and I absolutely love it. Every time you get into the car, it just begs you to push and abuse it. Everything from steering response to throttle to engine sound. Awesome car. However... 1) BMW is not known for their reliability. I've had to do numerous things to this car and if I didn't do the work myself (i like tinkering with cars), it would be a pretty big money pit (and actually still is). German parts are more expensive then regular cars. Labor will run you if you take it for service. Right now my car is on jack stands while I'm fixing an oil leak, replacing cooling system components which are known to fail and doing work with the cam timing system which uses bad seals. 2) If you buy a used car which is 3 years old, just remember all the wearable items and everything that wants to break, will break 3 years sooner on you. Someone else already pre-enjoyed your car's maintenance-free days. At 60k-80k things will start to go. Ask me how I know. So you'll start paying for maintenance way before your 5-year loan expires. Compare this 330i to the Acura Integra I used to have. Acura (aka Honda) had 194k miles when I sold it and I NEVER ONCE got stranded with the Acura. 3) Fuel economy is not that good and btw you have to use the most expensive gas. 4) If you are really set on buying a BMW because you enjoy driving and won't drive like an old lady (my apologies to those old ladies that drive at least the speed limit, but you are not the majority), then still do not by this one and check out auctions. I bought my 2003 330i in 2005 for 21k when it cost over 40k new. You could probably find one with less than 20k miles on it. My final advice is either a) learn to at least do basic maintenance or b) stick to always buying new cars which don't have any issues in first 4-7 years, then move on before you have to schedule your life around your cars. on the bright side I doubt you'll have to ever replace the exhaust and you can buy tail lights on e-bay for roughly $60 :)\"" }, { "docid": "540232", "title": "", "text": "&gt;That's why the CEO pay is so enormous, because the board can make that decision and none of the common shareholders have enough power to override it. As with any business, when you own less than 50% you have a say but are at the mercy of all the other shareholders. That's kinda the way things work. Don't like it? Don't buy a piece of the company. Want majority ownership of Intel corporation? Buy up 2.5bn shares and take controlling ownership. I still don't get what you're bitching about - that minority shareholders should have a majority say? That's the way owning a piece of any company works; a corporation or an LLC. The same bullshit you're spewing off about is the same bullshit that people bitch about in a democracy; they want their voice to count for more. You're vote is worth in a company based on the portion you own." }, { "docid": "484761", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll chime in as someone who started a business after my first year in college. That business kept me going for a couple decades and allowed me to retire young. First thought - \"\"you don't just start a business\"\" with no idea what you're going to do. When you have a true passion, you'll know it. Once you discover something that you love to do, you will find that you dedicate your time to it and it won't feel like work. You'll spend countless hours on it becoming 'great' at it. It will be obvious that you should pursue it. If you don't feel like this, then you'll very likely give up when you need to double down. Or, if it's really a good business idea, you won't be competitive. Starting and running a business may be the hardest thing you'll ever do. When your friends are out partying, you'll be coding, or stocking shelves or writing ad copy or paying bills or cleaning toilets. When the business has a bad month, you'll forgo your income so you can pay your employees or other bills. But you'll love it and believe in what you're doing, so you'll keep going. It seems trite but so much will just come down to persistence and hard work. Over time, you'll become one of the best at what you do. But that will take years. Years before you'll likely make enough money to survive. So for most people, you'll have to get a conventional job to pay the bills. As you try to sell yourself or your product, you have to keep asking yourself \"\"would I spend my money on this?\"\" If you wouldn't, why would anyone else? Always remember that. The positive thing is, if you find your calling, you'll keep thinking \"\"I have the best job in the world!\"\" and it won't feel like work. It will just be what you do.\"" }, { "docid": "85622", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming you are talking about an LLC in the United States, there are no tax repercussions on the LLC itself, because LLCs use pass-through taxation in the U.S., meaning that the LLC does not pay taxes. Whatever you take out of the LLC in the form of distributions goes onto your personal income tax as ordinary income, and you pay personal income tax on it. See this link on the subject from the Nolo.com web site: Tax treatment of an LLC from the Nolo.com web site Repayment of your loan by the LLC would just be another business expense for the business itself. I guess the question would then turn on what your personal tax repercussion would be for payments received from the LLC on the loan. I would guess (and I emphasize \"\"guess\"\") that you would pay tax on any interest gain from the loan payments, which makes the assumption you made the loan to include interest. If not (in other words, if you made this an interest-free loan) then it would be considered a wash for tax purposes and you would have no tax liability for yourself. To reiterate, the LLC (if it is a U.S.. entity) does not pay taxes. Taxation of LLC income is based on whatever distributions the principals take out of it, which is then claimed as taxable personal income. My apologies to littleadv for not making my prior answer (I deleted it) more clear about my answer assuming you were speaking of a U.S.-chartered LLC. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "238500", "title": "", "text": "What is the best option to start with? and I am not sure about my goals right now but I do want to have a major retirement account without changing it for a long time That is a loaded question. Your goals should be set up first, else what is stopping you from playing the mega millions lottery to earn the retirement amount instantly. If you have the time and resources, you should try doing it yourself. It helps you learn and at a latter stage if you don't have the time to manage it yourself, you can find an adviser who does it for you. To find a good adviser or find a fund who/which can help you achieve your monetary goals you will need to understand the details, how it works and other stuff, behind it. When you are thrown terms at your face by somebody, you should be able to join the dots and get a picture for yourself. Many a rich men have lost their money to unscrupulous people i.e. Bernie Madoff. So knowing helps a lot and then you can ask questions or find for yourself to calm yourself i.e. ditch the fund or adviser, when you see red flags. It also makes you not to be too greedy, when somebody paints you a picture of great returns, because then your well oiled mind would start questioning the rationale behind such investments. Have a look at Warren Buffet. He is an investor and you can follow how he does his investing. It is simple but very difficult to follow. Investing through my bank I would prefer to stay away from them, because their main service is banking and not allowing people to trade. I would first compare the services provided by a bank to TD Ameritrade, or any firm providing trading services. The thing is, as you mentioned in the question, you have to go through a specific process of calling him to change your portfolio, which shouldn't be a condition. What might happen is, if he is getting some benefits out of the arrangement(get it clarified in the first place if you intend to go through them), from the side of the fund, he might try to dissuade you from doing so to protect his stream of income. And what if he is on a holiday or you cannot get hold of him. Secondly from your question, it seems you aren't that investing literate. So it is very easy to get you confused by jargon and making you do what he gets the maximum benefit out of it, rather than which benefits you more. I ain't saying he is doing so but that could be a possibility too, so you have consider that angle too. The pro is that setting up an account through them might be much easier than directly going to a provider. But the best point doing it yourself is, you will learn and there is nothing which tops that. You don't want somebody else managing your money, however knowledgeable they maybe i.e. Anthony Bolton." }, { "docid": "31462", "title": "", "text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "377152", "title": "", "text": "\"According to IRS Publication 1635, Understanding your EIN (PDF), under \"\"What is an EIN?\"\" on page 2: Caution: An EIN is for use in connection with your business activities only. Do not use your EIN in place of your social security number (SSN). As you say your EIN is for your business as a sole proprietor, I would also refer to Publication 334, Tax Guide for Small Business, under \"\"Identification Numbers\"\": Social security number (SSN). Generally, use your SSN as your taxpayer identification number. You must put this number on each of your individual income tax forms, such as Form 1040 and its schedules. Employer identification number (EIN). You must also have an EIN to use as a taxpayer identification number if you do either of the following. Pay wages to one or more employees. File pension or excise tax returns. If you must have an EIN, include it along with your SSN on your Schedule C or C-EZ as instructed. While I can't point to anything specifically about bank accounts, in general the guidance I see is that your SSN is used for your personal stuff, and you have an EIN for use in your business where needed. You may be able to open a bank account listing the EIN as the taxpayer identification number on the account. I don't believe there's a legal distinction between what makes something a \"\"business\"\" account or not, though a bank may have different account offerings for different purposes, and only offer some of them to entities rather than individuals. If you want to have a separate account for your business transactions, you may want them to open it in the name of your business and they may allow you to use your EIN on it. Whether you can do this for one of their \"\"personal\"\" account offerings would be up to the bank. I don't see any particular advantages to using your EIN on a bank account for an individual, though, and I could see it causing a bit of confusion with the bank if you're trying to do so in a way that isn't one of their \"\"normal\"\" account types for a business. As a sole proprietor, there really isn't any distinction between you and your business. Any interest income is taxable to you in the same way. But I don't think there's anything stopping you legally other than perhaps your particular bank's policy on such things. I would suggest contacting your bank (or trying several banks) to get more information on what account offerings they have available and what would best fit you and your business's needs.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "28974", "title": "", "text": "\"I agree with the rest of the answers -- you're probably better off just using it for some predictable flat-rate recurring monthly service like NetFlix, or making a charitable donation if you're into that sort of thing. But since that wasn't what you asked, I'll try to provide an answer: If you don't mind throwing away money, send money to yourself using PayPal. Here's how: Set up a PayPal Business Account, and use your personal PayPal account to send funds to it by setting up a PayPal subscription. PayPal says \"\"You can have one Consumer account and one Business account.\"\" A PayPal Payments Standard business account has no monthly fee -- only transaction fees. According to PayPal, \"\"in order to set up a repeating payment, [you] would need to create a Subscription or Recurring Payments button from the Merchant Services tab\"\" (in the Business Account). You would then click the link/button to set up the subscription from your personal PayPal account, to make it send money to your Business account on an automatic schedule. You can then, at your own leisure, send the money back to your personal account without paying a second transaction fee, then finally send it back to your bank account. Or, if your bank account is not yet tied to your personal account, you can tie it to the business account instead, and deposit the funds into your bank account. Unfortunately, this step can't be automated. Again, to reiterate, you're much better off just using it for something recurring.\"" }, { "docid": "152827", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally when you open a new account, you'd be given a checkbook (usually \"\"starter\"\" checks with no personal information, but some banks will later mail you a proper checkbook with your personal details) and a debit card (again, some banks will give you a \"\"starter\"\" one on the spot with a personalized following up in the mail, others will mail you). With the debit card you can use your bank's ATM to withdraw cash from your account, or use it for purchases (will debit, as the name says, directly from your account). You can also use it in other ATMs, but that will usually be with significant fees ($2-$5 per withdrawal to both the ATM owner and your bank). Checks - you can write a check to someone or use the check to go to the cashier in the bank and withdraw money (although usually they have special withdrawal slips for that in the branches, so you don't really need to waste your own checks). As to how to deposit money in your home country - you'll have to check with the bank you have an account at back at home. Usually, you can \"\"wire\"\" transfer money from your BoA account to the account back home, but that is usually comes at a fee of about $30-$50 per transfer (in the US, additional fees may be charged at the receiving end + currency conversion costs). You can also write yourself a check and deposit that check at the home country bank, but that depends on the specific bank whether it is possible, how much it would cost, and how long it would take for them to credit the money to your account after they take your check - may take weeks with personal checks.\"" }, { "docid": "374008", "title": "", "text": "Is it possible to open a GBP bank account in Pakistan ? Yes you can. Quite a few Banks offer Foreign currency accounts in GBP [or USD or EUR, JPY] Are there any risks in doing so ? Generally no. As per Protection of Economic Reforms Act (PERA) of 1992 and foreign currency accounts (protection) ordinance 2001 the funds are protected and you can move them back out of Pakistan any time. However if you are looking at investing into property and then selling it after few years, there maybe difficulties in such transactions and consult a tax advisor familiar with such cases. All money is legit with bank statements of my pay which is between 35K and 40K per year, am I going to have any trouble at airport as limit is £7K only Carrying cash of this amount is generally not advisable. It is best to do a Bank to Bank transfer. You can visit one of the Pakistan Bank that has branch in UK [say Standard Chartered, Citi, HSBC, etc]. They should be able to open account with transfer of funds. There is no limitation on carrying foreign exchange in cash when you enter Pakistan. However when you are travelling out of Pakistan you can only carry USD 10,000 or eq. per person." }, { "docid": "170481", "title": "", "text": "Good credit is calculated (by many lenders) by taking your FICO score which is calculated based upon what is in your credit report. Building credit generally means building up your FICO score. Your FICO score is impacted my many factors, one small one of which is your utilization ratio of your installment loans like student loans. This is the ratio of the current balance to your original balance. To improve your score (slightly) you would want a lower ratio. I would recommend paying your student loan down to 75% ratio as fast as you can and then you can go back to $50/month. A much better way to improve your FICO score is to have revolving credit. Your student loans are not revolving, they are installment loans. Therefore, you should open at least one credit card (assuming you currently have none) right away. The longer you have had a credit card open, the better your FICO score gets. Your revolving credit utilization ratio is way more important than your installment loan ratio. Therefore, to maximize your FICO, try to never have more than 10% utilization on your revolving credit report to the credit bureaus each month. Only the current month's ratio affects your score at any given moment. You can ensure you don't go above 10% by paying your balance before the statement cuts each month to get it below 10% way before any payment would be due. (You should always pay your remaining credit card statement balance in full each month by the due date after the statement cuts to avoid any interest charges.) Note that there is a slight FICO advantage to having at least one major bank credit card instead of just only credit union credit cards. Also, never let all your revolving credit report a zero balance in a month, you must always have at least $1 reporting to the credit bureaus on at least one of your open credit cards or your FICO score will take a big negative hit. If you cannot get a normal credit card, go to a credit union and find one that offers secured credit cards, or a bank that does. A secured credit card is where you place a deposit with the bank that they hold and give you a credit limit to match your security. Ideally it would be a card that graduates to unsecured after your demonstrate good history with them. For example, the Navy Federal Credit Union secured card unsecures for many people. I also believe the Wells Fargo Bank credit card (you can join if there is a family member who served or a roomate who did) also will unsecure. The reason you want it to unsecure and not be forced to open a new account to get an unsecured account is that you want your average age and oldest age of open revolving credit accounts to be as high as possible as this is another impact on your FICO score. Credit unions that anyone can join include, Digital Federal Credit Union, the Pentagon Federal Credit Union (which offers a secured card that does not graduate), and The State Department Federal Credit Union (also offers secured card that I think does not graduate). One other method to boost your FICO score is to get added as an authorized user on one of your parent's credit cards that has been open a long time. Not all lenders will report such an authorized user, however, ones that are known to do so are: Bank of America, Citi Bank, and Capital One. It is a good sign that it will report if they ask for the social security number of the authorized user. However, note that the Authorized User addition can have no impact if the lender is using one of the newer versions of the FICO scoring model, only the older versions reward you for the age of accounts for which you are an authorized user. A very long term boost is to open your first American Express card underwritten directly by Amex such as their Zync card which is pretty easy to get. The advantage of American express is that they remember the date your first credit card was opened with them and if you open new accounts in the future they will back date the date of their opening to match the date your first card was opened. If you let your membership lapse, be sure to record the account number and date opened in your personal files so that you can help them locate it again if you reopen as they can have trouble if it has been on the order of ten years or more. Finally, note that the number of accounts opened in the last twelve months is a small negative mark on your score (along with number of inquiries), so if you open a lot of accounts all at once, in addition to bringing down your average age of accounts, you will also get dinged for how many were opened in the last year." }, { "docid": "175749", "title": "", "text": "Supposedly people's birth certificates and SSNs are routing numbers and account numbers for federal reserve banks. Apparently this has been a thing since 1933 when Roosevelt did something. Anyway the story goes there is an entity called Strawman and it's a bank account with your name on it and it's been accruing monies since the day you were issued a birth certificate and SSN. Idr much sorry for being vague on the details" }, { "docid": "377357", "title": "", "text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"" }, { "docid": "344928", "title": "", "text": "\"Wyoming is a good state for this. It is inexpensive and annual compliance is minimal. Although Delaware has the best advertising campaign, so people know about it, the reality is that there are over 50 states/jurisdictions in the United States with their own competitive incorporation laws to attract investment (as well as their own legislative bodies that change those laws), so you just have to read the laws to find a state that is favorable for you. What I mean is that whatever Delaware does to get in the news about its easy business laws, has been mimicked and done even better by other states by this point in time. And regarding Delaware's Chancery Court, all other states in the union can also lean on Delaware case law, so this perk is not unique to Delaware. Wyoming is cheaper than Delaware for nominal presence in the United States, requires less information then Delaware, and is also tax free. A \"\"registered agent\"\" can get you set up and you can find one to help you with the address dilemma. This should only cost $99 - $200 over the state fees. An LLC does not need to have an address in the United States, but many registered agents will let you use their address, just ask. Many kinds of businesses still require a bank account for domestic and global trade. Many don't require any financial intermediary any more to receive payments. But if you do need this, then opening a bank account in the United States will be more difficult. Again, the registered agent or lawyer can get a Tax Identification Number for you from the IRS, and this will be necessary to open a US bank account. But it is more likely that you will need an employee or nominee director in the United States to go in person to a bank and open an account. This person needs to be mentioned in the Operating Agreement or other official form on the incorporation documents. They will simply walk into a bank with your articles of incorporation and operating agreement showing that they are authorized to act on behalf of the entity and open a bank account. They then resign, and this is a private document between the LLC and the employee. But you will be able to receive and accept payments and access the global financial system now. A lot of multinational entities set up subsidiaries in a number of countries this way.\"" }, { "docid": "537593", "title": "", "text": "Yes, it's a good idea to have a separate business account for your business because it makes accounting and bookkeeping that much easier. You can open a business checking account and there will be various options for types of accounts and fees. You may or may not want an overdraft account, for example, or a separate business credit card just so you can more easily separate those expenses from your personal cards. When I started my business, I opened a business checking account and met with my banker every year just to show them how the business was doing and to keep the relationship going. Eventually, when I wanted to establish a business line of credit, it was easier to set up because I they were already familiar with my business, its revenue, and needs for a line of credit. You can set up a solo 401k with your bank, too, and they'll be very happy to do so, but I recommend shopping around for options. I've found that the dedicated investment firms (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) tend to have better options, fees, and features for investment accounts. Just because a specific bank handles your checking account doesn't mean you need to use that bank for everything. Lastly, I use completely different banks for my personal life and for my business. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I just don't want all my finances in the same place for both privacy reasons and to avoid having all my eggs in the same basket. Just something to consider -- I don't really have a completely sane reason for using completely different banks, but it helps me sleep." }, { "docid": "135896", "title": "", "text": "\"What was the true reason they wanted to use my accounts for? We wouldn't know the true reason. The scammer can do multiple things. What exactly he would do in your case ... I am very eager to know what a person was up to who would give to me so much information about themselves. I know some of you will jump on the chance to yell \"\"it was not their true address\"\", but.... it is where they wanted me to send the cards to. And I was to give proof of my identification ie; a copy of my drivers license, my articles of incorporation and the real estate development project prospectus. Also they were only willing to work with certain banks ie; Citibank, Bank of America etc. I can not understand what they were doing wanting such access to accounts that had no money in them save the amount I used to open them with. It looks more like they would open accounts under your name, but they would be controlling the accounts. i.e. what goes in and out. i.e. they would be able to deposit and withdraw from a new account they set-up. They would want to use this account for illegal activities, so that if caught, the account opening paper trail leads to you. Even if they gave you an address, it could be rental. Like they have copies of your Company registration and ID proofs, they can use these to get another rental property ... and then send letters to some and ask them to met there.\"" }, { "docid": "121560", "title": "", "text": "The best thing for you to do will be to start using the Cash Flow report instead of the Income and Expense report. Go to Reports -> Income and Expense -> Cash Flow Once the report is open, open the edit window and open the Accounts tab. There, choose your various cash accounts (checking, saving, etc.). In the General tab, choose the reporting period. (And then save the report settings so you don't need to go hunting for your cash accounts each time.) GnuCash will display for you all the inflows and outflows of money, which appears to be what you really want. Though GnuCash doesn't present the Cash Flow in a way that matches United States accounting rules (with sections for operating, investing, and financial cash flows separated), it is certainly fine for your personal use. If you want the total payment to show up as one line on the Cash Flow report, you will need to book the accrual of interest and the payment to the mortgage bank as two separate entries. Normal entry for mortgage payments (which shows up as a line for mortgage and a line for interest on your Cash Flow): Pair of entries to make full mortgage payment show up as one line on Cash Flow: Entry #1: Interest accrual Entry #2: Full mortgage payment (Tested in GnuCash 2.6.1)" }, { "docid": "473957", "title": "", "text": "Savings accounts have lower fees. If you don't anticipate doing many transactions per month, e.g. three or fewer withdrawals, then I would suggest a savings account rather than a checking account. A joint account that requires both account holder signatures to make withdrawals will probably require both account holders' signature endorsements, in order to make deposits. For example, if you are issued a tax refund by the U.S. Treasury, or any check that is payable to both parties, you will only be able to deposit that check in a joint account that has both persons as signatories. There can be complications due to multi-party account ownership if cashing versus depositing a joint check and account tax ID number. When you open the account, you will need to specify what your wishes are, regarding whether both parties or either party can make deposits and withdrawals. Also, at least one party will need to be present, with appropriate identification (probably tax ID or Social Security number), when opening the account. If the account has three or more owners, you might be required to open a business or commercial account, rather than a consumer account. This would be due to the extra expense of administering an account with more than two signatories. After the questioner specified interest North Carolina in the comments, I found that the North Carolina general banking statutes have specific rules for joint accounts: Any two or more persons may establish a deposit account... The deposit account and any balance shall be as joint tenants... Unless the persons establishing the account have agreed with the bank that withdrawals require more than one signature, payment by the bank to, or on the order of (either person on) the account satisfys the bank's obligation I looked for different banks in North Carolina. I found joint account terms similar to this in PDF file format, everywhere, Joint Account: If an item is drawn so that it is unclear whether one payee’s endorsement or two is required, only one endorsement will be required and the Bank shall not be liable for any loss incurred by the maker as a result of there being only one endorsement. also Joint accounts are owned by you individually or jointly with others. All of the funds in a joint account may be used to repay the debts of any co-owner, whether they are owed individually, by a co-owner, jointly with other co-owners, or jointly with other persons or entities having no interest in your account. You will need to tell the bank specifically what permissions you want for your joint account, as it is between you and your bank, in North Carolina." }, { "docid": "394276", "title": "", "text": "I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account. This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage. The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything. From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution." }, { "docid": "234510", "title": "", "text": "\"TL;DR: Get a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for tax issues, and a lawyer for the Operating Agreement, labor law and contract related issues. Some things are not suitable for DIY unless you know exactly what you're doing. We both do freelance work currently just through our personal names. What kind of taxes are we looking into paying into the business (besides setup of everything) compared to being a self proprietor? (I'm seeing that the general answer is no, as long as income is <200k, but not certain). Unless you decide to have your LLC taxed as a corporation, there's no change in taxes. LLC, by default, is a pass-through entity and all income will flow to your respective tax returns. From tax perspective, the LLC will be treated as a partnership. It will file form 1065 to report its income, and allocate the income to the members/partners on schedules K-1 which will be given to you. You'll use the numbers on the K-1 to transfer income allocated to you to your tax returns and pay taxes on that. Being out of state, will she incur more taxes from the money being now filtered through the business? Your employee couldn't care less about your tax problems. She will continue receiving the same salary whether you are a sole proprietor or a LLC, or Corporatoin. What kind of forms are we looking into needing/providing when switching to a LLC from freelance work? Normally we just get 1099's, what would that be now? Your contract counterparts couldn't care less about your tax problems. Unless you are a corporation, people who pay you more than $600 a year must file a 1099. Since you'll be a partnership, you'll need to provide the partnership EIN instead of your own SSN, but that's the only difference. Are LLC's required to pay taxes 4 times per year? We would definitely get an accountant for things, but being as this is side work, there will be times where we choose to not take on clients, which could cause multiple months of no income. Obviously we would save for when we need to pay taxes, but is there a magic number that says \"\"you must now pay four times per year\"\". Unless you choose to tax your LLC as a corporation, LLC will pay no taxes. You will need to make sure you have enough withholding to cover for the additional income, or pay the quarterly estimates. The magic number is $1000. If your withholding+estimates is $1000 less than what your tax liability is, you'll be penalized, unless the total withholding+estimates is more than 100% of your prior year tax liability (or 110%, depending on the amounts). The LLC would be 50% 50%, but that work would not always be that. We will be taking on smaller project through the company, so there will be times where one of us could potentially be making more money. Are we setting ourselves up for disaster if one is payed more than the other while still having equal ownership? Partnerships can be very flexible, and equity split doesn't have to be the same as income, loss or assets split. But, you'll need to have a lawyer draft your operational agreement which will define all these splits and who gets how much in what case. Make sure to cover as much as possible in that agreement in order to avoid problems later.\"" }, { "docid": "584391", "title": "", "text": "\"Practically, as an ebay buyer I have never seen any way to keep a balance in paypal and top it off from my bank account under my own control. It is all automated, and as I seem to recall linking with a bank account or credit card was necessary to get some kind of \"\"confirmed address\"\" status out of Paypal so that eBay sellers would be more willing to trust me as a buyer and know that my shipping address was legitimate. As a seller, I can keep a balance at paypal from eBay sales and ask for it back in my checking account instead of keeping it in paypal to purchase items later. In terms of advice, in my opinion the paypal transfer limits or how to set them is not the answer needed to protect one's finances in this situation. In an error or cyberattack scenario, you have to consider the possibility that any limits are exceeded. When your online activity of any kind is linked to a bank account, any amount in that linked bank account is probably at risk. It doesn't really matter if it is paypal, or a server rental account, or amazon. If it can be abused, and it is linked to your bank account, then someone might abuse it and leave you with a bill. That you might be ultimately victorious is of little consequence if someone steals money you really needed right now and the devotion of time and energy to \"\"work the bureaucracy\"\" to get your money back will distract from performance at work or school. So the next step up in protection is to firewall the bank account you use for online purchases from your other bank accounts where your salary is received. The best way to do it is with different banks instead of merely different accounts, but that is also the most inconvenient for filling the account back up. Nowadays -- at least in the USA -- at several banks you can open a \"\"free\"\" checking account for a minimum deposit like $500 or $1000 that must stay in the account to be fee free at the end of each month. Whatever balance you keep in the account you use for your \"\"risky\"\" online transactions will be the maximum that can disappear in an incident, downside being you have to feed the account from time to time to keep it above the minimum as you make purchases.\"" }, { "docid": "244185", "title": "", "text": "Being into Business since years and having clients worldwide I receive a lot of payments via wire transfers. Some in business and some in personal checking accounts. I have never been charged by my bank for any incoming wire. And by the way I bank with HSBC and BoA in the US. Actually the charges on the account depends on the type of account you are opening/holding with the bank. With a tight competition in the finance and banking industry you can always demand the bank for the services you want and the pricing you want. The best thing to do is ask your bank if they can wave those incoming wire charges for you and if not you have a whole bunch of options." }, { "docid": "417455", "title": "", "text": "Many European countires allow you to an account for non-residents. You have to appear in the bank personally to open it, some of them even to get your own tax number for non-residents from the local government. I'm not sure if you get a Visa (Electron) chip card immediatelly or you have to wait for like 3 months before being issued one. I've heard that getting a tax number for non-residents and opening a bank account is easily done in one day in Brezice, Republic of Slovenia. They seem to have agile local bureaucracy and banks, since many pople from neighbouring (non-EU) countries (used to) come there to open an EU bank account. Funds can be transfered via Internet banking - US banks have that, do they? SWIFT and IBAN codes are used for international money transfer. But it takes some time (days!) for it to arrive to destination. Tansfers below $20000 per month or per transaction are considered normal, but for amouts above that the destination bank might ask you to explain the purpose, to prove it is not illegal. Some of them accept the explanaiton in writing (they forward it to the regulator that tracks such large transfers), some of them ask you to appear there in person for an interview and to sign a statement. Can't believe US banks are still issuing paing magnet stripe cards like it's still 1980s. I'd expect Europe to be 10 years behind USA in technology, but this seems to be a weird reverse. I've beed using Internet banking with one-time passwd tokens and TAN lists for almost 10 years, and chip cards exclusivley for over 5y. Can't remeber the last time I've seen mag stripe card only. American Express (event the regular green one) got the chip at least 5 years ago. And it is accepted regularly in Europe. Alegedly it's more popular in Europe (although Mastercard is a definite #1, with Visa close to that) that in USA." }, { "docid": "395782", "title": "", "text": "They will not open an account if you come in wanting to open an account for a third party. Your sister will have to do it herself. Assuming she has a SSN and credit history to verify her identity, she'll easily be able to do it online, and use whatever address she wants to send mail to (she can have separate mailing and residence addresses). There are also Israeli institutions who provide investment accounts to Israelis with ability to trade in the US. That might be easier for her than having an account in the US and filing tax returns in Israel every year. Unless she evades taxes in Israel, that is..." }, { "docid": "28758", "title": "", "text": "I would say when starting with Gnucash to start with the level of granularity you are comfortable with while sticking to the double entry bookkeeping practices. So going through each one: Refund for Parking Pass. Assuming you treat the Parking Pass as a sunk cost, i.e. an Expense account, its just a negative entry in the Expense account which turns into a positive one in your Bank account. Yes it may look weird, and if you don't like it you can always 'pay from Equity' the prior month, or your Bank Account if you're backfilling old statements. Selling physical items. If you sold it on eBay and the value is high enough you'll get tax forms indicating you've earned x. Even if its small or not done via eBay, treat it the same way and create a 'Personal Items/Goods' Income account to track all of it. So the money you get in your Bank account would have come from there. Found jacket money would be an Equity entry, either Opening Balances into Cash or Bank account. Remember you are treating Equity / Opening Balances as the state before you started recording every transaction so both the value going into Assets (Banks,Stock,Mutual Funds) and Liabilities (Mortgage, Student Debt, Credit Card Debt) originate from there." }, { "docid": "529796", "title": "", "text": "\"If you deposit the money in your account, it will count against the gift tax exclusion for you, not your daughter. As such, you should open a bank account for your daughter. Assuming she already has a social security number, this will not be complicated. Otherwise, apply for one, as mhoran notes before the end of the year. The kind of account you should open depends on the purpose of the money, but likely it should be opened as a Uniform Gift to Minors Act, or Uniform Transfer to Minors Act, account. This means it is your daughter's account (not yours), but you designate one or more custodians who are the ones who can actually make withdrawals. Any money in this account must be spent in your daughter's interest, but it's not required to be spent with her approval (even as an older child) nor on a specific thing (it's not just college money, like a 529 account is). Before you do so, you should consider how to set up custodianship. Some parents simply make themselves custodians; some ask another relative to be custodian or joint custodian, or even someone like a godparent or close trusted friend. Having a joint custodian is helpful if you feel like it may be challenging to not dip into the account if you had financial difficulties (as both custodians must sign off on withdrawals). Finally, you should consider whether you want this to be a simple bank account, or whether you might want to consider something like Vanguard or Fidelity investment account. If it's likely to contain over $10,000 or whatever the reduced/no fee limit is at the investment firm you choose, it may well be worth your while to do this as you can earn significant returns fairly safely, assuming the money is intended for longer term use (for college or other later-in-life uses). Note that for tax purposes, this gift will count for 2016 taxes regardless of when you actually set up the account, as you have \"\"constructively received\"\" the gift when the check was given to you. So there's no rush to work this out before the end of the year; you can still deposit it next year. However, your daughter needs a SSN to be able to be claimed as a dependent on your taxes, so that at least needs doing before the end of the year.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "117145", "title": "", "text": "\"If you want your bank to pay $1 to a beneficiary Bob, then the service (no matter how implemented) needs to result in Bob's bank saying to Bob \"\"Hey, I owe you $1\"\". The usual way how this is done consists of two parts - your bank needs to somehow tell Bob's bank \"\"hey guys, do us a favor and please give Bob $1 with a message from the sender\"\", and your bank needs to convince the other bank that they'll pay for (cover) that. This is the main source for the delays in international payments - there are thousands of banks, and most of possible pairs have no legal contact between themselves whatsoever, no bilateral agreements, no trust and no reasonable enforcement mechanism for small claims. If I'm Bob's bank, then a random bank from anywhere from Switzerland to Nigeria can send me an instruction \"\"give Bob $1, we'll make it up for you\"\", the SWIFT network is a common way of doing this. However, most likely I'm going to give Bob the money only after I receive the funds somehow, which means that they have given the money to some institution I work with. For payments within a single country, it often is a centralized exchange or a central bank, and the payment speed is then determined by the details of that particular single payment network - e.g. UK Faster Payments or the various systems used in USA. For international payments, it may require a chain of multiple intermediaries (correspondent banks) - for example, a payment of $1mm from Kazakhstan to China will likely involve the Kazakhstan bank asking their main correspondent in USA (some major bank such as Chase JPMorgan) to give the money to the relevant chinese bank's correspondent in USA (say, Citi) to then give the money to that chinese bank to then give the money to the actual recipient. Each of those steps can happen because those entities have bilateral agreements, trust and accounts with each other; and each of those steps generally takes time and verification. If you want all payments to happen instantly, then you need all institutions to join a single binding payment system. It's not as easy as it sounds, as it is a nightmare of jurisdiction - for example, if you'd want me (as Bob's bank) to credit Bob instantly, then the system needs to provide solid guarantees that I would get paid even if (a) the payer institution changes its mind, made a mistake or intentional fraud; (b) the payer institution goes insolvent; (c) the system provider gets insolvent. Providing such guarantees is expensive, they need to be backed by multi-billion capital, and they're unrealistic to enforce across jurisdictions (e.g. would an Iranian bank get recourse if some funds got blocked because of USA sanctions). The biggest such project as far as I know is SEPA, across most of Europe. Visa and MasterCard networks perform the same function - a merchant gets paid by the CC network even if the payer can't pay his CC bill or the paying bank goes insolvent.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "530060", "title": "", "text": "Banks and credit card companies are taxing everyone. Why is it that people go ape shit over government taxes that actually (at least sometimes) provide services when the banks tax us and keep all the money? How much money is two percent of almost every transaction?" }, { "docid": "266711", "title": "", "text": "Egpay India Private Ltd. Represents One Sim All Recharge Egpay India now come with a big surprise in small package that has lead foundation to new IT services. One SIM all recharge provides a single point mobile recharge facility with an ease of single touch that offering distributors and retailers with prepaid recharge and postpaid bill payment services for mobile, All DTH and Datacard of all leading providers across India. One SIM all recharge mark the beginning of efficient relationship between providers and end-user. With this productive and easy-to-use technology, there is high degree of transparency, monitoring, management and instant dealings in real time. We provide forefront services to facilitates: • Prepaid and postpaid recharge for all major network companies • DTH recharge services • Datacard recharge services for all prima operators Key advantages of single SIM recharge service : • Available for Master Distributors/ Distributors/ Retailers &amp; new entrepreneurs: It gives control mechanism to view all transactions hierarchy. One SIM All recharge helps to retailers in daily operations’ to manage effectively without a significant level of monitoring. • No need of special training: It is every easy to operate and use without any guidance, since every process is automatically managed by the software. • Instant recharge and multiple recharge options: One SIM All recharge facility provide immediate recharge without facing any kind of delay and multiple recharge options on any mobile of all service provider after a single login authentication. • Highly commission sharing system: This service provide different commission structure for each Retailer/Distributor on daily basis." }, { "docid": "1897", "title": "", "text": "Wire transfers normally run through either the Fedwire system or the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). The process generally works like this: You approach a bank or other financial institution and ask to transfer money. You give the bank a certain code, either an international bank account number or one of several other standards, which informs the bank where to send the money. The bank sends a message through a system like Fedwire to the receiving bank, along with settlement instructions. This is where the process can get a bit tricky. For the wire transfer to work, the banks must have reciprocal accounts with each other, or the sending bank must send the money to a bank that does have such an account with the receiver. If the sending bank sends the money to a third-party bank, the transaction is settled between them, and the money is then sent to the receiving bank from the third-party bank. This last transaction may be a wire transfer, ACH transfer, etc. The Federal Reserve fits into this because many banks hold accounts for this purpose with the Federal Reserve. This allows them to use the Fed as the third-party bank referred to above. Interestingly enough, this is one of the significant ways in which the Fed makes a profit, because it, along with every other bank and routing agent in the process, collects a miniscule fee on this process. You'll often find sources that state that Fedwire is only for transferring large transactions; while this is technically correct, it's important to understand that financial institutions don't settle every wire transfer or payment immediately. Although the orders are put in immediately, the financial institutions settle their transactions in bulk at the end of the business day, and even then they normally only settle the difference. So, if Chase owes Bank of America $1M, and Bank of America owes Chase $750K, they don't send these as two transactions; Chase simply credits BAC $250K. You didn't specifically ask about ACH transfers, which as littleadv pointed out, are different from wire transfers, but since ACH transfers can often form a part of the whole process, I'll explain that process too. ACH is a payment processing system that works through the Federal Reserve system, among others. The Federal Reserve (through the Fedline and FedACH systems) is by far the largest payment processor. The physical cash itself isn't transferred; in simple terms, the money is transferred through the ACH system between the accounts each bank maintains at the Federal Reserve. Here is a simple example of how the process works (I'm summarizing the example from Wikipedia). Let's say that Bob has an account with Chase and wants to get his paycheck from his employer, Stack Exchange, directly deposited into this account. Assume that Stack Exchange uses Bank of America as their bank. Bob, the receiver, fills out a direct deposit authorization form and gives it to his employer, called the originator. Once the originator has the authorization, they create an entry with an Originating Depository Financial Institution, which acts as a middleman between a payment processor (like the Federal Reserve) and the originator. The ODFI ensures that the transaction complies with the relevant regulations. In this example, Bank of America is the ODFI. Bank of America (the ODFI) converts the transaction request into an ACH entry and submits it, through an ACH operator, to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI), which in this case is Chase bank. Chase credits (deposits) the paycheck in Bob's account. The Federal Reserve fits into all of this in several ways. Through systems like Fedline and FedACH, the Fed acts as an ACH operator, and the banks themselves also maintain accounts at the Federal Reserve, so it's the institution that actually performs the settling of accounts between banks." }, { "docid": "479659", "title": "", "text": "\"To begin with, bear in mind that over the time horizon you are talking about, the practical impact of inflation will be quite limited. Inflation for 2017 is forecast at 2.7%, and since you are talking about a bit less than all of 2017, and on average you'll be withdrawing your money halfway through, the overall impact will be <1.3% of your savings. You should consider whether the effort and risk involved in an alternative is worth a few hundred pounds. If you still want to beat inflation, the best suggestion I have is to look at peer-to-peer lending. That comes with some risk, but I think over the course of 1 year, it's quite limited. For example, Zopa is currently offering 3.1% on their \"\"Access\"\" product, and RateSetter are offering 2.9% on the \"\"Everyday\"\" product. Both of these are advertised as instant access, albeit with some caveats. These aren't FSCS-guaranteed bank deposits, and they do come with some risk. Firstly, although both RateSetter and Zopa have a significant level of provision against bad debt, it's always possible that this won't be enough and you'll lose some of your money. I think this is quite unlikely over a one-year time horizon, as there's no sign of trouble yet. Secondly, there's \"\"liquidity\"\" risk. Although the products are advertised as instant access, they are actually backed by longer-duration loans made to people who want to borrow money. For you to be able to cash out, someone else has to be there ready to take your place. Again, this is very likely to be possible in practice, but there's no absolute guarantee.\"" }, { "docid": "131774", "title": "", "text": "The lifetime limit would be very peculiar. The question for the IRS is, whether this is a gift of some sorts, which is why they become interested at some point. In the US, you as the giftor would have to pay the taxes. The bank might inquire too, due to money laundering issues. The bank will anyhow report transactions above a certain size to the IRS. As long as you are sending money to yourself, you should be fine, as this is clearly not a gift. If you send it to 3rd person, then this is either for a service, in this case you need a bill or is a gift, in which case you require to pay gift taxes." }, { "docid": "176897", "title": "", "text": "It's that craving followed by instant regret. Then the 'never again' followed by a 'why not' a few months to a year later. I did a box of Cap'n Crunch Berries about 3 years ago and haven't touched those again since that episode. I'm waiting for that moment to happen with the Whopper." }, { "docid": "277964", "title": "", "text": "Like email and spam, fighting creditcard fraud is a cat and mouse game, with technology and processes constantly being developed to reduce fraud. The CVV on the back of the card is just one more layer of security. Requiring the CVV generally requires you to physically have access to the card. CVV should not be stored by any merchant. This frustrates card skimming fraud as the CVV is not present in the track data and fraud caused by database compromises. You should never use your PIN online. MC/VISA both have implementations of 3D-Secure (SecureCode for MC and Verified by VISA) which require a password / code to confirm card ownership. Depends on both Issuer and Merchant implementing the standard. Regarding not needing a PIN at the airport, some low value transactions no longer need PINs, depending on the Issuer and Scheme (VISA/MC). MasterCard PayPass or VISA PayWave enable low value contactless transactions without PIN. In Australia, the maximum value for a contactless transactions is $100 AUD. At some merchants (McDonalds for example) a PIN is not required for for meals purchased with VISA (at least, for the cheeseburger I bought there as a test). This makes sense - if you don't need a PIN for a contactless purchase, why do you need it for a chip based purchase? So - why allow PIN free transactions? On average customers report stolen credit cards / wallet very quickly and the losses are correspondingly small. As card issuers are always online, cards can be cancelled very quickly after being reported lost / stolen. Finally, by performing transactions for just a few cents or pennies, the merchant (Spotify) can likely validate you are the owner of the card as you'd need access to your online bank to confirm the transactions. PayPal do this with bank account to confirm ownership. (Unless I've misunderstood your statement)." }, { "docid": "313158", "title": "", "text": "\"There will be no police involved. The police do not care. Only the feds care, and they only care about large amounts (over $100,000). What will happen is that the teller will deposit the money like nothing is unusual, but the amount will trigger a \"\"Suspicious Transaction Report\"\" to be filed by the bank. This information goes to the US Treasury and is then circulated by the Treasury to basically every agency in the government: the Department of Defense, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the DEA, the IRS, etc. What happens next depends on your relationship with your bank and the personality of the bank. In my case I have made large cash transactions at two different banks, one that I had a long relationship with, and another that I had a long-standing but dormant account. The long-term one was a high end savings bank in a city. The dormant one was one of those bozo retail banks (think \"\"Citizens\"\" or \"\"Bank of America\"\") in a suburb. The long-term bank ignored my first deposit, but after I made some more including one over $50,000 in cash they summoned me via a letter. I went in, talked to the branch manager and explained why I was making the deposits. He said \"\"That sounds plausible.\"\" and that was the end of the interview. It is unlikely that they transferred the information. They probably just wrote it down. They did this because they have \"\"know your customer\"\" regulations and they wanted to be able to prove that they did \"\"due diligence\"\" in case anybody asked about it later. The suburban bank never asked any questions, but they did file the STRs. In general, there is no way to know if the bank will interview you or not. It depends on a lot of different factors. The basic factors are: how much money is it, are you doing a lot of business normally, and how well does the bank know you. If you refuse to answer the bank's questions to their satisfaction, it is a 100% chance that they will close your account. They can also file higher level reports that flag your activity as \"\"highly suspicious\"\" as opposed to just the normal \"\"suspicious\"\". As long as it is a bank employee, you should have no serious concerns unless the guy seems strange and asks really pointed questions. If you have any question whether the \"\"employee\"\" is legitimate, just verify that he/she is a bank employee. Obviously if the feds visit you, you should say nothing. The chance of this happening is 1 in a million.\"" }, { "docid": "85252", "title": "", "text": "\"In this answer, I won't elaborate on the possibilities of fraud (or pure human error), because something can always go wrong. I will, however, explain why I think you should always keep receipts. When the (monthly or so) time comes to pay your credit card bill, your credit card company sends you a list of transactions. That list has two primary purposes, both of which I would consider equally important: While for the former item, a receipt is not necessary (though it certainly does not hurt showing the receipt along with the bill to provide further proof that the payment was indeed connected to that bill), the latter point does require you to store the receipts so you can check, item-by-item, whether each of the sums is correct (and matched with a receipt at all). So, unless you can actually memorize all the credit card transactions you did throughout the past one or two months, the receipts are the most convenient way of keeping that information until the bill arrives. Yes, your credit card company probably has some safeguards in place to reveal fraud, which might kick in in time (the criteria are mostly heuristical, it seems, with credit cards or legitimate transactions here getting blocked every now and then simply because some travelling of the actual owner was misinterpreted as theft). However, it is your money, it is your responsibility to discover any issues with the bill, just as you would check the monthly transaction list from your bank account line by line. Ultimately, that is why you sign the vendor copy of the receipt when buying something offline; if you discover an issue in your list of transactions, you have to notify your credit card company that you dispute one of the charges, and then the charging vendor has to show that they have your signature for the respective transaction. So, to summarize: Do keep your receipts, use them to check the list of transactions before paying your credit card bill. EDIT: The receipt often cannot be replaced with the bill from the vendor. The bill is useful for seeing how the sum charged by the respective vendor was created, but in turn, such bills often do not contain any payment information, or (when payment was concluded before the bill was printed, as sometimes happens in pre-paid scenarios such as hotel booking) nondescript remarks such as \"\"- PAYMENT RECEIVED -\"\", without any further indication of which one of your credit cards, debit cards, bank accounts, stored value cards, or cash was used.\"" }, { "docid": "317900", "title": "", "text": "Your list seems fairly complete. Try tracking a few months of actual expenses. You could do this with an Excel Spreadsheet. Personally, I pay for most things electronically and/or with a credit card (which I pay off in full every month). I use Mint.com to catalogue my transactions and get an instant snapshot of where I've been spending my money." }, { "docid": "580935", "title": "", "text": "Online banks are the future. As long as you don't need a clerk to talk to (and why would you need?) there's nothing you can't do with an online bank that you can with a brick and mortar robbers. I use E*Trade trading account as a checking account (it allows writing paper checks, debit card transactions, ACH in/out, free ATM, etc). If you don't need paper checks that often you can use ING or something similar. You can always go to a local credit union, but those will wave the fee in exchange for direct deposit or high balance, and that you can also get from the large banks as well, so no much difference there. Oh where where did Washington Mutual go...." }, { "docid": "373271", "title": "", "text": "Generally in a SWIFT transaction, there are 4 Banks involved [at times 2 or 3 or at times even 6]. The 4 Banks are Sender [Originator of Payment]; Sender's correspondent, Receiver's Correspondent, Receiver [Or beneficiary Bank] All these 4 Banks charge for making a transfer. In SHA; the charges of Sender and Senders correspondent are levied to Customer [who initiates the payment] and the Receivers Correspondent and Receiver charges are to beneficiary. In OUR all the charges of 4 Banks are to the Customer and in BEN all the charges of 4 Banks are to the Beneficiary. Or am I wrong to assume that transaction costs would be covered by that 15USD and in reality the 15USD are on top of transaction costs? As explained above it is incorrect assumption. In this case, the charges will be more. So best is go with SHA. This gives a better view of charges. On a EUR to USD transactions, there would typically be only 3 Banks in the chain. And depending on the Bank, it could also be just 2 Banks involved." }, { "docid": "283889", "title": "", "text": "\"From my days in e-commerce they break down like this? The company doesn't know a debit from a credit card. Got the Visa logo, then it is a Visa through the company's payment gateway. The gateway talks to the bank and that is where the particulars for money is figured out. When I programmed gateway interfaces, I had the option to \"\"authorize\"\" or check for funds (which didn't reserve anything, just verified funds existed), run for batch (which put a hold on the funds and collected them at the end of the night) or just take the money. Most places did a verify during the early checkout stages and then did a batch at the end of the night. The nightly batch allows a merchant to cancel a transaction without getting charged a fee. The \"\"authorize\"\" doesn't mean the money is tied up, although that might be your banks policy. Furthermore, an authorize can only last for so many days. This also explains why most of your banks don't report your transactions to you the day of. There is a bunch more activity on your card than the transactions that complete.\"" }, { "docid": "195526", "title": "", "text": "\"The bank will make this even more confusing because they use the terms from their own perspective. From the bank's perspective (printed on your statements) credit: Money into your account (increases the bank's liabilities) debit: Money out of your account (decrease bank liabilities) From your perspective: It depends on the nature of the transfer of money, but here are the most common for a personal account. Income into your account: Credit Expenses out of your account: Debit Payment on a loan made for an asset (house/car): Credit for the loan account, debit for the equity account for the car/house/etc. Yes, it's complicated. Neither credits nor debits are always a + or -. That's why I agree with the advice of the others here that double-entry accounting is overkill for your personal finances. Note: I simplified the above examples for the purpose of clarity. Technically every transaction in double entry accounting includes both a credit and a debit (hence the \"\"double\"\" in the name). In fact, sometimes a transaction involves more than one credit or debit, but always at least one of each. Also, this is for EACH party. So any transaction between you and your bank involves at least FOUR debits and/or credits when all involved are considered.\"" }, { "docid": "3373", "title": "", "text": "\"For most banks this is not the case. Transfers within the bank are usually instantaneous. It is not uncommon for banks to draw out the length of transactions because while the money is \"\"transferring\"\" or \"\"settling\"\" it is actually sitting on the bank's balance sheet, being lent out but not earning any interest. A good deal for them when you aggregate over the millions of customers they have. Your bank may be trying to squeeze a few pennies of interest out of you. Delays in transactions also allow their fraud team the flexibility to investigate transactions if they want to. Normally they probably don't but if the bank delays all transactions, then those being investigated will not be aware of it.\"" }, { "docid": "264934", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no \"\"reason why this cannot be done\"\", but you can tell your friend that these actions are officially shady in the eyes of the US government. Any bank transactions with a value of $10,000 or more are automatically reported to the government as a way to prevent money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal shenanigans. \"\"Structuring\"\" bank deposits to avoid this monetary limit is a crime in and of itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report\"" }, { "docid": "341473", "title": "", "text": "Not clear what you're asking. Are you trying to figure out their SIC/NAISC classification? That tells you the business category they fall into, but there's no simple, instant way to find that out. Much also depends on how the credit card issuer has classified them and how they arrived at that information. They may have a different means of classifying merchants, so you might try to call your bank and ask them, if they're able/willing to tell you. That'll give you a starting point to figure it out, anyway." }, { "docid": "317651", "title": "", "text": "When setting these up for my own bill payment, I was surprised, after the fact, to see that a couple I thought would be a mailed check were actually instant transfers, and for others, vice versa. On line banking typically asks you for the due date and they handle from there. If you need this detail before the payment, I'd ask the bank. Else, it's easy to see after the fact for a given payee." }, { "docid": "463449", "title": "", "text": "\"Like a lot of businesses, they win on the averages, which means lucrative customers subsidize the money-losers. This is par for the course. It's the health club model. The people who show up everyday are subsidized by the people who never show but are too guilty to cancel. When I sent 2 DVDs a day to Netflix, they lost their shirt on me, and made it up on the customers who don't. In those \"\"free to play\"\" MMOs, actually 95-99% of the players never pay and are carried by the 1-5% who spend significantly. In business thinking, the overall marketing cost of acquiring a new customer is pretty big - $50 to $500. On the other side of the credit card swiper, they pay $600 bounty for new merchant customers - there are salesmen who live on converting 2-3 merchants a month. That's because as a rule, customers tend to lock-in. That's why dot-coms lose millions for years giving you a free service. Eventually they figure out a revenue model, and you stay with it despite the new ads, because changing is inconvenient. When you want to do a banking transaction, they must provide the means to do that. Normal banks have the staggering cost of a huge network of branch offices where you can walk in and hand a check to a teller. The whole point of an ATM is to reduce the cost of that. Chase has 3 staffed locations in my zipcode and 6 ATMs. Schwab has 3 locations in my greater metro, which contains over 400 zipcodes. If you're in a one-horse town like French Lick, Bandera or Detroit, no Schwab for miles. So for Schwab, a $3 ATM fee isn't expensive, it's cheap - compared to the cost of serving you any other way. There may also be behind-the-scenes agreements where the bank that charged you $3 refunds some of it to Schwab after they refund you. It doesn't really cost $3 to do a foreign ATM transaction. Most debit cards have a Visa or Mastercard logo. Many places will let you run it as an ATM card with a PIN entry. However everyone who takes Visa/MC must take it as a credit card using a signature. In that case, the merchant pays 2-10% depending on several factors.** Of this, about 1.4% goes to the issuing bank. This is meant to cover the bank's risk of credit card defaults. But drawing from a bank account where they can decline if the money isn't there, that risk is low so it's mostly gravy. You may find Schwab is doing OK on that alone. Also, don't use debit cards at any but the most trusted shops -- unless you fully understand how, in fraud situations, credit cards and debit cards compare -- and are comfortable with the increased risks. ** there are literally dozens of micro-fees depending on their volume, swipe vs chip, ATM vs credit, rewards cards, fixed vs online vs mobile, etc. (Home Depot does OK, the food vendor at the Renaissance Faire gets slaughtered). This kind of horsepuckey is why small-vendor services like Square are becoming hugely popular; they flat-rate everything at around 2.7%. Yay!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "591809", "title": "", "text": "It is a rather complex system, but here is a rough summary. Interbank tranfers ultimately require a transfer of reserves at the central bank. As a concrete example, the bank of england system is the rtgs. Only the clearing banks and similar (e.g. bacs) have access to rtgs. You can send a chaps payment fairly quickly, but that costs. Chaps immediately triggers an rtgs transfer once the sending bank agrees and so you can be certain that the money is being paid. Hence its use for large amounts. Bacs also sits on the rtgs but to keep costs down it batches tranfers up. Because we are talking about bank reserve movements, checks have to be in place and that can take time. Furthermore the potential for fraud is higher than chaps since these are aggregrated transactions a layer removed, so a delay reduces the chance of payment failing after apparently being sent. Faster payments is a new product by bacs that speeds up the bacs process by doing a number of transfers per day. Hence the two hour clearing. For safety it can only be used for up to 10k. Second tier banks will hold accounts with clearing banks so they are another step down. Foreign currency transfers require the foreign Central Bank reserve somewhere, and so must be mediated by at least one clearing bank in that country. Different countries are at different stages in their technology. Uk clearing is 2h standard now but US is a little behind I believe. Much of Europe is speeding up. Rather like bitcoin clearing, you have a choice between speed and safety. If you wait you are more certain the transaction is sound and have more time to bust the transfer." } ]

[ { "docid": "295328", "title": "", "text": "\"To answer your question, specific to ATM usage: It is your money. You can do with it as you wish, as long what you are doing with it is legal. There is nothing illegal about taking money out of an ATM every day of the week. That said, there are some issues. One you already mention being the typical daily limit of $300. Another, is that these days most ATMs charge you for the transaction and many banks will also charge you for the transaction. (That assumes that you are not using an ATM owned by your bank.) These fees add up quite quickly. Using the very typical $1.50/transaction (or $3/transaction total), you could make 8 transactions before the typical $25 wiring fee is more appropriate. You should also not ignore the \"\"cost\"\" of the inconvenience of having to make so many transactions. There is also the potential, however remote, that your bank may see it as suspicious activity and lead to the headaches you are trying to avoid by not wiring the money. If you don't have a checking account with that bank into which you could just transfer the money, online, by phone or whatever, I would simply jump through the required hoops. Keep in mind that these hurdles are intended to protect your money.\"" }, { "docid": "450371", "title": "", "text": "When you swipe your credit card, the terminal at the store makes a request of your bank, and your bank has only a few seconds to accept or reject the transaction. Once the transaction is accepted by your bank, it appears in the Pending transactions. At the end of the business day, the store submits all of the final transactions for the day to their bank in a batch, and the banks all trade transactions in a batch, and money is sent between banks. This is the process that takes a couple of days, and after this happens, you see the transaction move from your Pending transactions into the regular transactions area. Most of the time, the pending transaction and the final transaction are the same. However, there are cases where it is different. A couple of examples: With a credit account, the fact that the final amount is not known for a few days is no big deal: after all, you don't have any money in the account, and if you end up spending more than you have, the bank will happily let you take your time coming up with the money (at a steep cost, of course). With a debit card tied to your checking account, the transaction is handled the same way, as far is the store is concerned. However, your bank is not going to run the risk of you overdrawing your checking account. They also are not going to run the risk of you withdrawing money from your account that is needed to cover pending transactions. So they usually treat these pending transactions as final transactions, deducting the pending transaction from your account balance immediately. When the final transaction comes through, they adjust the transaction, and your balance goes up or down accordingly. This is one of the big drawbacks to using a debit card, in my opinion. If a bad pending transaction comes through, you are out this money until it gets straightened out." }, { "docid": "142153", "title": "", "text": "\"Unfortunately too many companies view a Mail in rebate as an unwelcome cost instead of as a customer interaction issue, and it gives the company a bad reputation when someone gets stiffed on the mail in rebate, and it also has basically ruined the concept to a large degree. Many people will simply regard the rebate as worthless and evaluate the product based on the full price - killing what the company wanted to get out of it (Rich Seller hit the nail on the head), which is why you see \"\"instant rebates\"\" etc.\"" }, { "docid": "9814", "title": "", "text": "\"Ever wonder why certain businesses won't accept certain credit cards? (The sign above the register saying \"\"Sorry, we don't accept AmericanExpress\"\"). It's because they don't want to pay that credit card company's transaction fees. One of the roles of the credit card company is to facilitate the transaction process between the customer (you) and the store. And now that using credit cards over cash or check is so ingrained in our culture, it creates extra work for the customer to make purchases at an establishment that is cash-only. Credit card companies know this, and so do businesses. So businesses will partner with credit card companies so that customers can use their cards. This way, everything is handled electronically (this can also benefit the business, since there's added security as they're not dealing with cash directly, and they don't have to manually count as much cash later). However a business may only budget a certain amount of their profits they want taken by credit card transactions. So if a company's fees are too high (say AmericanExpress, for example) and they are banking on you already having a Visa card, the company isn't going to go out of its way to provide the AmericanExpress option for you. If it were free for the business to use a credit card company's service at their stores, then they would all just provide the option for every card! So the credit card company making money is all contingent on you spending your money by using their credit card. You use the card, and the store pays the company for the transaction.\"" }, { "docid": "230961", "title": "", "text": "Linking the card is primarily to give you (and Paypal) a fall-back option for funding your spending if your bank account doesn't have sufficient funds to process the charge. If the bank account has sufficient funds, it will work fine in many cases without a credit card. If you have both linked (bank and a credit card), Paypal will transfer funds immediately, as Paypal knows it has an option for getting the funds if the bank has insufficient funds. However, if you have no credit card linked or remove your only card: If you remove your only card and have a confirmed bank account, you’ll no longer be able to make instant bank payments. Instead they’ll be sent as eChecks, which take 3 to 4 working days to process. This may not matter in many cases, but it may delay things some. There may also be services who require immediate payment (and won't support PayPal if it's not immediate). There may also be some functional limitations. The one I see is primarily that some services that are geo-location-specific, Spotify for one example, use the credit card to verify that you are in a particular location (in Spotify's case, for licensing purposes). They don't seem to accept Paypal unless it's linked to a credit or debit card (even if it's verified via a bank account). I'm not sure if this is common with other services, but it's something to consider." }, { "docid": "131774", "title": "", "text": "The lifetime limit would be very peculiar. The question for the IRS is, whether this is a gift of some sorts, which is why they become interested at some point. In the US, you as the giftor would have to pay the taxes. The bank might inquire too, due to money laundering issues. The bank will anyhow report transactions above a certain size to the IRS. As long as you are sending money to yourself, you should be fine, as this is clearly not a gift. If you send it to 3rd person, then this is either for a service, in this case you need a bill or is a gift, in which case you require to pay gift taxes." }, { "docid": "428290", "title": "", "text": "\"When processing credit/debit cards there is a choice made by the company on how they want to go about doing it. The options are Authorization/Capture and Sale. For online transactions that require the delivery of goods, companies are supposed to start by initially Authorizing the transaction. This signals your bank to mark the funds but it does not actually transfer them. Once the company is actually shipping the goods, they will send a Capture command that tells the bank to go ahead and transfer the funds. There can be a time delay between the two actions. 3 days is fairly common, but longer can certainly be seen. It normally takes a week for a gas station local to me to clear their transactions. The second one, a Sale is normally used for online transactions in which a service is immediately delivered or a Point of Sale transaction (buying something in person at a store). This action wraps up both an Authorization and Capture into a single step. Now, not all systems have the same requirements. It is actually fairly common for people who play online games to \"\"accidentally\"\" authorize funds to be transferred from their bank. Processing those refunds can be fairly expensive. However, if the company simply performs an Authorization and never issues a capture then it's as if the transaction never occurred and the costs involved to the company are much smaller (close to zero) I'd suspect they have a high degree of parents claiming their kids were never authorized to perform transactions or that fraud was involved. If this is the case then it would be in the company's interest to authorize the transaction, apply the credits to your account then wait a few days before actually capturing the funds from the bank. Depending upon the amount of time for the wait your bank might have silently rolled back the authorization. When it came time for the company to capture, then they'd just reissue it as a sale. I hope that makes sense. The point is, this is actually fairly common. Not just for games but for a whole host of areas in which fraud might exist (like getting gas).\"" }, { "docid": "463449", "title": "", "text": "\"Like a lot of businesses, they win on the averages, which means lucrative customers subsidize the money-losers. This is par for the course. It's the health club model. The people who show up everyday are subsidized by the people who never show but are too guilty to cancel. When I sent 2 DVDs a day to Netflix, they lost their shirt on me, and made it up on the customers who don't. In those \"\"free to play\"\" MMOs, actually 95-99% of the players never pay and are carried by the 1-5% who spend significantly. In business thinking, the overall marketing cost of acquiring a new customer is pretty big - $50 to $500. On the other side of the credit card swiper, they pay $600 bounty for new merchant customers - there are salesmen who live on converting 2-3 merchants a month. That's because as a rule, customers tend to lock-in. That's why dot-coms lose millions for years giving you a free service. Eventually they figure out a revenue model, and you stay with it despite the new ads, because changing is inconvenient. When you want to do a banking transaction, they must provide the means to do that. Normal banks have the staggering cost of a huge network of branch offices where you can walk in and hand a check to a teller. The whole point of an ATM is to reduce the cost of that. Chase has 3 staffed locations in my zipcode and 6 ATMs. Schwab has 3 locations in my greater metro, which contains over 400 zipcodes. If you're in a one-horse town like French Lick, Bandera or Detroit, no Schwab for miles. So for Schwab, a $3 ATM fee isn't expensive, it's cheap - compared to the cost of serving you any other way. There may also be behind-the-scenes agreements where the bank that charged you $3 refunds some of it to Schwab after they refund you. It doesn't really cost $3 to do a foreign ATM transaction. Most debit cards have a Visa or Mastercard logo. Many places will let you run it as an ATM card with a PIN entry. However everyone who takes Visa/MC must take it as a credit card using a signature. In that case, the merchant pays 2-10% depending on several factors.** Of this, about 1.4% goes to the issuing bank. This is meant to cover the bank's risk of credit card defaults. But drawing from a bank account where they can decline if the money isn't there, that risk is low so it's mostly gravy. You may find Schwab is doing OK on that alone. Also, don't use debit cards at any but the most trusted shops -- unless you fully understand how, in fraud situations, credit cards and debit cards compare -- and are comfortable with the increased risks. ** there are literally dozens of micro-fees depending on their volume, swipe vs chip, ATM vs credit, rewards cards, fixed vs online vs mobile, etc. (Home Depot does OK, the food vendor at the Renaissance Faire gets slaughtered). This kind of horsepuckey is why small-vendor services like Square are becoming hugely popular; they flat-rate everything at around 2.7%. Yay!\"" }, { "docid": "200248", "title": "", "text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\"" }, { "docid": "540285", "title": "", "text": "My bank (USAA) moves money to and from a USAA brokerage account instantly. They also have instant transfers from their money market funds to checking, savings, and brokerage. It takes the 3 days to go to another institution, though." }, { "docid": "386745", "title": "", "text": "Why do these fees exist? From a Banks point of view, they are operating in Currency A; Currency B is a commodity [similar to Oil, Grains, Goods, etc]. So they will only buy if they can sell it at a margin. Currency Conversion have inherent risks, on small amount, the Bank generally does not hedge these risks as it is expensive; but balances the position end of day or if the exposure becomes large. The rate they may get then may be different and the margin covers it. Hence on highly traded currency pairs; the spread is less. Are there back-end processes and requirements that require financial institutions to pass off the loss to consumers as a fee? The processes are to ensure bank does not make loss. is it just to make money on the convenience of international transactions? Banks do make money on such transactions; however they also take some risks. The Forex market is not single market, but is a collective hybrid market place. There are costs a bank incurs to carry and square off positions and some of it is reflected in fees. If you see some of the remittance corridors, banks have optimized a remittance service; say USD to INR, there is a huge flow often in small amounts. The remittance service aggregates such amounts to make it a large amount to get a better deal for themselves and passes on the benefits to individuals. Such volume of scale is not available for other pairs / corridors." }, { "docid": "406974", "title": "", "text": "\"TLDR: Why can't banks give me my money? We don't have your money. Who has my money? About half a dozen different people all over the world. And we need to coordinate with them and their banks to get you your money. I love how everyone seems to think that the securities industry has super powers. Believe me, even with T+3, you won't believe how many trades fail to settle properly. Yes, your trade is pretty simple. But Cash Equity trades in general can be very complicated (for the layman). Your sell order will have been pushed onto an algorithmic platform, aggregated with other sell order, and crossed with internal buy orders. The surplus would then be split out by the algo to try and get the best price based on \"\"orders\"\" on the market. Finally the \"\"fills\"\" are used in settlement, which could potentially have been filled in multiple trades against multiple counterparties. In order to guarantee that the money can be in your account, we need 3 days. Also remember, we aren't JUST looking at your transaction. Each bank is looking to square off all the different trades between all their counter parties over a single day. Thousands of transactions/fills may have to be processed just for a single name. Finally because, there a many many transactions that do not settle automatically, our settlements team needs to co-ordinate with the other bank to make sure that you get your money. Bear in mind, banks being banks, we are working with systems that are older than I am. *And all of the above is the \"\"simplest\"\" case, I haven't even factored in Dark Pools/Block trades, auctions, pre/post-market trading sessions, Foreign Exchange, Derivatives, KYC/AML.\"" }, { "docid": "389356", "title": "", "text": "Structuring, as noted in another answer, involves breaking up cash transactions to avoid the required reporting limits. There are a couple of important things to note. And, the biggest caveat - there have been many cases of perfectly legitimate transactions that have fallen foul of the reporting requirements. One case springs to mind of a small business that routinely deposited the previous day's receipts as cash, and due to the size of the business, those deposits typically fell in the $9,000-$9,500 range. This business ended up going through a lot of headaches and barely survived. Some don't. A single batch of transactions, if it is only 2 or 3 parts and they are separated by reasonable intervals, is not likely in and of itself to be suspicious. However, any set of such transactions does run the risk of being flagged. In your case, you also run afoul of the Know Your Customer rules, because it's not even you depositing the cash - it's your friend. (Why can your friend not simply write you a check? What is your friend doing with $5k of cash at a time? How do you know he's not generating illegal income and using you to launder it for him?) Were I your bank, you can be very certain I'd be reporting these transactions. Just from this description, this seems questionable to me. IRS seizes millions from law-abiding businesses" }, { "docid": "538527", "title": "", "text": "I had Amazon Prime for 3 years. And I just stopped it at its renewal at the end of the month. I don't own a Kindle or a Fire Phone or a Fire TV and I feel like all their services are getting geared to the people that do. Android support for instant video? Nope! Chromecast Support for instant video? Nope! They want you to buy their devices in order to take advantage of their features and I think that sucks. Nothing against kindles or Fire Products I'm sure they work great. I just don't have one or know anyone who does... So why make me buy one in order to use something I'm paying for. That an also the increase from $80 to $100 finally did it for me. I'm not going to lie I'm gonna miss the free 2 day shipping but I guess I'll just have to have order over $35 to place orders from now on." }, { "docid": "130726", "title": "", "text": "\"No one is going to explain why \"\"faster and faster trades ..... help business itself\"\", because faster trades don't help business. With HFT the stock market signals are completely divorced from business reality. The stock market is manipulated so that Primary Dealer banks can siphon off fortunes in tiny margins on billions of transactions\"" }, { "docid": "268078", "title": "", "text": "\"Because this question seems like it will stick around, I will flesh out my comments into an actual answer. I apologize if this does not answer your question as-asked, but I believe these are the real issues at stake. For the actual questions you have asked, I have paraphrased and bolded below: Firstly, don't do a real estate transaction without talking to a lawyer at some stage [note: a real estate broker is not a lawyer]. Secondly, as with all transactions with family, get everything in writing. Feelings get hurt when someone mis-remembers a deal and wants the terms to change in the future. Being cold and calculated now, by detailing all money in and out, will save you from losing a brother in the future. \"\"Should my brother give me money as a down payment, and I finance the remainder with the bank?\"\" If the bank is not aware that this is what is happening, this is fraud. Calling something a 'gift' when really it's a payment for part ownership of 'your' house is fraud. There does not seem to be any debate here (though I am not a lawyer). If the bank is aware that this is what is happening, then you might be able to do this. However, it is unlikely that the bank will allow you to take out a mortgage on a house which you will not fully own. By given your brother a share in the future value in the house, the bank might not be able to foreclose on the whole house without fighting the brother on it. Therefore they would want him on the mortgage. The fact that he can't get another mortgage means (a) The banks may be unwilling to allow him to be involved at all, and (b) it becomes even more critical to not commit fraud! You are effectively tricking the bank into thinking that you have the money for a down payment, and also that your brother is not involved! Now, to the actual question at hand - which I answer only for use on other transactions that do not meet the pitfalls listed above: This is an incredibly difficult question - What happens to your relationship with your brother when the value of the house goes down, and he wants to sell, but you want to stay living there? What about when the market changes and one of you feels that you're getting a raw deal? You don't know where the housing market will go. As an investment that's maybe acceptable (because risk forms some of the basis of returns). But with you getting to live there and with him taking only the risk, that risk is maybe unfairly on him. He may not think so today while he's optimistic, but what about tomorrow if the market crashes? Whatever the terms of the agreement are, get them in writing, and preferably get them looked at by a lawyer. Consider all scenarios, like what if one of you wants to sell, does the other have the right to delay, or buy you out. Or what if one if you wants to buy the other out? etc etc etc. There are too many clauses to enumerate here, which is why you need to get a lawyer.\"" }, { "docid": "266711", "title": "", "text": "Egpay India Private Ltd. Represents One Sim All Recharge Egpay India now come with a big surprise in small package that has lead foundation to new IT services. One SIM all recharge provides a single point mobile recharge facility with an ease of single touch that offering distributors and retailers with prepaid recharge and postpaid bill payment services for mobile, All DTH and Datacard of all leading providers across India. One SIM all recharge mark the beginning of efficient relationship between providers and end-user. With this productive and easy-to-use technology, there is high degree of transparency, monitoring, management and instant dealings in real time. We provide forefront services to facilitates: • Prepaid and postpaid recharge for all major network companies • DTH recharge services • Datacard recharge services for all prima operators Key advantages of single SIM recharge service : • Available for Master Distributors/ Distributors/ Retailers &amp; new entrepreneurs: It gives control mechanism to view all transactions hierarchy. One SIM All recharge helps to retailers in daily operations’ to manage effectively without a significant level of monitoring. • No need of special training: It is every easy to operate and use without any guidance, since every process is automatically managed by the software. • Instant recharge and multiple recharge options: One SIM All recharge facility provide immediate recharge without facing any kind of delay and multiple recharge options on any mobile of all service provider after a single login authentication. • Highly commission sharing system: This service provide different commission structure for each Retailer/Distributor on daily basis." }, { "docid": "519291", "title": "", "text": "Yes, but it must be remembered that these conditions only last for instants, and that's why only HFTs can take advantage of this. During 2/28/14's selloff from the invasion of Ukraine, many times, there were moments where there was overwhelming liquidity on the bid relative to the ask, but the price continued to drop." }, { "docid": "441010", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm no accounting expert, but I've never heard of anyone using a separate account to track outstanding checks. Instead, the software I use (GnuCash) uses a \"\"reconciled\"\" flag on each transaction. This has 3 states: n: new transaction (the bank doesn't know about it yet), c: cleared transaction (the bank deducted the money), and y: reconciled transaction (the transaction has appeared on a bank statement). The account status line includes a Cleared balance (which should be how much is in your bank account right now), a Reconciled balance (which is how much your last bank statement said you had), and a Present balance (which is how much you'll have after your outstanding checks clear). I believe most accounting packages have a similar feature.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "556661", "title": "", "text": "\"Network Marketing (also called multi-level marketing) isn't necessarily a skill that you learn in a course. It's a type of business model that's used by companies like Avon, Southern Living, Mary Kay, etc. It's also used in many scams (called pyramid schemes, but the aforementioned companies are using the pyramid structure, too). A lot. See here for a high-level explanation (pay attention to the pyramid scheme bit): http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/network-marketing If you want to get into a Network Marketing venture, join a reputable company and start doing it. They will provide you with all of the training you need. Your \"\"manager\"\" will make money based on how well you do. If you can in turn recruit other individuals to start selling, then you make money off their sales, and you \"\"manager\"\" makes money off their sales. Hence the pyramid label. Reputable companies charge very little to join, you set your own schedule, and don't have any hard quotas to live up to. Do your research! If they make you a promise that sounds too good to be true, it is.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "78053", "title": "", "text": "\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\"" }, { "docid": "140640", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.scmp.com/tech/enterprises/article/2113581/chinas-chance-lead-global-innovation-may-lie-5g-mobile-technology) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; China is on the cusp of recasting itself as a leading technology innovator from a mere follower in the telecommunications industry, as efforts to develop a global 5G mobile standard near the final stage. &gt; &amp;quot;While China has the world&amp;#039;s largest mobile market by subscriber and network size, other countries have dominated mobile technology innovation,&amp;quot; said Jefferies equity analyst Edison Lee. &gt; The international authorities overseeing the creation of a unified standard for 5G mobile technologies are expected to release its initial phase next year and the final phase in 2019, paving the way for a broad roll-out of 5G services by mobile network operators from 2020. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73qa1f/5g_may_be_chinas_chance_to_lead_global_tech/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~220391 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **China**^#1 **technology**^#2 **mobile**^#3 **standard**^#4 **network**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "281572", "title": "", "text": "That is where I think Walmart comes in to buy up a business like this. With their network of stores and the insane buying power they have the can push a good solid quality that the middle class American wants and do it very cheaply. I feel this will be their main combat against Amazon buying whole foods. Currently Walmart makes more on grocery sales than anything else as a hole and will continue to do so because of what and how they are doing it. Walmart is sneaky as fuck when it comes to what they can do and how they can do it. Even Walmart buying up Advanced Auto Parts is a solid counter move to Amazon buying Whole Foods...the next step is buying a Blue Apron type business... and with how Blue Apron is doing financially and given their name they are entering buy off territory. In my humble albeit non pro status in the stock market my 3 buys are Snap Chat, GoPro, and Walmart for long term retire and never have to worry about money again companies. I am by no means an expert but I have never come close to losing money in the stock market and do a good amount of research before I invest. Snapchat is my top 1 tbh. Sorry for going on a tangent lol" }, { "docid": "571371", "title": "", "text": "Eh that's what I thought. Makes sense given how much mail they probably receive and how busy they are. Just looking for new ways to network with people at that level, considering I knew emails were filtered. Someone high up at an investment bank I know said he gets a lot of emails that get unread/deleted, but he opens all his own mail so it's a good way to get someone's attention. Wasn't sure if it was applicable at this level, guess not. That's quite a bit of walls to get through to reach someone haha. What would you recommend to reach these types for business networking?" }, { "docid": "558218", "title": "", "text": "\"To expand on keshlam's answer: A direct feed does not involve a website of any kind. Each exchange publishes its order/trade feed(s) onto a packet network where subscribers have machines listening and reacting. Let's call the moment when a trade occurs inside an exchange's matching engine \"\"T0\"\". An exchange then publishes the specifics of that trade as above, and the moment when that information is first available to subscribers is T1. In some cases, T1 - T0 is a few microseconds; in other (notorious) cases, it can be as much as 100 milliseconds (100,000x longer). Because it's expensive for a subscriber to run a machine on each exchange's network -- and also because it requires a team of engineers devoted to understanding each exchange's individual publication protocols -- it seems unlikely that Google pays for direct access. Instead Google most likely pays another company who is a subscriber on each exchange around the world (let's say Reuters) to forward their incoming information to Google. Reuters then charges Google and other customers according to how fast the customer wants the forwarded information. Reuters has to parse the info it gets at T1, check it for errors, and translate it into a format that Google (and other customers) can understand. Let's say they finish all that work and put their new packets on the internet at time T2. Then the slow crawl across the internet begins. Some 5-100 milliseconds later your website of choice gets its pre-processed data at time T3. Even though it's preprocessed, your favorite website has to unpack the data, store it in some sort of database, and push it onto their website at time T4. A sophisticated website might then force a refresh of your browser at time T4 to show you the new information. But this forced refresh involves yet another slow crawl across the internet from where your website is based to your home computer, competing with your neighbor's 24/7 Netflix stream, etc. Then your browser (with its 83 plugins and banner ads everywhere) has to refresh, and you finally see the update at T5. So, a thousand factors come into play, but even assuming that Google is doing the most expensive and labor-intensive thing it can and that all the networks between you and Google and the exchange are as short as they can be, you're not going to hear about a trade -- even a massive, market-moving trade -- for anywhere from 500 milliseconds to 5 seconds after T0. And in a more realistic world that time will be 10-30 seconds. This is what Google calls \"\"Realtime\"\" on that disclaimer page, because they feel they're getting that info to you as fast as they possibly can (for free). Meanwhile, the computers that actually subscribe to an exchange heard about the trade way back at time T1 and acted on that information in a few microseconds. That's almost certainly before T2 and definitely way way before T3. The market for a particular instrument could change direction 5 times before Google even shows the first trade. So if you want true realtime access, you must subscribe to the exchange feed or, as keshlam suggests, sign up with a broker that provides its own optimized market feeds to you. (Note: This is not an endorsement of trading through brokers.)\"" }, { "docid": "298089", "title": "", "text": "I started a group last year called The Creative Coalition of Southern Illinois, our aim is to help artists network and collaborate with other artists. We also provide classes and set up local events. Something like that would be of interest to me as my group is still quite unorganized and would love to learn how to organize things better. I'm also interested in setting up systems/networks to help artists find jobs. I'm open to many different types of art start ups, I love art and would enjoy being involved in most projects. What do you know of?" }, { "docid": "7981", "title": "", "text": "\"Hey, I hear ya on this situation. I also graduated from a good school (Finance/Comp Sci) with a mediocre GPA and had difficulty securing a full time position in finance. My best advice is to network the shit out of alumni you can connect to through LinkedIn or your schools alumni network homepage. People are MUCH more open to talking than you would typically think. Like your friends said, getting into IBD as an analyst is ideal as it gives you a great line on your resume, shows you worked hard, and has amazing training. Now comes the really shitty part of this conversation, if you've already graduated college, it's next to impossible to get into a bulge bracket as an analyst. Your best bet in this case would be to try to get into a mid-cap or boutique IB and work your way from there. Again though, networking means 100x more than anything else. Now the good news, investment research is very different from investment banking. Yes, equity research is within an investment bank (sell-side and buy-side), but it is very different from investment banking (see Chinese Walls). It's easier to make the transition into research without formal recruiting than it is to get into IB directly. Couple things to keep in mind, KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELL-SIDE AN BUY-SIDE. I'm not talking about just one buys stuff the other tries to get you to buy it. I'm talking about conflicts of interest on the sell-side, personalities, types of research, what your role entails, org structure, etc. SELL-SIDE IS EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THAN BUY-SIDE!! Buy-side is MUCH less flexible than sell-side in recruiting, also. Do you currently own stocks, trade, track stocks all day long, etc.? If the answer is no to any of those, buy-side is really really hard. They want people who live and breath investing, markets, news, companies, because that's what they do. Also, training is effectively non-existent on the buy-side due to the size of the shops (some can have $10b with 10 people including admins). Now lets talk sell-side. This is where I'd recommend you put your resources if you're really passionate about it. They tend to hire people without experience more often into entry-level jobs (b/c most are larger investment banks that use research to promote underwriting/investment business). Also, you need to have a pitch, but not as extensive as on the buy-side (those 1-2 pagers I talked about). The best advice I can offer is to hop on a Bloomberg/TR/CapIQ terminal if you can and just start finding email addresses of sell-side analysts (they publish them in their reports), and start writing the analysts directly expressing your interest in the business and your desire to talk with them. Be frank about where you are in your career, but show a true passion for research, and that you are \"\"hungry.\"\" Attach your resume and keep the email short, a few sentences with maybe some bullets about how you could help that company. Spend the time to personalize it to that person. Follow up with a phone call in 1-2 weeks. They will appreciate the candidness and you'll find them to be very receptive. Even if these analysts don't have a job available right there, if they like you, they will pass you on to someone who might. This is how networking works, that guy might not have a job, but someone is always hiring, and its a tight knit community. The other option is to work for any finance firm in some role for 3-5 years then go back to get an MBA. With an MBA from a top school you can basically transition into anything. PM me if you ever want to talk over IM. I'd be happy to chat.\"" }, { "docid": "126660", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Instead they focused on bottom line, cut training, and pissed off the community by abusing employees and being rude and useless to anyone walking in the door. &gt; 1. OH NO, they do NOT cut training, not by a long shot. People seem to think they (past employee) are the 'worst tech-selling company', they aren't, they're a decent electronic store. We are trained on sales and basic product knowledge. Except when as a cashier / customer support guy, I was trained oven installation. Twice actually because they needed it again. We get more training than we know what to do with (not really but most of it is bs so we don't care) and you can just click through the fuckers, and with common sense, pass tests. I build pc's and have maintained multiple business networks in my home-town, but couldn't work GS even after I passes all necessary training, because I couldn't sell as ons well enough. Like really, 100% I just couldn't (even though I left top of my dept.) 2. We sell, and we try to sell hard. People see it as annoying and pushy, same here. 3. We will not go down or byebye for a long time, because we did what Radio shack is doing wrong, cell phones. Best Buy mobile is insanly popular / profitable, and a whole lot of people love it. We shut down 100+ stores last year... we opened up 3 times the number of specialty mobile stores in the US / CA... A lot of those old stores were never profitable, almost every one of the new ones really is. People just like to think BB is screwed, no, it's actually not. It has a market that doesn't really exist on reddit, the regular guy that wants some shit and someone to maybe fix his shit when his shit doesn't work. He doesn't need the best shit, the newest shit, or the special shit, he wants what his NEIGHBOR has and what he thinks he kinda gets. That middle America, Kentucky and Tennessee market you know? That is fucking huge, we just forget about em." }, { "docid": "255390", "title": "", "text": "\"UCLA is not a bad place to be school wise. You will be pretty much limited to applying to the LA and possibly SF offices of any BB bank or relevant boutiques/MMs. But for those LA positions in particular, you will get a fair look. So your institution is respected. Your experience also seems to be decent, especially considering you spent time at a community college. It all matters how you market it. Be humble but don't sell yourself short. Don't claim you founded Yahoo, but also give an honest view of what you did. You can be proud of founding a distribution company and learning the business practices that go hand in hand with that. Both on your resume and in any interviews you may have, discuss how your experiences in that role will help you be a better intern and in the future a better analyst. Mostly intangibles, skills you learned, etc. The same goes for the other position, although the wealth management position probably has more applicable skills. So don't sell yourself too short in that department. Just lend an appropriate level of importance to the positions you've held; don't overstate your positions but also give yourself credit for what you've learned and what you've done. As far as your performance at UCLA so far and GPA, that might be a concern, but I think you can overcome it with enough work on your part during recruiting. I assumed your story from high school through community college and to UCLA is a fairly challenging one. It likely involved some financial hardships and a good deal of adversity. Most importantly, it probably took a lot of perseverance and hard work on your part to get to where you are now. If you can amply convey that during interviews without sounding like a martyr, you can likely overcome any downside to not having a GPA. Clearly you were able to get to UCLA from a tough starting point, which demonstrates the combination of hard work and intelligence that a GPA is meant to convey and which banks look for in applicants. Additionally, interviews occur in January so you will have one semester's worth of work to show for it by then and when interviews come around you'll be able to conjoin the story of your journey to UCLA to your first semester GPA to lend some credibility to your historical successes. Now, a lot of what I've said is contingent on you getting to an interview. Before that stage, it is hard to sell the merits of your alternative path to UCLA and to the interview on paper. You have the cover letter to make brief mention of those things, but the cover letter is far too short a medium through which to convey the entire story. So, getting yourself into the interview is the most important step you have to take at this point. Once you get your foot in the door and get a few first rounds, you'll be able to let your salesmanship shine and show them the merits of the path you've travelled. An important step of getting the interview will be networking. Everyone on here says \"\"just go network\"\" which is really vague and doesn't help anyone, especially because it is the most heinous of all collegiate finance buzzwords. You should contact specifically two groups of people: alumni working in the banks you are interested in apply for AND the bank HR representatives for your school. You ought to talk to the UCLA career services people as soon as you can and get names of UCLA graduates who work at the banks you're interested in. Career services also ought to have the names of the relevant HR representatives. Both the employees at these banks and the HR recruiters will have an important voice in who gets interviews, so make sure you talk to both of them. You should be inquisitive and ask about the bank and the experiences those you talk to have had, but you can also try to creatively weave in details about your story. I.e., when talking to someone you could bring up concerns about getting looked at because of your background and then ask whoever you're speaking with WHAT YOU CAN DO TO OVERCOME THAT. It should always be phrased as a question, so as to avoid seeming as if you're trying to sell yourself or brag during any informational calls. The purpose of the calls should be to talk about the bank and the job, so try as best you can to work in limited mention of yourself unless specifically asked and focus the discussion on the employee/recruiter and not yourself. You should also work to learn all the finance information you'll need for the job. Being that you have a nontraditional finance background and limited academic credentials, you will be asked extensive financial information questions if not during any informational calls definitely during first round interviews. Your knowledge of and commitment to a financial job is uncertain due to your academic background, so people will ask you basic to slightly more advanced financial analysis questions to see where your competency is at. Study up in the vault guide, with a particular focus on the fields you will be applying for. Understand DCF, LBO, M&amp;A accretion-dilution, and financial statement analysis primarily (for IB internships). Learn specifics for other roles (Equity research may require more equity specific stuff, cap markets will be similar to IB as listed above, S&amp;T will be less specific prep and more bainteasers/fast math). Prepare a stock pitch of some sort as well in case they ask you for one, and pick something obscure-ish so that it won't be too closely scrutinized. Stock pitch will come up randomly in interviews and specifically if you apply to equity research. In that same vain of thought, you should also think a bit about what group you want to apply to at these banks. Its good you have an interest in finance and in banking, but there are a lot of facets to the banking industry which you could pursue (traditional investment banking, capital markets, sales and trading, equity research, asset management, to name a few). Some are easier to wedge you way into, others harder (I have them listed in rough order of difficulty from hardest to easiest above). You can usually apply to a couple of different groups at each bank, so take advantage of that and definitely apply to multiple groups, talk to multiple groups, network with multiple groups and try to spread yourself around and get as many interviews as possible. TL;DR: you've got a decent product for sale here, but you'll need to polish up you pitch and learn financial skills to back up the story and prove you're competent and serious to an interviewers. While you do that, reach out to UCLA alumni in the banking industry and the HR recruiters for the banks to get your name in front of people and work toward securing a first round interview. Networking in this way is going to be the most important part of recruitment for you over the next 3-5 months.\"" }, { "docid": "281735", "title": "", "text": "There is empirical data to suggest deregulation in healthcare would drive down prices. https://thinkprogress.org/how-one-oklahoma-hospital-is-driving-down-the-cost-of-health-care-by-thousands-of-dollars-f507cdf32111. In a free market where prices are transparent, prices go down. As to your pharmaceutical example, that is a form of protectionism regulation. The reason why epipen is able to charge that price is because they have a patent protection (protectionism) that lasts through 2025. https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/09/epipen-lack-of-innovation/. There is no substitute. If there were a reform in pharma laws that made pharmaceutical company have to share their patents for licensing costs (similar to how cellular providers must provide access to their networks for a fee) then the price would go down. Market forces do reign supreme. It is supply and demand. As simple as that. If there is a market with a lot of profit, in a free market, participants will enter the market until the profit drops down to zero. That is why you cannot charge 10 dollars for a big mac in the same city where a McDonalds 1 mile away charges 5 dollars." }, { "docid": "500473", "title": "", "text": "HFT firms are spending millions or billions on network infrastructure and colocation for a reason. It's arbitrage. I'll take your word for it that transaction costs are lower today than they were years ago, but HFT front running is happening. HFT firms are paying for a privileged position in the exchanges that is unavailable to others. That's not ok. I don't care how much liquidity they supply or how small the spreads get. At any rate, *someone* must believe in what IEX is doing because otherwise there would be no volume there. They're approaching 1% of the market volume after opening a few months ago. People aren't trading there out of the kindness of their hearts, they are trading there because they believe they are getting ripped off in the other dark pools/exchanges." }, { "docid": "55969", "title": "", "text": "for one thing, marketing. e.g. there are some ads that runs on radio 5-10x a day every day over networks reaching many tens of millions every day. if you're working a website site as your pitch, the big marketer crushes you with massive exposure, 800 phone numbers, live 24 hour service...etc" }, { "docid": "100728", "title": "", "text": "If you use a credit union, I look for the co-op network credit union ATMs. Wide network of fee-free ATMs: http://co-opcreditunions.org/locator/?ref=co-opatm.org&sc=1 You'll have to check with your bank or credit union to see what networks they belong to and if it isn't satisfactory to you, find a new bank or credit union." }, { "docid": "463631", "title": "", "text": "I'm not meaning to be condescending and I apologize if it came off that way. I'm offering my perspective. I see these relationships and have the perspective to see how the traders move about and where they move to as part of my role. The most common way I see non-tier 1 grads moving into top tier HF trading roles is via stepping into BB's, moving into market making roles, and then using the position of being at the center of the market to network into roles. Renaissance tech being the exception... most of the traders sustain research roles as well and are most came in with PhD's and academia backgrounds." }, { "docid": "536001", "title": "", "text": "I'm being realistic. They're dumping tens of millions of dollars into an operation that shows no real signs of earning any kind of profit in anything that approaches the short or medium term. They're making expensive cars at Ferrari volumes for BMW prices in limited markets while the major automakers introduce more and more electric and hybrid cars. Once Mercedes and Ford and Honda have full electric cars on the road, serviced and backed by their huge network of dealerships, what does Tesla offer anyone? Toyota is happy, they pumped a relatively small amount of money into Tesla and have all but locked up rights to their IP should the company go bust. Tesla is trying to capitalize on being first to market, but they're in a kind of catch 22: there isn't huge demand for electric cars right now, which means they won't be able to sell the volumes they need to grow their business and return a profit. As soon as the market is large enough for them to make a profit, the big guys are going to catch up and run them over. Who'd buy a Model S when they could get an electric 5 series for the same money? Who'd buy a Tesla Roadster if they could get an electric Boxster or 911?" }, { "docid": "176505", "title": "", "text": "&gt;One reason RIM is determined to stay the course (for now) is that it has &gt;a hidden gem: Its private, global, more-or-less cryptographically secure ?&gt;network. Might be a stupid question, but what really is the big deal with their secure network. Doesn't something like Exchange ActiveSync have enough security (by using TLS)?" }, { "docid": "77792", "title": "", "text": "And that's fine, it's THEIR network that may or may not provide Internet access, they can do what they want with your data (redirect requests or block certain access) while you're using it just as landowners can tell you where you can go and what you can do on their land. Sure, it's shitty, but it's their right to be shitty about it. If you don't want to be subject to that, don't connect to their WiFi network." }, { "docid": "418838", "title": "", "text": "Former investment banker here. I joined an M&amp;A group and then decided not to do PE, but that was what most peers did. 1) When in school, get the top grades. They want to see that you barely make mistakes. You're going to be dealing with other people's money, so very little room for error. 2) join the student finance organizations. If you can't join em, then create one. If that's too much, then go to their meetings and sit in. Do something. Get out there and don't take no for an answer. 3) do something on the side that shows your genuine interest. Start investing your own money. Come up with an investment thesis. This is going to show them you actually care about what you want to do and you're not all talk. 4) network. Network. Network. Friends of family. Family of friends. Strangers. You don't know who can help you, so know everyone. If you show that you are eager and willing to learn, people will bend over backwards to help you. Just remain humble. Don't be a snarky dick. Stay focused. Stay determined. If something doesn't go your way, it's not the end. No road isn't always straight and paved. You might have to go on a winding gravel road to get to where you want to go, but if you want to get there bad enough, you'll make it. And maybe along the way, you might realize that it's not something you want to do, so you'll pivot. Nothing wrong with that. Do what you want, not what you think other people think you should do. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "487901", "title": "", "text": "Sprint has a great brand, but needs cash to roll out their LTE network faster. Wimax was an unfortunate requirement of their spectrum allocation wherein if they did not use it, they lost it. So Wimax should really never have existed for Sprint, but they had to do it. So I think based on what Softbank has done in other markets this is a good thing. It looks like at the very least it'll put another $3 billion directly into the US LTE roll out-- which means a faster than previously announced rollout (which in terms of markets was pretty good despite the overall lacking of availability). I hope New Sprint pulls it together and gives Verizon &amp; AT&amp;T a run for their money. They werent going to last too long otherwise." } ]

[ { "docid": "362069", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer is yes you can, but you have to make sure you do it correctly. If you are employed by a tech company that does contract work at a separate location and you don't get reimbursed by your employer for travel expenses, you can claim the mileage between your home and location B as a business expense, but there's a catch - you have to subtract the mileage between your home and location A (your employer). So if it's 20 miles from your house to your employer (location A), and 30 miles from your house to the business you're contracting at (location B), you can only claim 10 miles each way (so 20 miles total). Obviously if the distance to location B is closer than your employer (location A), you're out of luck. You will have to itemize to take this deduction, by filling out a Schedule A for itemized deductions and Form 2106 to calculate how much of a deduction for travel expenses you can take. Google \"\"should i itemize\"\", if you're unsure whether to take the Standard Deduction or Itemize. Sources:\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "208989", "title": "", "text": "\"It's not possible to determine whether you can \"\"expect a refund\"\" or whether you are claiming the right number of exemptions from the information given. If your wife were not working and you did not do independent contracting, then the answer would be much simpler. However, in this case, we must also factor in how much your contracting brings in (since you must pay income tax on that, as well as Medicare and, probably, Social Security), whether you are filing jointly or separately, and your wife's income from her business. There are also other factors such as whether you'll be claiming certain child care expenses, and certain tax credits which may phase out depending on your income. If you can accurately estimate your total household income for the year, and separate that into income from wages, contracting, and your wife's business, as well as your expenses for things like state and local income and property taxes, then you can make a very reasonable estimate about your total tax burden (including the self-employment taxes on your non-wage income) and then determine whether you are having enough tax withheld from your paycheck. Some people may find that they should have additional tax withheld to compensate for these expenses (see IRS W-4 Line #6).\"" }, { "docid": "230564", "title": "", "text": "\"I guess I should explain a little in detail since you really don't seems to understand why sometimes anecdotal evidences are not useful and why sometimes they are. It has nothing to do with economy sub or not, but rather simplw logic. Anecdotal evidences can be useful to refute universal claims theories. For example, if anyone claims that \"\"all swans are white\"\", then all it takes is one anecdotal observation of one black swan is enough to disprove this theory. There is no need to bring additional statistcally significant evidence in order to prove \"\"Not all swans are white\"\". In fact this is how lot's of theories were disproved by contracting observation. A lot of people keep hearing things about \"\"anecdotal\"\", but never truly understood why they are not significantly important in certain situations, thus making the mistake.\"" }, { "docid": "18850", "title": "", "text": "The IRS Guidance pertaining to the subject. In general the best I can say is your business expense may be deductible. But it depends on the circumstances and what it is you want to deduct. Travel Taxpayers who travel away from home on business may deduct related expenses, including the cost of reaching their destination, the cost of lodging and meals and other ordinary and necessary expenses. Taxpayers are considered “traveling away from home” if their duties require them to be away from home substantially longer than an ordinary day’s work and they need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of their work. The actual cost of meals and incidental expenses may be deducted or the taxpayer may use a standard meal allowance and reduced record keeping requirements. Regardless of the method used, meal deductions are generally limited to 50 percent as stated earlier. Only actual costs for lodging may be claimed as an expense and receipts must be kept for documentation. Expenses must be reasonable and appropriate; deductions for extravagant expenses are not allowable. More information is available in Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses. Entertainment Expenses for entertaining clients, customers or employees may be deducted if they are both ordinary and necessary and meet one of the following tests: Directly-related test: The main purpose of the entertainment activity is the conduct of business, business was actually conducted during the activity and the taxpayer had more than a general expectation of getting income or some other specific business benefit at some future time. Associated test: The entertainment was associated with the active conduct of the taxpayer’s trade or business and occurred directly before or after a substantial business discussion. Publication 463 provides more extensive explanation of these tests as well as other limitations and requirements for deducting entertainment expenses. Gifts Taxpayers may deduct some or all of the cost of gifts given in the course of their trade or business. In general, the deduction is limited to $25 for gifts given directly or indirectly to any one person during the tax year. More discussion of the rules and limitations can be found in Publication 463. If your LLC reimburses you for expenses outside of this guidance it should be treated as Income for tax purposes. Edit for Meal Expenses: Amount of standard meal allowance. The standard meal allowance is the federal M&IE rate. For travel in 2010, the rate for most small localities in the United States is $46 a day. Source IRS P463 Alternately you could reimburse at a per diem rate" }, { "docid": "390435", "title": "", "text": "If you itemize your deductions then the interest that you pay on your primary residence is tax deductible. Also realestate tax is also deductible. Both go on Schedule A. The car payment is not tax deductible. You will want to be careful about claiming business deduction for home or car. The IRS has very strict rules and if you have any personal use you can disqualify the deduction. For the car you often need to use the mileage reimbursement rates. If you use the car exclusively for work, then a lease may make more sense as you can expense the lease payment whereas with the car you need to follow the depreciation schedule. If you are looking to claim business expense of car or home, it would be a very good idea to get professional tax advice to ensure that you do not run afoul of the IRS." }, { "docid": "123320", "title": "", "text": "\"The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say \"\"permit you\"\" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry!  Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.\"" }, { "docid": "460648", "title": "", "text": "But there's a difference freelancing for your craft and managing people to so similar tasks. Sometimes you just want the flexibility of working for yourself and you enjoy mastering the craft. Not everyone's end game is more money. If marketing and sales are not your strengths, yet you still have a steady stream of future clients, or can pick some up when you need to...why over complicate things? When I first started out many moons ago, there was a contract programmer working at one of my first jobs. He worked 6-9 months a year, and then traveled and relaxed the rest. The summer I met him he was going to complete visiting every National Park in the US; sounds like a nice goal to me :)" }, { "docid": "140371", "title": "", "text": "To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above." }, { "docid": "148728", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \"\"sell to close\"\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \"\"sold to close\"\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\"" }, { "docid": "136315", "title": "", "text": "\"Also within Germany the tax offices usually determine which tax office is responsible for you by asking where you were more than 180 days of the year (if e.g. you have a second flat where you work). That's a default value, though: in my experience you can ask to be handled by another tax office. E.g. I hand my tax declaration to my \"\"home\"\" tax office (where also my freelancing adress is), even though my day-job is 300 km away. So if you work mostly from Poland and just visit the German customer a few times, you are fine anyways. Difficulties start if you move to Germany to do the work at your customer's place. I'm going to assume that this is the situation as otherwise I don't think the question would have come up. Close by the link you provided is a kind of FAQ on this EU regulation About the question of permanent vs. temporary they say: The temporary nature of the service is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Here's my German-Italian experience with this. Background: I had a work contract plus contracts for services and I moved for a while to Italy. Taxes and social insurance on the Italian contracts had to be paid to Italy. Including tax on the contract for services. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. By the way: The temporary time frame for Italy seemed to be 3 months, then I had to provide an Italian residence etc. and was registered in the Italian health care etc. system. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. Besides that, the German tax office nevertheless decided that my \"\"primary center of life\"\" stayed in Germany. So everything but the stuff related to the Italian contracts (which would probably have counted as normal work contracts in Germany, though they is no exact equivalent to those contract types) was handled by the German tax office. I think this is the relevant part for your question (or: argumentation with the German tax office) of temporary vs. permanent residence. Here are some points they asked: There is one point you absolutely need to know about the German social insurance law: Scheinselbständigkeit (pretended self-employment). Scheinselbständigkeit means contracts that claim to be service contracts with a self-employed provider who is doing the work in a way that is typical for employees. This law closes a loophole so employer + employee cannot avoid paying income tax and social insurance fees (pension contributions and unemployment insurance on both sides - health insurance would have to be paid in full by the self-employed instead of partially by the employer. Employer also avoids accident insurance, and several regulations from labour law are avoided as well). Legally, this is a form of black labour which means that the employer commits a criminal offense and is liable basically for all those fees. There is a list of criteria that count towards Scheinselbständigkeit. Particularly relevant for you could be\"" }, { "docid": "173195", "title": "", "text": "https://thepointsguy.com/2017/01/how-government-officials-fly/ The main reason you see so many people in first class is because they earn miles for themselves (just like anyone else can earn miles) but they are not allowed to spend those miles on anything other than upgrades and other perks. The one thing that is absolutely not allowed is to spend those miles on personal travel. Most of those government employees that you see in those seats are frequent last minute travelers due to the nature of their jobs. There will be certain routes handled primarily by certain airlines as they already bid for the business. The airlines miles on those routes for employees will be greatly discounted, but the airline miles associated with them are still calculated at the cost before the discount (most private companies with specific contracts with airline routes work the same). Unions are free to make their own rules on these things. However I do know that many legitimate charities have policies similar to the government for how they can use airline miles. So in short, it's because they can't use their airline miles for anything except upgrades. They can't even keep money received from being bumped from a flight. Edit: In another response, it appears this article could be wrong about using your own miles for personal use (thanks (/u/workacct20910) for steering me to look more at it): https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/regulations/federal-management-regulation-fmr?asset=90778#wp1091613 It appears temp duty travel miles can be used for personal trips. Another poster pointed out people flying enough to get lots of miles will also be elite status, and thus get upgraded much more often even though their base fare is still coach." }, { "docid": "422828", "title": "", "text": "There is no magic bullet here. If you want professional management, because you think they know more about entry and exit points for short positions, have more time to monitor a position, etc... (but they might not) try a mutual fund or exchange traded fund that specializes in shorts. Note: a lot of these may not have done so well, your mileage may vary" }, { "docid": "358769", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Okay, why? Because the only modern justification for the existence of a nation is the social contract. &gt; We have seen that corporations will push limits regularly which shows little respect for the law or other people's property. Without the concept of corporate person-hood, a impartial judicial system to settle disagreements, and enforcement significantly more powerful than all actors, corporations would have little reason to heed claims of property. Ownership would become a question of what you can control, not what you made/traded for. Exactly. That's why we have the social contract and thus services like police and civil courts that ensure the mutual respect for each other's property. But for the vast majority of interactions enforcement won't be required since you want your property respected as well. It's the golden rule &gt; Tell me why. Because - once again - mandatory public healthcare is based on forced redistribution of wealth, which is a violation of the social contract. I'm quite sure I explained this already multiple times. &gt; It doesn't solve the problem of how the money sucks money to the top. Please elaborate as to why that is a problem in the first place." }, { "docid": "383930", "title": "", "text": "Option contracts typically each represent 100 shares. So the 1 call contract you sold to open (wrote) grants the buyer of that option the right to purchase your 100 shares for $80.00 per share any time before the option expiration date. You were paid a gross amount of $100 (100 shares times $1.00 premium per share) for taking on the obligation to deliver should the option holder choose to exercise. You received credit in your account of $89.22, which ought to be the $100 less any trading commission (~$10?) and miscellaneous fees (regulatory, exchange, etc.) per contract. You did capture premium. However, your covered call write represents an open short position that, until either (a) the option expires worthless, or (b) is exercised, or (c) is bought back to close the position, will continue to show on your account as a liability. Until the open position is somehow closed, the value of both the short option contract and long stock will continue to fluctuate. This is normal." }, { "docid": "262152", "title": "", "text": "Anything can be insured for the right price... this product is offered for devices at higher risk, which would be logical purpose of owner needing coverage for a specific length of time. Typically this would be a type of adverse selection, but TROV targets customers that typically would not require insurance on their device, but as you said they may be traveling and putting their devices at added risk. Like all insurance companies, their Loss Ratio (Losses/Premiums) will depend on the law of large numbers and spread of risk. As we know, the majority of the time trips are taken, electronics make it back home safely. Like many tech companies, their advantage over conventional insurers is likely low overhead costs. Being on a mobile platform, they likely have a fraction of the claims handling cost of a conventional insurer. Payments are likely automated by linking bank accounts, so there is little transaction cost burden on this company. In short, their operation is likely highly automated with few staff and low expenses, allowing them to take on a higher loss ratio than conventional insurers and still leave room for profit. Without having ever used this service, I can tell you they likely price in anticipated fraud, the same way Walmart prices in inventory loss (shoplifting) into their prices. I personally would share your concern that it'd be difficult to combat fraud on such a platform, especially with no claims adjusters whom are typically the first line of defense. Again, I answer this never having used their service, but I work as an Analyst at a large insurer and these would be my assumptions based on what I know of TROV." }, { "docid": "493012", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, futures don't have a \"\"strike\"\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \"\"buy\"\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \"\"sell\"\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \"\"ask\"\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\"" }, { "docid": "399367", "title": "", "text": "Options trading at $.01 have the same position limits as other options. Self regulatory organizations set the position limits for options which can be 250,000 contracts on one side of the book, as an example. Weeklies that are expiring soon have lots of liquidity while trading at $0.01, you can see this in Bank of America stock if interested" }, { "docid": "211488", "title": "", "text": "\"Sometimes a business must keep track of overhead expenses that can be used to determine the rates they will bill their customers especially the government. When determining the rates they are allowed to charge the government they have to include direct costs and indirect costs. These indirect costs include allowable overhead and G&A. They can also include profit, but the government limits the maximum profit. Any unallowable expenses have to come out of profit. Unallowable expenses include: \"\"Costs of amusement, diversions, social activities, and any directly associated costs such as tickets to shows or sports events, meals, lodging, rentals, transportation, and gratuities are unallowable.\"\" When they talk about meals and lodging being unallowable they are referring to those not needed to support the contract. If the contract expects the contractor to travel they will generally provide a travel budget that is separate from the amounts used to determine the hourly rate. The term slush fund has the connotation of being illegal or hidden. Slush funds are used to bribe officials or are leftover funds that were supposed to be spent, and are now being hidden so that they can be misused at a later date.\"" }, { "docid": "110367", "title": "", "text": "I'm an Aussie and I purchased 5 of these properties from 2008 to 2010. I was looking for positive cash flow on properties for not too much upfront investment. The USA property market made sense because of the high Aussie $$ at the time, the depressed property market in the US and the expensive market here. I used an investment web-site that allowed me to screen properties by yield and after eliminating outliers, went for the city with the highest consistent yield performance. I settled on Toledo, Ohio as it had the highest yields and was severely impacted by the housing crisis. I bought my first property for $18K US which was a little over $17K AUD. The property was a duplex in great condition in a reasonable location. Monthly rentals $US900 and rents guaranteed and direct deposited into my bank account every month by section 8. Taxes $900 a year and $450 a year for water. Total return around $US8,000. My second property was a short sale in a reasonable area. The asking was $US8K and was a single family in good condition already tenanted. I went through the steps with the bank and after a few months, was the proud owner of another tenanted, positive cash flow property returning $600 a month gross. Taxes of $600 a year and water about the same. $US6K NET a year on a property that cost $AUD8K Third and fourth were two single family dwellings in good areas. These both cost $US14K each and returned $US700 a month each. $US28K for two properties that gross around $US15K a year. My fifth property was a tax foreclosure of a guy with 2 kids whose wife had left him and whose friend had stolen the money to repay the property taxes. He was basically on the bones of his butt and was staring down the barrel of being homeless with two kids. The property was in great condition in a reasonable part of town. The property cost me $4K. I signed up the previous owner in a land contract to buy his house back for $US30K. Payments over 10 years at 7% came out to around $US333 per month. I made him an offer whereby if he acted as my property manager, i would forgo the land contract payments and pay him a percentage of the rents in exchange for his services. I would also pay for any work he did on the properties. He jumped at it. Seven years later, we're still working together and he keeps the properties humming. Right now the AUD is around 80c US and looks like falling to around 65c by June 2015. Rental income in Aussie $$ is around $2750 every month. This month (Jan 2015) I have transferred my property manager's house back to him with a quit claim deed and sold the remaining houses for $US100K After taxes and commission I expect to receive in the vicinity of AUD$120K Which is pretty good for a $AUD53K investment. I've also received around $30K in rent a year. I'm of the belief I should be buying when everybody else is selling and selling when everybody else is buying. I'm on the look-out for my next positive cash flow investment and I'm thinking maybe an emerging market smashed by the oil shock. I wish you all happiness and success in your investment. Take care. VR" }, { "docid": "414737", "title": "", "text": "\"You do not need to inform your employer of your additional activity, but it is your responsibility not to work for more than 48 hours per week as long as you are an employee. So if you are working 38 hours for your employer, you may not work for yourself for more than 10 hours. It is, however, not so easy in practice to draw the line between work and a hobby, as long as you are not being paid by the hour. The main reason to present your employer with an addition to your work contract is to make it legally very clear that he holds no intentions to claim copyright to your work. He may attempt to do something funky like claim your home computer is, in fact, a work computer because you used it once a month to work from home, and your work contract may contain a paragraph that all work performed on a work computer results in copyright ownership for your employer. I have no idea how likely this is in practice, but this is the reason I know is commonly given as legal advice to have a contract. So the normal contract you present your employer with says: In order to earn user contribution money from a website, you need to register as a sole proprietor (Gewerbeanmeldung) and pay trade tax (Gewerbesteuer) and sales tax (Umsatzsteuer, alternatively you claim small trade exception, Kleingewerbe), which also makes a tax return mandatory. I would guess, however, (and this is not legal advice in any way, just my guess), that a couple of contributions towards server cost in a strictly non-profit endeavor is not commercial (\"\"gewerblich\"\") at all but private, in the same way that you may write an invoice to someone you sold your old bike to, or a kid may get paid to mow someone's lawn. Based on that guess, my non-legal-advice recommendation is to take the contributions and do nothing else, as long as the amount is nowhere near breaking even if you count your work input.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "591694", "title": "", "text": "\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "475019", "title": "", "text": "\"The short version of JB King's excellent answer is that the company will typically buy back shares from the open market at market price. Sometimes, it will specifically target larger stakeholders, even controlling interests, who are making noise that they want to divest; if such an investor were to just dump their stock on the open market, neither the investor nor the company would be very happy with the resulting price collapse. In those cases, the company may offer an incentive price above market rates. In recent times, the investor looking to divest has often been the U.S. Government, who received stock in return for bailouts, and (with notable exceptions) turned a modest profit on many of them. Not enough to break even on the entire bailout, but the Government didn't just throw $700 billion in taxpayer money down a hole as conservative pundits would have you believe. In the '80s, a specific type of buy-back was made famous, called the \"\"leveraged buyout\"\". Basically, the company took out a huge loan against itself, and used that money to buy up all the company's publicly-traded shares, essentially becoming a private company. This became a popular tool among private equity groups, for better and worse.\"" }, { "docid": "417365", "title": "", "text": "\"First, as @littleadv mentions, and as I've pointed out before, anyone who participates in a market using limit orders (which, by the way, should be every non-professional investor) is by definition a market maker. So, I will assume that your question pertains both to official market makers and to \"\"retail investors\"\" using limit orders. When you remark that there are such \"\"tight spreads\"\" in \"\"liquid assets\"\", what you are really saying is \"\"wow, look at all the market makers in these products!\"\" That's the benefit of electronic trading and algorithmic traders -- millions of participants each with their own opinion of the value of a financial instrument, trying to find people who have very specifically opposing opinions of the value of that same instrument. This is called price discovery, and is the entire point of financial markets. So, you ask why are there all these market makers present to create such tight spreads in assets like SPY? Answer: Because they can make money in these markets: Imagine (towards a contradiction) that market makers thought they couldn't make money by offering tight spreads in SPY, and so SPY had a wider spread than it actually does. For example, say the highest bid for SPY was $99.98 and the lowest ask was $100.01. Now imagine that a market maker with perfect knowledge of the future came along knowing that he would be able to sell SPY for $100.01 in 5 minutes. Then he would load up as many buy orders as he could for $100.00 or lower. (He wouldn't bid $100.01 or higher because those trades would not be profitable according to his information -- at least not 5 minutes from now.) So the spread had previously been $0.03 and then suddenly it was $0.01, all because a market maker with better information came along and realized he could make money by creating a tighter market! Now, nobody has perfect knowledge of the future, which is why markets are never infinitely tight or infinitely liquid. Each market maker has to weigh possible profits against the probability that those profits will actually turn into losses. But if one market maker decides not to participate in a particular instrument, there's bound to be another market maker who will happily take his place. So the very fact that there are so many market participants with resting buy/sell orders for SPY right now is proof that there are market makers able to make money doing so. If they could not make money, they wouldn't be there, and the spread would be wider. 10-15 years ago, before electronic trading and algorithmic trading, the number of market participants was far lower, and the spreads were far wider, meaning retail investors like you and me had a much harder time making money. The only people making money were the institutional investors, the brokers, and the exchanges. Now that all these new millions of players are present in the market, retail investors like you and me get to participate and make money too.\"" }, { "docid": "232797", "title": "", "text": "No. The intro rate is a gambit by the bank - they accept losing money in the short term but expect to gain money in the long term when your intro is over and you (hopefully) start paying interest. There's not much in it for them if you never get around to paying interest. Same can be said for people who close the card after their intro period, but that's different - the bank is correctly expecting that most people won't bother." }, { "docid": "222639", "title": "", "text": "\"For some studies on why investors make the decisions they do, check out For a more readable, though less rigorous, look at it, also consider Kahneman's recent book, \"\"Thinking, Fast and Slow\"\", which includes the two companion papers written with Tversky on prospect theory. In certain segments (mostly trading) of the investing industry, it is true that something like 90% of investors lose money. But only in certain narrow segments (and most folks would rightly want traders to be counted as a separate beast than an 'investor'). In most segments, it's not true that most investors lose money, but it still is true that most investors exhibit consistent biases that allow for mispricing. I think that understanding the heuristics and biases approach to economics is critical, both because it helps you understand why there are inefficiencies, and also because it helps you understand that quantitative, principled investing is not voodoo black magic; it's simply applying mathematics for the normative part and experimental observations for the descriptive part to yield a business strategy, much like any other way of making money.\"" }, { "docid": "285185", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, congratulations on saving some money. So many people these days do not even get that far. As far as investments, what is best for you depends heavily on your: Here is a quick summary of types of assets that are likely available to you, and my thoughts on why they may or may not be a good fit for your situation. Cash Equivalents Cash Equivalents are highly liquid, meaning you can get cash for them on fairly short notice. In particular, Money Markets and Certificates of Deposit (CDs) are also considered very safe when issued by a bank, as they are often insured against loss by the government up to a certain amount (this varies quite a lot by country within Europe, see the Wikipedia article here for additional detail. Please note that in the case of a CD, you are usually unable to get access to your money for the length of the investment period, which is usually a short period of time such as 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year. This is a good choice if you may need your money back on short notice, and your main goal is to preserve your principal. However, the returns tend to be very low and often do not keep pace with inflation, meaning that over several years, you may lose \"\"real\"\" purchasing power, even if you don't lose nominal value in your account. Special Note on Cash Equivalents If the money you want to invest is also your Emergency Fund, or you do not have an Emergency Fund, I would highly recommend Cash Equivalents. They will provide the highest level of Liquidity along with a short Time Horizon so that you can get your money as needed in the case of unforeseen expenses such as if your car breaks down. Debt Debt investments include government and corporate bonds. They are still considered relatively safe, as the issuer would need to default (usually this means they are in bankruptcy) in order for you not to be paid back. For example, German bonds have been considered safer than Greek bonds recently based on the underlying strength of the government. Unlike Cash Equivalents, these are not guaranteed against loss, which means that if the issuer defaults, you could lose up to 100% of your investment. Bonds have several new features you will need to consider. One is interest rate risk. One reason bonds perform better than cash equivalents is that you are taking on the risk that if interest rates rise, the fixed payments the bond promises will be worth less, and the face value of your bond will fall. While most bonds are still very Liquid, this means that if you need to sell the bond before it matures, you could lose money. As mentioned earlier, some bonds are riskier than others. Given that you are looking for a low-risk investment, you would want to select a bond that is considered \"\"invesment grade\"\" rather than a riskier \"\"junk\"\" bond. Debt investments are a good choice if you can afford to do without this money for a few years, and you want to balance safety with somewhat better returns than Cash Equivalents. Again though, I would not recommend investing in Debt until you have also built up a separate Emergency Fund. If you do choose to invest in bonds, I recommend that you diversify your risks by investing in a bond fund, rather than in just one company's or government's debt. This will reduce the likelihood that you will experience a catastrophic loss. Ownership Ownership assets includes stocks and other assets such as real estate and precious metals such as gold. While these investments can have high returns, in your situation I would strongly recommend that you not invest in these types of investments, for the following reasons: For these reasons, debt is considered a safer investment than equity for any particular company, government, or the market as a whole. Ownership assets are a good choice for people who have a high Risk Tolerance, long Time Horizon, low Liquidity needs, and will not be bothered by larger potential changes in the value of the investment at any given time. Special Note on Gold I would consider Gold a very risky investment and not a good fit for you at the moment based on what you've shared in your question. Gold is considered \"\"safe\"\" in the sense that people believe that if the economy goes into recession, depression, or collapses entirely, gold will continue to be valuable. In a post-apocalyptic world where paper money became worthless, it is still a good bet that gold will always be considered valuable within human society as a store of value. That being said, the price of gold fluctuates almost entirely based on how bad people think things are going to get. Think about the difference between gold and a company like Coca-Cola. Would you like to own 100% of Coca-Cola? Of course, because you know there is a very good chance that people will continue to spend money all over the world on their products. On the other hand, gold itself produces no products, no sales, no profits, and no cash flow. As such, if you buy gold, you are really making a speculative bet that gold will be in higher demand tomorrow than it is today. You are buying an asset (the gold) rather than part of a company's equity or debt that is designed to throw off payments to its investors in the form of bond payments or dividends. So, if people decide next year that things are improving, it is possible that gold could lose value, given that gold prices are at historically high levels. Gold could be a good choice for someone who has a large, well-diversified investment portfolio, and who is looking for a hedge to protect against inflation and other risks that they have taken on via their other investments. I hope that is helpful - best of luck in your choices. Let us know what you decide!\"" }, { "docid": "116647", "title": "", "text": "\"The game is not zero sum. When a friend and I chop down a tree, and build a house from it, the house has value, far greater than the value of a standing tree. Our labor has turned into something of value. In theory, a company starts from an idea, and offers either a good or service to create value. There are scams that make it seem like a Vegas casino. There are times a stock will trade for well above what it should. When I buy the S&P index at a fair price for 1000 (through an etf or fund) and years later it's 1400, the gain isn't out of someone else's pocket, else the amount of wealth in the world would be fixed and that's not the case. Over time, investors lag the market return for multiple reasons, trading costs, bad timing, etc. Statements such as \"\"90% lose money\"\" are hyperbole meant to separate you from your money. A self fulfilling prophesy. The question of lagging the market is another story - I have no data to support my observation, but I'd imagine that well over 90% lag the broad market. A detailed explanation is too long for this forum, but simply put, there are trading costs. If I invest in an S&P ETF that costs .1% per year, I'll see a return of say 9.9% over decades if the market return is 10%. Over 40 years, this is 4364% compounded, vs the index 4526% compounded, a difference of less than 4% in final wealth. There are load funds that charge more than this just to buy in (5% anyone?). Lagging by a small fraction is a far cry from 'losing money.' There is an annual report by a company named Dalbar that tracks investor performance. For the 20 year period ending 12/31/10 the S&P returned 9.14% and Dalbar calculates the average investor had an average return of 3.83%. Pretty bad, but not zero. Since you don't cite a particular article or source, there may be more to the story. Day traders are likely to lose. As are a series of other types of traders in other markets, Forex for one. While your question may be interesting, its premise of \"\"many experts say....\"\" without naming even one leaves room for doubt. Note - I've updated the link for the 2015 report. And 4 years later, I see that when searching on that 90% statistic, the articles are about day traders. That actually makes sense to me.\"" }, { "docid": "306201", "title": "", "text": "In your own example of VW, it dropped from its peak price of $253 to $92. If you had invested $10,000 in VW in April 2015, by September of that year it would have gone down to $3,600. If you held on to your investment, you would now be getting back to $6,700 on that original $10,000 investment. Your own example demonstrates that it is possible to lose. I have a friend who put his fortune into a company called WorldCom (one of the examples D Stanley shared). He actually lost all of his retirement. Luckily he made some money back when the startup we both worked for was sold to a much larger company. Unsophisticated investors lose money all the time by investing in individual companies. Your best bet is to start searching this site for answers on how to invest your money so that you can see actual strategies that reduce your investment risk. Here's a starting point: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? If you want to better illustrate this principle to yourself, try this stock market simulation game." }, { "docid": "135411", "title": "", "text": "\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"" }, { "docid": "240351", "title": "", "text": "Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not." }, { "docid": "114214", "title": "", "text": "\"You can't short a stock unless there is someone willing and able to \"\"lend\"\" shares to you. And there are several reasons why that might not be the case. First, BSFT is a \"\"new\"\" stock, which means that NO ONE has held it very long. It's much easier to short IBM or Exxon Mobil, where there are some long-term holders who would like to earn a little extra money lending you THEIR shares. But if \"\"everyone\"\" involved is busy buying or selling the stock, there won't be many people to lend it. That's not manipulation, that's just the market. Another reason may be a large \"\"short\"\" interest. That is many OTHERS have shorted it before you. That's dangerous for you, because if some lenders want to pull their shares off the market, they can cause a \"\"short squeeze\"\" that will drive the price much higher. And stock shortages can be orchestrated by the company or large investors to artificially drive the price higher. Unless you have a lot of experience, don't try shorting small cap stocks. Try to gain some experience with large caps like IBM or Exxon Mobil first. Those are stocks that people at least can't \"\"play games\"\" with. YOu will win or lose based on the market itself.\"" }, { "docid": "91076", "title": "", "text": "Not charging taxes on a money losing investment or business is much more than humanitarian it is common sense. In general money that is used to invest has already been taxed as income or inheritance to the person making the investment so taxing that money again not just the profit would provide a disincentive for people to invest. Which would be bad for economic growth over the medium and long term. As far as taxing a money losing businesses goes, most businesses don't make money in their couple of years and adding further tax burdens would be counter productive because it would provide a major hurdle for people wanting to start a business. Other have already mentioned that the money losing operation likely paid indirect taxes as well. Small businesses provide a majority of the economic growth and innovation. So in short additional taxes on money losing investments and businesses would be both foolish and shortsighted." }, { "docid": "204866", "title": "", "text": "What are the risks pertaining to timing on long term index investments? The risks are countless for any investment strategy. If you invest in US stocks, and prices revert to the long term cyclically adjusted average, you will lose a lot of money. If you invest in cash, inflation may outpace interest rates and you will lose money. If you invest in gold, the price might go down and you will lose money. It's best to study history and make a reasonable decision (i.e. invest in stocks). Here are long term returns by asset class, computed by Jeremy Siegel: $1 invested in equities in 1801 equals $15.22 today if was not invested and $8.8 million if it was invested in stocks. This is the 'magic of compound interest' and cash / bonds have not been nearly as magical as stocks historically. 2) How large are these risks? The following chart shows the largest drawdowns (decreases in the value of an asset) since 1970 (source): Asset prices decrease in value frequently. Financial assets are volatile, but historically, they have increased over time, enabling investors to earn compounded returns (exponential growth of money is how to get rich). I personally view drawdowns as an excellent time to buy - it's like going on a shopping spree when everything in the store is discounted. 3) In case I feel not prepared to take these risks, how can I avoid them? The optimal asset allocation depends on the ability to take risk and your tolerance for risk. You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high. From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk). Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source): Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors. For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended. Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value." }, { "docid": "94690", "title": "", "text": "The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt." }, { "docid": "169004", "title": "", "text": "Basically there are 2 ways you can make money from an investment, through income (eg: rent or dividends) and through the price of the investment going up (capital growth or gains). Most people associate negative gearing with investment properties but it can be done with shares and other investments where you borrow money to buy the investment and it produces an income of some sort. If the investment does not produce an income then you cannot negative gear it. Using a property as an example (in Australia), if all your expenses each month (loan interest payments, council and water rates, insurance and/or strata, advertising and management fees, depreciation, and maintenance expense) are greater than your income (rent), then you are negative gearing the investment property. This is a monthly loss on your investment which can be used to offset and reduce the amount of tax you pay during the year. So most people negative gearing an investment property will get a nice sum back when they do their tax returns. The problem with negative gearing is that you have to lose money in order to save some tax. So as an example, if you are on a marginal tax rate of 30%, for every $1 you lose from the investment property you will save 30c in tax. If your marginal tax rate is 45% then will save 45c in tax for every $1 lost on the investment property. Thus negative gearing becomes more tax effective the higher your income (and tax bracket). But you are still losing money overall. The problem is that most novice investors buy an investment property for the main purpose of reducing their taxes. This can be dangerous because the main reason to buy any investment should be that you consider it to be a good investment, not to save you tax. Because if the investment is not a good one, then you will not only lose money on the income side but also on the capital side. Negative gearing should be looked at as a bonus or additional benefit when chosing a good investment to buy, not as the reason to buy the investment." }, { "docid": "436904", "title": "", "text": "This is Ellie Lan, investment analyst at Betterment. To answer your question, American investors are drawn to use the S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark to measure the performance of Betterment portfolios, particularly because it’s familiar and it’s the index always reported in the news. However, going all in to invest in SPY is not a good investment strategy—and even using it to compare your own diversified investments is misleading. We outline some of the pitfalls of this approach in this article: Why the S&P 500 Is a Bad Benchmark. An “algo-advisor” service like Betterment is a preferable approach and provides a number of advantages over simply investing in ETFs (SPY or others like VOO or IVV) that track the S&P 500. So, why invest with Betterment rather than in the S&P 500? Let’s first look at the issue of diversification. SPY only exposes investors to stocks in the U.S. large cap market. This may feel acceptable because of home bias, which is the tendency to invest disproportionately in domestic equities relative to foreign equities, regardless of their home country. However, investing in one geography and one asset class is riskier than global diversification because inflation risk, exchange-rate risk, and interest-rate risk will likely affect all U.S. stocks to a similar degree in the event of a U.S. downturn. In contrast, a well-diversified portfolio invests in a balance between bonds and stocks, and the ratio of bonds to stocks is dependent upon the investment horizon as well as the individual's goals. By constructing a portfolio from stock and bond ETFs across the world, Betterment reduces your portfolio’s sensitivity to swings. And the diversification goes beyond mere asset class and geography. For example, Betterment’s basket of bond ETFs have varying durations (e.g., short-term Treasuries have an effective duration of less than six months vs. U.S. corporate bonds, which have an effective duration of just more than 8 years) and credit quality. The level of diversification further helps you manage risk. Dan Egan, Betterment’s Director of Behavioral Finance and Investing, examined the increase in returns by moving from a U.S.-only portfolio to a globally diversified portfolio. On a risk-adjusted basis, the Betterment portfolio has historically outperformed a simple DIY investor portfolio by as much as 1.8% per year, attributed solely to diversification. Now, let’s assume that the investor at hand (Investor A) is a sophisticated investor who understands the importance of diversification. Additionally, let’s assume that he understands the optimal allocation for his age, risk appetite, and investment horizon. Investor A will still benefit from investing with Betterment. Automating his portfolio management with Betterment helps to insulate Investor A from the ’behavior gap,’ or the tendency for investors to sacrifice returns due to bad timing. Studies show that individual investors lose, on average, anywhere between 1.2% to 4.3% due to the behavior gap, and this gap can be as high as 6.5% for the most active investors. Compared to the average investor, Betterment customers have a behavior gap that is 1.25% lower. How? Betterment has implemented smart design to discourage market timing and short-sighted decision making. For example, Betterment’s Tax Impact Preview feature allows users to view the tax hit of a withdrawal or allocation change before a decision is made. Currently, Betterment is the only automated investment service to offer this capability. This function allows you to see a detailed estimate of the expected gains or losses broken down by short- and long-term, making it possible for investors to make better decisions about whether short-term gains should be deferred to the long-term. Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that we have an even more sophisticated investor (Investor B), who understands the pitfalls of the behavior gap and is somehow able to avoid it. Betterment is still a better tool for Investor B because it offers a suite of tax-efficient features, including tax loss harvesting, smarter cost-basis accounting, municipal bonds, smart dividend reinvesting, and more. Each of these strategies can be automatically deployed inside the portfolio—Investor B need not do a thing. Each of these strategies can boost returns by lowering tax exposure. To return to your initial question—why not simply invest in the S&P 500? Investing is a long-term proposition, particularly when saving for retirement or other goals with a time horizon of several decades. To be a successful long-term investor means employing the core principles of diversification, tax management, and behavior management. While the S&P might look like a ‘hot’ investment one year, there are always reversals of fortune. The goal with long-term passive investing—the kind of investing that Betterment offers—is to help you reach your investing goals as efficiently as possible. Lastly, Betterment offers best-in-industry advice about where to save and how much to save for no fee." }, { "docid": "289801", "title": "", "text": "\"Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is \"\"in the long term\"\". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help.\"" }, { "docid": "314478", "title": "", "text": "\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"" }, { "docid": "594475", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a very important question and you will find arguments from both sides, in part because it is still understudied. Ben Golub, Economics Ph.D., from Stanford answers \"\"Is high-frequency trading good for the economy?\"\" on Quoram quite well. This is an important but understudied question. There are few published academic studies on it, though several groups are working on the subject. You may be interested in the following papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1569067 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1361184 These document some of the phenomena that arise in high frequency trading, from a theoretical and an empirical perspective. However, a full equilibrium analysis of the unique features of high frequency trading is still missing, and until it is done, all our answers will be kind of tentative. Nevertheless, there are some obvious things one can say. Currently, high frequency traders are competing to locate physically closer and closer to exchanges, because milliseconds matter. Thus, large amounts of money are being spent to beat other market makers by tiny fractions of a second. Once many firms make these investments, the market looks like it did before in terms of competition and prices, but is a tiny bit faster. This investment is unlikely to be socially efficient: that is, the users of the market don't actually benefit from the fact that their trades are executed half a millisecond faster -- certainly not enough to cover all the investment that went into making that happen. Some people who study the issue believe that high frequency trading (HFT) actually exacerbates market volatility; some plots to this effect are found in the second paper linked above. There is certainly no widely accepted theory that says faster trading technology necessarily increases efficiency, and it is easy to think of algorithms that can make money (at least in the short run) but hurt most other investors, as well as the informational value of the market. One caution is that some of the complaining about HFT comes from those who lose when HFT gets better -- old-style market makers. They certainly have an incentive to make HFT out to be very bad. So some complaints about the predatory nature of HFT should be taken with a grain of salt. There is no strong economic consensus about the value of this activity. For what it's worth, my personal impression is that this is more bad than good. I'll post an update here as more definitive research comes out. You can also find a debate on High-frequency trading from the Economist which gives both sides of the argument. In conclusion: Regardless of how you feel about HFT it seems like it's here to stay and won't be leaving in the foreseeable future. So the debate will rage on... Additional resource you may finding interesting: Europe Begins Push To Ban HFT High Frequency Trading Discussion On CNBC Should High Frequency Trading (HFT) be banned ?\"" }, { "docid": "90519", "title": "", "text": "\"IPO is \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\". Just so you know. The valuations are done based on the company business model, intellectual property, products, market shares, revenues and profits, assets, and future projections. You know, the usual stuff. Yes, it is. And very frequently done. In fact, I can't think of any company that is now publicly traded, that didn't start this way. The first investor, the one who founds the company, is the first one who invests in it after raising the capital (even if it is from his own bank account to pay the fees for filing the incorporation papers). What is the difference between \"\"normal\"\" investor and \"\"angel\"\"? What do you refer to as \"\"angel\"\"? How is it abnormal to you? Any investor can play a role, depending on the stake he/she has in the company. If the stake is large enough - the role will be significant. If the stake is the majority - the investor will in fact be able major decisions regarding the company. How he bought the stocks, whether through a closed offering, initial investment or on a stock exchange - doesn't matter at all. You may have heard of the term \"\"angels\"\" with regards to high-tech start up companies. These are private investors (not funds) that invest their own money in start ups at very early stages. They're called \"\"angels\"\" because they invest at stages at which it is very hard for entrepreneurs to raise money: there's no product, no real business, usually it is a stage of just an idea or a patent with maybe initial prototype and some preliminary business analysis. These people gamble, in a sense, and each investment is very small (relatively to their wealth) - tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes a hundred or two thousands, and they make a lot of these. Some may fail and they lose the money, but those that succeed - bring very high returns. Imagine investing 10K for 5% stake at Google 15 years ago. Those people are as investors as anyone else, and yes, depending on their stake in the company, they can influence its decisions.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "405206", "title": "", "text": "Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem." } ]

[ { "docid": "520098", "title": "", "text": "\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\"" }, { "docid": "581423", "title": "", "text": "\"Point of order: \"\"What goes up must come down\"\" refers to gravity of terrestrial objects below escape velocity and should not be generalized beyond its intent. It's not true that stocks MUST come down just because they have gone up. For example, we would not expecting the price of oil to come down to 1999 levels, right? Prices, including those of stocks, are not necessarily cyclical. Anyway, short selling isn't necessarily a bad idea. In some sense, it is insurance if you have a lot of assets (like maybe your human capital) that will take a dive when the market goes down. Short selling would have lost a lot of money in your case as the stock market between 2011 (when you wrote the question) and 2014 (when I wrote this answer) performed very well. On average the long side stock market should make money over long periods of time as compensation for risk and the short side should lose money, so it's not a good way to make money if you don't have an informational advantage. Like all insurance, it protects you against certain calamities, but on average it costs you money.\"" }, { "docid": "312591", "title": "", "text": "\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"" }, { "docid": "554262", "title": "", "text": "Even people who did think it was a good didn't really get screwed. If you are an investor who thinks Facebook is a good buy then fucking hold it. The company hasn't even released its first quarter of earnings yet. If the people who bought Facebook are right about it it will be worth it in five years. The fact is we cannot say whether or not that is going to happen right now. The only people who really got screwed are the ones who wanted to flip it. If you wanted to flip it you lost a lot of money, but the retail investors who figured that Facebook long-term was worth the money, didn't get screwed. They might be wrong and might lose all their money five years from now, but they didn't get screwed yet." }, { "docid": "90519", "title": "", "text": "\"IPO is \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\". Just so you know. The valuations are done based on the company business model, intellectual property, products, market shares, revenues and profits, assets, and future projections. You know, the usual stuff. Yes, it is. And very frequently done. In fact, I can't think of any company that is now publicly traded, that didn't start this way. The first investor, the one who founds the company, is the first one who invests in it after raising the capital (even if it is from his own bank account to pay the fees for filing the incorporation papers). What is the difference between \"\"normal\"\" investor and \"\"angel\"\"? What do you refer to as \"\"angel\"\"? How is it abnormal to you? Any investor can play a role, depending on the stake he/she has in the company. If the stake is large enough - the role will be significant. If the stake is the majority - the investor will in fact be able major decisions regarding the company. How he bought the stocks, whether through a closed offering, initial investment or on a stock exchange - doesn't matter at all. You may have heard of the term \"\"angels\"\" with regards to high-tech start up companies. These are private investors (not funds) that invest their own money in start ups at very early stages. They're called \"\"angels\"\" because they invest at stages at which it is very hard for entrepreneurs to raise money: there's no product, no real business, usually it is a stage of just an idea or a patent with maybe initial prototype and some preliminary business analysis. These people gamble, in a sense, and each investment is very small (relatively to their wealth) - tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes a hundred or two thousands, and they make a lot of these. Some may fail and they lose the money, but those that succeed - bring very high returns. Imagine investing 10K for 5% stake at Google 15 years ago. Those people are as investors as anyone else, and yes, depending on their stake in the company, they can influence its decisions.\"" }, { "docid": "496921", "title": "", "text": "\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"" }, { "docid": "216757", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"" }, { "docid": "135411", "title": "", "text": "\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"" }, { "docid": "209359", "title": "", "text": "When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited." }, { "docid": "285185", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, congratulations on saving some money. So many people these days do not even get that far. As far as investments, what is best for you depends heavily on your: Here is a quick summary of types of assets that are likely available to you, and my thoughts on why they may or may not be a good fit for your situation. Cash Equivalents Cash Equivalents are highly liquid, meaning you can get cash for them on fairly short notice. In particular, Money Markets and Certificates of Deposit (CDs) are also considered very safe when issued by a bank, as they are often insured against loss by the government up to a certain amount (this varies quite a lot by country within Europe, see the Wikipedia article here for additional detail. Please note that in the case of a CD, you are usually unable to get access to your money for the length of the investment period, which is usually a short period of time such as 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year. This is a good choice if you may need your money back on short notice, and your main goal is to preserve your principal. However, the returns tend to be very low and often do not keep pace with inflation, meaning that over several years, you may lose \"\"real\"\" purchasing power, even if you don't lose nominal value in your account. Special Note on Cash Equivalents If the money you want to invest is also your Emergency Fund, or you do not have an Emergency Fund, I would highly recommend Cash Equivalents. They will provide the highest level of Liquidity along with a short Time Horizon so that you can get your money as needed in the case of unforeseen expenses such as if your car breaks down. Debt Debt investments include government and corporate bonds. They are still considered relatively safe, as the issuer would need to default (usually this means they are in bankruptcy) in order for you not to be paid back. For example, German bonds have been considered safer than Greek bonds recently based on the underlying strength of the government. Unlike Cash Equivalents, these are not guaranteed against loss, which means that if the issuer defaults, you could lose up to 100% of your investment. Bonds have several new features you will need to consider. One is interest rate risk. One reason bonds perform better than cash equivalents is that you are taking on the risk that if interest rates rise, the fixed payments the bond promises will be worth less, and the face value of your bond will fall. While most bonds are still very Liquid, this means that if you need to sell the bond before it matures, you could lose money. As mentioned earlier, some bonds are riskier than others. Given that you are looking for a low-risk investment, you would want to select a bond that is considered \"\"invesment grade\"\" rather than a riskier \"\"junk\"\" bond. Debt investments are a good choice if you can afford to do without this money for a few years, and you want to balance safety with somewhat better returns than Cash Equivalents. Again though, I would not recommend investing in Debt until you have also built up a separate Emergency Fund. If you do choose to invest in bonds, I recommend that you diversify your risks by investing in a bond fund, rather than in just one company's or government's debt. This will reduce the likelihood that you will experience a catastrophic loss. Ownership Ownership assets includes stocks and other assets such as real estate and precious metals such as gold. While these investments can have high returns, in your situation I would strongly recommend that you not invest in these types of investments, for the following reasons: For these reasons, debt is considered a safer investment than equity for any particular company, government, or the market as a whole. Ownership assets are a good choice for people who have a high Risk Tolerance, long Time Horizon, low Liquidity needs, and will not be bothered by larger potential changes in the value of the investment at any given time. Special Note on Gold I would consider Gold a very risky investment and not a good fit for you at the moment based on what you've shared in your question. Gold is considered \"\"safe\"\" in the sense that people believe that if the economy goes into recession, depression, or collapses entirely, gold will continue to be valuable. In a post-apocalyptic world where paper money became worthless, it is still a good bet that gold will always be considered valuable within human society as a store of value. That being said, the price of gold fluctuates almost entirely based on how bad people think things are going to get. Think about the difference between gold and a company like Coca-Cola. Would you like to own 100% of Coca-Cola? Of course, because you know there is a very good chance that people will continue to spend money all over the world on their products. On the other hand, gold itself produces no products, no sales, no profits, and no cash flow. As such, if you buy gold, you are really making a speculative bet that gold will be in higher demand tomorrow than it is today. You are buying an asset (the gold) rather than part of a company's equity or debt that is designed to throw off payments to its investors in the form of bond payments or dividends. So, if people decide next year that things are improving, it is possible that gold could lose value, given that gold prices are at historically high levels. Gold could be a good choice for someone who has a large, well-diversified investment portfolio, and who is looking for a hedge to protect against inflation and other risks that they have taken on via their other investments. I hope that is helpful - best of luck in your choices. Let us know what you decide!\"" }, { "docid": "204866", "title": "", "text": "What are the risks pertaining to timing on long term index investments? The risks are countless for any investment strategy. If you invest in US stocks, and prices revert to the long term cyclically adjusted average, you will lose a lot of money. If you invest in cash, inflation may outpace interest rates and you will lose money. If you invest in gold, the price might go down and you will lose money. It's best to study history and make a reasonable decision (i.e. invest in stocks). Here are long term returns by asset class, computed by Jeremy Siegel: $1 invested in equities in 1801 equals $15.22 today if was not invested and $8.8 million if it was invested in stocks. This is the 'magic of compound interest' and cash / bonds have not been nearly as magical as stocks historically. 2) How large are these risks? The following chart shows the largest drawdowns (decreases in the value of an asset) since 1970 (source): Asset prices decrease in value frequently. Financial assets are volatile, but historically, they have increased over time, enabling investors to earn compounded returns (exponential growth of money is how to get rich). I personally view drawdowns as an excellent time to buy - it's like going on a shopping spree when everything in the store is discounted. 3) In case I feel not prepared to take these risks, how can I avoid them? The optimal asset allocation depends on the ability to take risk and your tolerance for risk. You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high. From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk). Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source): Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors. For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended. Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value." }, { "docid": "169004", "title": "", "text": "Basically there are 2 ways you can make money from an investment, through income (eg: rent or dividends) and through the price of the investment going up (capital growth or gains). Most people associate negative gearing with investment properties but it can be done with shares and other investments where you borrow money to buy the investment and it produces an income of some sort. If the investment does not produce an income then you cannot negative gear it. Using a property as an example (in Australia), if all your expenses each month (loan interest payments, council and water rates, insurance and/or strata, advertising and management fees, depreciation, and maintenance expense) are greater than your income (rent), then you are negative gearing the investment property. This is a monthly loss on your investment which can be used to offset and reduce the amount of tax you pay during the year. So most people negative gearing an investment property will get a nice sum back when they do their tax returns. The problem with negative gearing is that you have to lose money in order to save some tax. So as an example, if you are on a marginal tax rate of 30%, for every $1 you lose from the investment property you will save 30c in tax. If your marginal tax rate is 45% then will save 45c in tax for every $1 lost on the investment property. Thus negative gearing becomes more tax effective the higher your income (and tax bracket). But you are still losing money overall. The problem is that most novice investors buy an investment property for the main purpose of reducing their taxes. This can be dangerous because the main reason to buy any investment should be that you consider it to be a good investment, not to save you tax. Because if the investment is not a good one, then you will not only lose money on the income side but also on the capital side. Negative gearing should be looked at as a bonus or additional benefit when chosing a good investment to buy, not as the reason to buy the investment." }, { "docid": "440805", "title": "", "text": "\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"" }, { "docid": "313899", "title": "", "text": "\"No you don't have to be super-rich. But... the companies do not have to sell you shares, and as others mention the government actively restricts and regulates the advertising and sales of shares, so how do you invest? The easiest way to obtain a stake is to work at a pre-IPO company, preferably at a high level (e.g. Director/VP of under water basket weaving, or whatever). You might be offered shares or options as part of a compensation package. There are exemptions to the accredited investor rule for employees and a general exemption for a small number of unsolicited investors. Also, the accredited investor rule is enforced against companies, not investors, and the trend is for investors to self-certify. The \"\"crime\"\" being defined is not investing in things the government thinks are too risky for you. Instead, the \"\"crime\"\" being defined is offering shares to the public in a small business that is probably going to fail and might even be a scam from the beginning. To invest your money in pre-IPO shares is on average a losing adventure, and it is easy to become irrationally optimistic. The problem with these shares is that you can't sell them, and may not be able to sell them immediately when the company does have an IPO on NASDAQ or another market. Even the executive options can have lock up clauses and it may be that only the founders and a few early investors make money.\"" }, { "docid": "4845", "title": "", "text": "This is a Short Diagonal Calender Put Spread Generally, you're writing that long dated one at the money, and buying the short dated one out of the money. The maximum amount that can be made is if the stock breaks out strongly to the upside, and you keep the upfront credit minus whatever small amount it took to buy the April puts back. You can also make money if it breaks strongly to the downside, but only if the credit when you opened your positions was more than $10. Example: Now say the stock falls to $500 by the time of that march expiration. You'd make $90/share on the march put, and lose $100/share on the April put (or a little more; but that deep in the money, there won't be much premium on it). That's a loss of $10/share, or -$1000. So: I make a point of pointing this out because in that article I linked to the fact that your upfront credit needs to be greater than the strike spread in order to profit to the downside is not clearly mentioned." }, { "docid": "240894", "title": "", "text": "\"Gold may have some \"\"intrinsic value\"\" but it cannot be accurately determined by investors by any known valuation techniques. In fact, if you were to apply the dividend discount model of John Burr Williams - a variation of which is the basis of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis and the basis of most valuation techniques - gold would have zero intrinsic value because it produces no cash flow. Legendary focus investor Warren Buffett argues that investing in gold is pure speculation because of the reason mentioned above. As others have mentioned, gold prices are affected by supply and demand, but the bigger influence on the price of gold is how the economy is. Gold is seen as a store of value because, according to some, it does not \"\"lose value\"\" unlike paper currency during inflation. In inflationary times, demand increases so gold prices do go up, which is why gold behaves similar to a commodity but has far less uses. It is difficult to argue whether or not gold gains or loses value because we can't determine the intrinsic value of gold, and anyone who attempts to justify any given price is pulling blinders over your eyes. It is indisputable that, over history, gold represents wealth and that in the past century and the last decade, gold prices rise in inflationary conditions as people dump dollars for gold, and it has fallen when the purchasing power of currency increases. Many investors have talked about a \"\"gold bubble\"\" by arguing that gold prices are inflated because of inflation and the Fed's money policy and that once interest rates rise, the money supply will contract and gold will fall, but again, nobody can say with any reasonable accuracy what the fair value of gold at any given point is. This article on seeking alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/112794-the-intrinsic-value-of-gold gives a quick overview, but it is also vague because gold can't be accurately priced. I wouldn't say that gold has zero intrinsic value because gold is not a business so traditional models are inappropriate, but I would say that gold *certainly * doesn't have a value of $1,500 and it's propped so high only because of investor expectation. In conclusion, I do not believe you can accurately state whether gold is undervalued or overvalued - you must make judgments based on what you think about the future of the market and of monetary policy, but there are too many variables to be accurate consistently.\"" }, { "docid": "540527", "title": "", "text": "TL:DR: You should read something like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing, and read some of the popular questions on this site. The main message that you will get from that research is that there is an inescapable connection between risk and reward, or to put it another way, volatility and reward. Things like government bonds and money market accounts have quite low risk, but also low reward. They offer a nearly guaranteed 1-3%. Stocks, high-risk bonds, or business ventures (like your soda and vending machine scheme) may return 20% a year some years, but you could also lose money, maybe all you've invested (e.g., what if a vandal breaks one of your machines or the government adds a $5 tax for each can of soda?). Research has shown that the best way for the normal person to use their money to make money is to buy index funds (these are funds that buy a bunch of different stocks), and to hold them for a long time (over 10-15 years). By buying a broad range of stocks, you avoid some of the risks of investing (e.g., if one company's stock tanks, you don't lose very much), while keeping most of the benefits. By keeping them for a long time, the good years more than even out the bad years, and you are almost guaranteed to make ~6-7%/year. Buying individual stocks is a really, really bad idea. If you aren't willing to invest the time to become an expert investor, then you will almost certainly do worse than index funds over the long run. Another option is to use your capital to start a side business (like your vending machine idea). As mentioned before, this still has risks. One of those risks is that it will take more work than you expect (who will find places for your vending machines? Who will fill them? Who will hire those who fill them? etc.). The great thing about an index fund is that it doesn't take work or research. However, if there are things that you want to do, that take capital, this can be a good way to make more income." }, { "docid": "287881", "title": "", "text": "\"Because the value of distressed assets is close to what they are selling for. When you lend money, you know there is a risk of default. You gamble on that risk, and you take the responsibility if you lose because the person taking the money can't pay. People who buy distressed debt on the idea that they can make more money off of it are only able to do that in two ways: not giving a shit what the impacts of wringing more money out create, figuring out a legal way to make someone else pay for it through ripple blackmail effects (other people also are impacted when a country can't function.) If you back Klarman, you may say the point is you are \"\"teaching\"\" Puerto Rico and everyone else that they shouldn't take on debt they can't afford. But when has that ever worked? The pensioners who are bankrupt are the ones actually getting the pain of the lesson. Another lesson could be to investors not to lend to people who can't pay them back. The people lending the money are the ones who now don't have it because they made a bad choice. Seth Klarman could also learn a lesson about taking on distressed debt being a non-lucrative pastime. Or we can all learn a lesson that taking on distressed debt is very lucrative. A big change America implemented was getting rid of debtor's prisons. This looks a lot like getting excited about debtor's prison to me. EDIT: I should note I am thinking of the Algerian version of making a ton of money off of distressed national debt. As opposed to making a bit more money off of distressed debt because you were willing to let the collapse figure itself out. Though I'm not so sure about that either.\"" }, { "docid": "187039", "title": "", "text": "\"The person who told you \"\"no-load funds\"\" had the right idea. Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a \"\"value\"\" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a \"\"growth\"\" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund \"\"usually\"\" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager. Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money. For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of \"\"short term\"\". Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days. Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse. You don't need this money. For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it. You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%. For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero. Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now? Any recreation or hobby or activity. Maybe your rent or your tuition. Why spend it for a vague sense of \"\"safety\"\", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "434788", "title": "", "text": "Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing ." } ]

[ { "docid": "440805", "title": "", "text": "\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"" }, { "docid": "259531", "title": "", "text": "\"The most likely reason for this card is that Amazon has an arrangement with the issuer (I believe that that used to be Chase; may have changed since). Such an arrangement may allow Amazon to take the risk of chargebacks, etc. in return for the issuer handling the mechanics of billing. This is advantageous for Amazon, as otherwise they are subject to both their own procedures and those of the issuer. Amazon would rather take the entire risk than share it with someone else who charges for the privilege. Fees for processing credit cards can be as much as 5%, although 1-2% is more typical. Due to its size, Amazon may already have negotiated fees lower than 1%. But even so, any savings they make are to their benefit. Further, now they can get a share of the fees charged to other merchants. For example, if you buy a book from Barnes & Noble (an Amazon competitor) with the Amazon card, then Amazon gets some money in return, say 1% of the transaction. If the price is the same on Amazon and at Barnes & Noble, you can actually save money with the Amazon card. Amazon gives more \"\"cash back\"\" in the form of gift card balance for an Amazon purchase. So the card may mean that you buy from Amazon when you might otherwise have chosen someone else. If we again assume a 20% margin, they only need $200 of additional purchases to make $40 of profit. Someone who buys $1000 additional on the Amazon site makes them $200 of profit. They're over $160 ahead. Also note that Amazon is only giving you a gift card, which you have to use on Amazon. And it's difficult to spend exactly $50. As a practical matter, most people will buy, say, $60, with $10 of that money. So they sell you $48 of merchandise (their cost, assuming a 20% margin) for $10. They lost $38 on that transaction, but they've lured you into a long term relationship that may return more than that. And they didn't lose the $50 you gained. They only lost $38. Think about it as a marketing cost. Amazon is willing to pay $38 for a long term relationship with you. From their perspective, doing so in such a way that you come out $50 ahead (assuming you would have made the same purchases without this), is a win-win. Because once they have that relationship, they can leverage it to give them savings elsewhere. This is Amazon's approach in general. Originally all their products were drop shipped (from someone like Ingram Micro). They handled the web site and billing while the drop shipper handled inventory and shipping. Then Amazon added their own warehouses. Now they can do all that separately. This is just the same thing for buyers. Amazon manages all the risk of the transaction and thus gets all the profit. Because Amazon is managing the credit card risk, they have access to all the credit history. This helps them better determine if that sudden shipment of a $2000 camera to Thailand is a real transaction (you're a photographer who regularly vacations in Thailand) or a fake (you've never been to Thailand in your life and your phone is camera enough). That additional information may itself be worth enough to make the relationship profitable for Amazon. Amazon certainly gets something out of the relationship. You give them money. And you are likely to give them more money with the Amazon card than they would otherwise receive. But you get products in return. Is that a good deal? If you prefer having the products to the money, then yes. Others have suggested that it's the irresponsible credit card users that generate the real profit. I disagree. They generate more revenue in the short term, but then they overspend and declare bankruptcy. Then Amazon loses its money. Yes, they get more interest and fees in that case, but if they lose $1000, they needed to make $1000 in profit just to break even. It's safer to make the smaller short term profits with responsible customers who will continue to be customers for the long term. A steady profit of $100 or $200 a year is better than a one time profit of $500 followed by a loss of $1000 followed by nothing for ten years. Anyway, your question was if you should sign up for the card. If you are planning on doing a lot of shopping on Amazon, you might as well. It gives you cash back. If shopping on Amazon is inconvenient, then perhaps that outweighs the advantage of the card. The \"\"cash back\"\" is just Amazon money. You can't spend it anywhere but Amazon. If each transaction gives you a little bit of Amazon money, you have to keep going back to spend it.\"" }, { "docid": "169004", "title": "", "text": "Basically there are 2 ways you can make money from an investment, through income (eg: rent or dividends) and through the price of the investment going up (capital growth or gains). Most people associate negative gearing with investment properties but it can be done with shares and other investments where you borrow money to buy the investment and it produces an income of some sort. If the investment does not produce an income then you cannot negative gear it. Using a property as an example (in Australia), if all your expenses each month (loan interest payments, council and water rates, insurance and/or strata, advertising and management fees, depreciation, and maintenance expense) are greater than your income (rent), then you are negative gearing the investment property. This is a monthly loss on your investment which can be used to offset and reduce the amount of tax you pay during the year. So most people negative gearing an investment property will get a nice sum back when they do their tax returns. The problem with negative gearing is that you have to lose money in order to save some tax. So as an example, if you are on a marginal tax rate of 30%, for every $1 you lose from the investment property you will save 30c in tax. If your marginal tax rate is 45% then will save 45c in tax for every $1 lost on the investment property. Thus negative gearing becomes more tax effective the higher your income (and tax bracket). But you are still losing money overall. The problem is that most novice investors buy an investment property for the main purpose of reducing their taxes. This can be dangerous because the main reason to buy any investment should be that you consider it to be a good investment, not to save you tax. Because if the investment is not a good one, then you will not only lose money on the income side but also on the capital side. Negative gearing should be looked at as a bonus or additional benefit when chosing a good investment to buy, not as the reason to buy the investment." }, { "docid": "242663", "title": "", "text": "\"Some thoughts on your questions in order, Duration: You might want to look at the longest-dated option (often a \"\"LEAP\"\"), for a couple reasons. One is that transaction costs (spread plus commission, especially spread) are killer on options, so a longer option means fewer transactions, since you don't have to keep rolling the option. Two is that any fundamentals-based views on stocks might tend to require 3-5 years to (relatively) reliably work out, so if you're a fundamental investor, a 3-6 month option isn't great. Over 3-6 months, momentum, short-term news, short squeezes, etc. can often dominate fundamentals in determining the price. One exception is if you just want to hedge a short-term event, such as a pending announcement on drug approval or something, and then you would buy the shortest option that still expires after the event; but options are usually super-expensive when they span an event like this. Strike: Strike price on a long option can be thought of as a tradeoff between the max loss and minimizing \"\"insurance costs.\"\" That is, if you buy a deeply in-the-money put or call, the time value will be minimal and thus you aren't paying so much for \"\"insurance,\"\" but you may have 1/3 or 1/2 of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss. If you buy a put or call \"\"at the money,\"\" then you might have only say 10% of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss, but almost the whole 10% may be time value (insurance cost), so you are losing 10% if the underlying stock price stays flat. I think of the deep in-the-money options as similar to buying stocks on margin (but the \"\"implied\"\" interest costs may be less than consumer margin borrowing rates, and for long options you can't get a margin call). The at-the-money options are more like buying insurance, and it's expensive. The commissions and spreads add significant cost, on top of the natural time value cost of the option. The annual costs would generally exceed the long-run average return on a diversified stock fund, which is daunting. Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 1: First thing is to be sure the options prices on a given underlying make sense at all; there are things that \"\"should\"\" hold, for example a synthetic long or short should match up to an actual long or short. These kinds of rules can break, for example on LinkedIn (LNKD) after its IPO, when shorting was not permitted, the synthetic long was quite a bit cheaper than a real long. Usually though this happens because the arbitrage is not practical. For example on LNKD, the shares to short weren't really available, so people doing synthetic shorts with options were driving up the price of the synthetic short and down the price of the synthetic long. If you did actually want to be long the stock, then the synthetic long was a great deal. However, a riskless arbitrage (buy synthetic long, short the stock) was not possible, and that's why the prices were messed up. Another basic relationship that should hold is put-call parity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 2: Assuming the relationship to the underlying is sane (synthetic positions equivalent to actual positions) then the valuation of the option could focus on volatility. That is, the time value of the option implies the stock will move a certain amount. If the time value is high and you think the stock won't move much, you might short the option, while if the time value is low and you think the stock will move a lot, you might buy the option. You can get implied volatility from your broker perhaps, or Morningstar.com for example has a bunch of data on option prices and the implied components of the price model. I don't know how useful this really is though. The spreads on options are so wide that making money on predicting volatility better than the market is pretty darn hard. That is, the spread probably exceeds the amount of the mispricing. The price of the underlying is more important to the value of an option than the assumed volatility. How many contracts: Each contract is 100 shares, so you just match that up. If you want to hedge 100 shares, buy one contract. To get the notional value of the underlying multiply by 100. So say you buy a call for $30, and the stock is trading at $100, then you have a call on 100 shares which are currently priced at $10,000 and the option will cost $30*100=3,000. You are leveraged about 3 to 1. (This points to an issue with options for individual investors, which is that one contract is a pretty large notional value relative to most portfolios.)\"" }, { "docid": "499060", "title": "", "text": "\"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender \"\"such as a broker\"\" , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals.\"" }, { "docid": "449352", "title": "", "text": "Where does the money go Who wins the billions Ever heard of The Wolf of Wall Street , theres where the money goes . In short ,bankers, traders who are paid millions to take make leverage bets using the banks money regardless of whether they do well . If they screw up and lose millions , they get paid to leave ( compensation package ) . If they do well , they get bonus." }, { "docid": "11633", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming you can understand and emotionally handle the volatility, a good indeed fund would be wise. These are low fee funds which perform as well as our better than most managed investments and since they don't cost as much, they typically out perform most other investment vehicles. The S&P 500 is traded as SPDR. Another option is the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which trades as DIA. Average returns over the long term are 10-12%. If you expect to need the money in the short term (5-8 years), you have a non trivial chance of needing to pull the money out when the market is down, so if that's unacceptable to you, choose something with a guarantee. If you're terrified of losing money in the short term, don't think you can handle waiting for the market to go up, especially when every news caster is crying hysterically that the End of Economic Life on Earth is here, then consider a CD at your bank. CDs return much lower rates (around 2% right now) but do not go down in value ever. However, you need to lock your money into them for months to years at a time. Some people might tell you to buy a bond fund. That's horrible advice. Bond funds get lower returns AND have no guarantee that you won't lose money on them, unlike aactual bonds. As you're new to investing, I encourage you to read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Gramm.\"" }, { "docid": "445887", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today. Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)? It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible. Scott W is correct on a number of counts. The \"\"cost\"\" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul. Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth. They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to. $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year. Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it. Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim. If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in \"\"rent\"\" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, \"\"But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here.\"\" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess.\"" }, { "docid": "144208", "title": "", "text": "The idea of a stockmarket is multiple people betting on the value of an asset and then getting paid the difference between their bet and the real value of the asset. The goal being to keep the value of the stock as accurate as possible so capital is allocated to companies that will use it most efficiently. The reward for people making these bets is a portion of that capital. What you are suggesting is just a graph of the average happiness. The difficult part of turning this into a market, is being able to assign value to happiness, value that you can gain or lose by choice. Ironically, money is a indicator of happiness. When apple came out with the iPhone, people saw it and decided it would make them happier if they owned it creating demand. Investors noticed that people believed owning an iphone would make them happier so they bid up the price of AAPL stock. People are happier with their iPhones and investors benefitted from this happiness and got cash allowing them to spend money on things to increase their happiness. In order to extract happiness from the stock market a lot of other things come into play. A biotech company curing cancer would be a solution to something that drastically decreases happiness. Increasing alcohol sales might be a result of people trying to offset the sadness in the short term but in the long term it is a depressant and doesn't make you happy. An individual might be happier with an extra $10B but overall 1 million people getting $10k each would increase average happiness much more. But somebody like buffet can invest in companies that can generate way more happiness than just handing out cash. The happiness report is an annual report of happiness. Looking at these results next to the Gini coefficient (income inequality), and industry growth by country might start to give you an idea of what affects happiness. For instance in Africa income inequality could sky rocket while the stock market plummets and happiness could still increase because of public health investments made years ago, causing the infant mortality rate to plummet. If you want to think about this topic I recommend reading the great escape by Angus Deaton." }, { "docid": "496921", "title": "", "text": "\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"" }, { "docid": "520098", "title": "", "text": "\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\"" }, { "docid": "105666", "title": "", "text": "\"First, congratulations on choosing to invest in low cost passively managed plans. If you choose any one of these options and stick with it, you will already be well ahead of most individual investors. Almost all plans will allow you to re-balance between asset classes. With some companies, sales agents will encourage you to sell your overweighted assets and buy underweighted assets as this generates brokerage commissions for them, but when you only need to make minor adjustments, you can simply change the allocation of the new money going into your account until you are back to your target weights. Most plans will let you do this for free, and in general, you will only need to do this every few years at most. I don't see much reason for you to be in the Target funds. The main feature of these plans is that they gradually shift you to a more conservative asset allocation over time, and are designed to prevent people who are close to retirement from being too aggressive and risking a major loss just before retirement. It's very likely that at your age, most plans will have very similar recommendations for your allocation, with equities at 80% or more, and this is unlikely to change for the next few decades. The main benefits of betterment seems to be simplicity and ease of use, but there is one concern I would have for you with betterment. Precisely because it is so easy to tweak your allocation, I'm concerned that you might hurt your long-term results by reacting to short-term market conditions: I know I said I wanted a hands off account, but what if the stock market crashes and I want to allocate more to bonds??? One of the biggest reasons that stock returns are better than bond returns on average is that you are being paid to accept additional risk, and living with significant ups and downs is part of what it means to be in the stock market. If you are tempted to take money out of an asset class when it has been \"\"losing/feels dangerous\"\" and put more in when it is \"\"winning/feels safe\"\", my concerns is that you will end up buying high and selling low. I'd recommend taking a look at this article on the emotional cycle of investing. My point is simply that it's very likely that if you are moving money in and out of stocks based on volatility, you're much less likely to get the full market return over the long term, and might be better off putting more weight in asset classes with lower volatility. Either way, I'd recommend taking one or more risk tolerance assessments online and making sure you're committed to sticking with a long-term plan that doesn't involve more risk than you can really live with. I tend to lean toward Vanguard Life Strategy simply because Vanguard as a company has been around longer, but betterment does seem very accessible to a new investor. Best of luck with your decision!\"" }, { "docid": "324661", "title": "", "text": "\"Making these difficult portfolio decisions for you is the point of Target-Date Retirement Funds. You pick a date at which you're going to start needing to withdraw the money, and the company managing the fund slowly turns down the aggressiveness of the fund as the target date approaches. Typically you would pick the target date to be around, say, your 65th birthday. Many mutual fund companies offer a variety of funds to suit your needs. Your desire to never \"\"have to recover\"\" indicates that you have not yet done quite enough reading on the subject of investing. (Or possibly that your sources have been misleading you.) A basic understanding of investing includes the knowledge that markets go up and down, and that no portfolio will always go up. Some \"\"recovery\"\" will always be necessary; having a less aggressive portfolio will never shield you completely from losing money, it just makes loss less likely. The important thing is to only invest money that you can afford to lose in the short-term (with the understanding that you'll make it back in the long term). Money that you'll need in the short-term should be kept in the absolute safest investment vehicles, such as a savings account, a money market account, short-term certificates of deposit, or short-term US government bonds.\"" }, { "docid": "411375", "title": "", "text": "\"Because the returns are not good. One of the big drivers in Australia is \"\"negative gearing\"\": if your investment loses money you can offset losses against your tax on other income. Institutional investors and corporations are in the business of making money: not losing it. Housing market investors are betting that these year to year revenue losses will ultimately be made up in a big capital gain: for which individuals get a huge tax break that is also not available to corporations. Capital gains are not guaranteed. Australia has benefited from 25+ years of economic, employment and wages growth: a result of good government planning, strong corporate governance and a fair slice of luck. If this were to end housing prices would plateau at best and crash at worst. A person who has negative cash flow investments has to sell them urgently if they lose their job. A glut of mortgagee sales and property prices could easily come off 20-30%. Rental yields on residential property in Sydney are about 4% with a capital gain of currently 10% but this has been flat or negative within the last 5 years and no doubt will be again within the next 5. Rental yields for residential property are constrained by mortgage rates: if it significantly cheaper to buy then to rent, why would anyone rent? In contrast, industrial and commercial property gets a yield of about 7% and gets exactly the same capital gain. This is because land is land and if the price of industrial land doesn't grow at the same rate as the residential land next door eventually one will be converted into the other. Retail rentals are even higher. In addition commercial tenants are responsible for more outgoings and have fewer legal rights than residential tenants. Further, individual residential properties are horribly illiquid and have large transaction costs. While it is possible to bundle them up into property trusts so that units can be sold on the stock exchange it is far more common to do this with office and retail buildings. This is what companies like Westfield and AMP Capital do. Notwithstanding, heavily geared property trusts can get into deep water because of the illiquid nature of property as the failure of Centro illustrates. That said, there are plenty of companies that develop residential houses and units for sale to owner occupiers or investors because that's where the money is.\"" }, { "docid": "408918", "title": "", "text": "\"Largely, because stock markets are efficient markets, at least mostly if not entirely; while the efficient market hypothesis is not necessarily 100% correct, for the majority of traders it's unlikely that you could (on the long term) find significant market inefficiencies with the tools available to an individual of normal wealth (say, < $500k). That's what frequent trading intends to do: find market inefficiencies. If the market is efficient, then a stock is priced exactly at what it should be worth, based on risk and future returns. If it is inefficient, then you can make more money trading on that inefficiency versus simply holding it long. But in stating that a stock is inefficient, you are stating that you know something the rest of the market doesn't - or some condition is different for you than the other million or so people in the market. That's including a lot of folks who do this for a living, and have very expensive modelling software (and hardware to run it on). I like to think that I'm smarter than the far majority of people, but I'm probably not the smartest guy in the room, and I certainly don't have that kind of equipment - especially with high frequency trading nowadays. As such, it's certainly possible to make a bit of money as a trader versus as a long-term investor, but on the whole it's similar to playing poker for a living. If you're smarter than most of the people in the room, you might be able to make a bit of money, but the overhead - in the case of poker, the money the house charges for the game, in the case of stocks, the exchange fees and broker commissions - means that it's a losing game for the group as a whole, and not very many people can actually make money. Add to that the computer-based trading - so imagine a poker game where four of the eight players are computer models that are really good (and actively maintained by very smart traders) and you can see where it gets to be very difficult to trade at a profit (versus long term investments, which take advantage of the growth in value in the company). Finally, the risk because of leverage and option trading (which is necessary to really take advantage of inefficiencies) makes it not only hard to make a profit, but easy to lose everything. Again to the poker analogy, the guys I've known playing poker for a living do it by playing 10-20 games at once - because one game isn't efficient enough, you wouldn't make enough money. In poker, you can do that fairly safely, especially in limit games; but in the market, if you're leveraging your money you risk losing a lot. Every action you take to make it \"\"safer\"\" removes some of your profit.\"" }, { "docid": "402112", "title": "", "text": "a smaller spread indicates a flat yield curve, which means banks and investors are uncertain about future economic conditions (like the current environment). When the spread widens and the curve becomes upward sloping (considered a normal yield curve), investors expect future growth and minimal inflation. Longer term rates increase as investors demand a higher yield in return for lending their money for a longer period of time. Increase demand for credit (industries expanding) also drive up longer term rates. A negative spread indicates an inverted yield curve and investors believe the economy is overheating and interest rates will fall. Investors pull money out of the stock market and into long term bonds (raising the price, lowering the yield) while companies stop borrowing, reducing the demand for credit and lower the cost, or interest rate, on a loan. Keep in mind central banks determine short term rates, so inverted curves are rare in the sense the market perceives uncertainty and rushes to safety (bonds) before the central bank reacts and lowers short term rates." }, { "docid": "287881", "title": "", "text": "\"Because the value of distressed assets is close to what they are selling for. When you lend money, you know there is a risk of default. You gamble on that risk, and you take the responsibility if you lose because the person taking the money can't pay. People who buy distressed debt on the idea that they can make more money off of it are only able to do that in two ways: not giving a shit what the impacts of wringing more money out create, figuring out a legal way to make someone else pay for it through ripple blackmail effects (other people also are impacted when a country can't function.) If you back Klarman, you may say the point is you are \"\"teaching\"\" Puerto Rico and everyone else that they shouldn't take on debt they can't afford. But when has that ever worked? The pensioners who are bankrupt are the ones actually getting the pain of the lesson. Another lesson could be to investors not to lend to people who can't pay them back. The people lending the money are the ones who now don't have it because they made a bad choice. Seth Klarman could also learn a lesson about taking on distressed debt being a non-lucrative pastime. Or we can all learn a lesson that taking on distressed debt is very lucrative. A big change America implemented was getting rid of debtor's prisons. This looks a lot like getting excited about debtor's prison to me. EDIT: I should note I am thinking of the Algerian version of making a ton of money off of distressed national debt. As opposed to making a bit more money off of distressed debt because you were willing to let the collapse figure itself out. Though I'm not so sure about that either.\"" }, { "docid": "325566", "title": "", "text": "\"Is investing a good idea with a low amount of money? Yes. I'll take the angle that you CAN invest in penny stocks. There's nothing wrong with that. The (oversimplified) suggestion I would make is to answer the question about your risk aversion. This is the four quadrant (e.g., http://njaes.rutgers.edu:8080/money/riskquiz/) you are introduced to when you first sit down to open your brokerage (stocks) or employer retirement account (401K). Along with a release of liability in the language of \"\"past performance is not an indicator...\"\" (which you will not truly understand until you experience a market crash). The reason I say this is because if you are 100% risk averse, then it is clear which vehicles you want to have in your tool belt; t-bills, CDs, money market, and plain vanilla savings. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. Don't let anyone make you feel otherwise with remarks like \"\"your money is not working for you sitting there\"\". It's extremely important to be absolutely honest with yourself in doing this assessment, too. For example, I thought I was a risk taker except when the market tumbled, I reacted exactly how a knee-jerk investor would. Also, I feel it's not easy to know just how honest you are with yourself as we are humans, and not impartial machines. So the recommendation I would give is to make a strong correlation to casino gambling. In other words, conventional advice is to only take \"\"play money\"\" to the casino. This because you assume you WILL lose it. Then you can enjoy yourself at the casino knowing this is capital that you are okay throwing in the trash. I would strongly caution you to only ever invest capital in the stock market that you characterize as play money. I'm convinced financial advisors, fund managers, friends will disagree. Still, I feel this is the only way you will be completely okay when the market fluctuates -- you won't lose sleep. IF you choose this approach, then you can start investing any time. That five drachma you were going to throw away on lottery tickets? transfer it into your Roth IRA. That twenty yen that you were going to ante in your weekly poker night? transfer it into your index fund. You already got past the investors remorse of (losing) that money. IF you truly accept that amount as play money, then you CAN put it into penny stocks. I'll get lots of criticism here. However, I maintain that once you are truly okay with throwing that cash away (like you would drop it into a slot machine), then it's the same whether you lose it one way or in another investment vehicle.\"" }, { "docid": "96828", "title": "", "text": "\"It's only a \"\"loss\"\" if you believe the purpose of indexes is to represent the basket of underlying companies with the highest returns. But that's simply not true. An index is just a rules-based way to track/measure a thing. That thing could be the largest US companies, all the companies in a specific sector, all of the companies in the world, a commodity or basket of commodities... Pretty much anything. Somebody just has to write down the explanation of what an index tracks, then create ETFs to track the index. By being a \"\"passive investor\"\" you are still making active investing decisions to some degree, in that you need to decide which indexes to passively invest in. If people are not going to attempt to understand the companies they invest in because they're almost certainly better off indexing (which is fine), then the responsibility must fall on someone to make decisions about what are the best rules for the indexes. For most of the history of capital markets, good corporate governance has been enforced by shareholders. If management did something bad, shareholders could vote to replace the Board of Directors and in general they had tools to hold management accountable. Only in recent years, founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Snap, etc., have attempted to subvert this relationship (public shareholders give a company money, and in return the company must answer to the shareholders) and essentially take money for nothing. So far (it's still a pretty short experiment) this has worked as long as the share price is going up, but what happens when it doesn't? What happens when these companies screw up and stop performing well, and there's nothing shareholders can do about it? Investors who intentionally own individual shares will have little to no leverage to demand change, and passive investors would be stuck with some of their money in these companies with terrible governance - and the precedent would only make dual-class and non-voting shares more attractive for future IPOs, making the problem more prevalent. If you think it is in your best interest to own the entire S&amp;P 500, *plus* Snap, then just do that. For every dollar you invest into SPDR or something similar, allocate something like $0.01 into Snap. It's that simple. But don't make this out to be a story about how S&amp;P is anti-free markets or doing a disservice to investors. That's ridiculous. If most Americans are just going to blindly put their retirement savings into index funds without bothering to understand them (again, which is fine) then somebody needs to make sure the companies in said indexes are good companies. Historically, a company with zero corporate governance and entrenched management =/= a \"\"good company\"\". S&amp;P realized this and decided to set a good precedent for US equity markets rather than a very bad precedent. You wanna buy shares with no voting rights? Go for it. But that should be your decision, not a default inclusion in major indexes.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "587220", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, it is unusual for a credit check to occur when you are terminating a contract, since you are no longer requesting credit. If the credit check was a \"\"hard pull\"\" it will stay on your credit report for 2 years, but will only have an impact on your credit score for up to 12 months. If the check is a \"\"soft pull\"\" it has no impact on your credit score. Since you're past the 12 months boundary anyway, I wouldn't worry about it. That being said, please feel free to continue your investigation and report back if you can get Comcast to admit they performed the 2nd credit check. I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear their explanation for it.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "3426", "title": "", "text": "You were told wrong. Lifetime Learning Credit is not a refundable credit. I.e.: it reduces your tax liability, but you cannot get refund if it exceeds your tax liability. See the IRS pub 970 for more information: A tax credit reduces the amount of income tax you may have to pay. Unlike a deduction, which reduces the amount of income subject to tax, a credit directly reduces the tax itself. The lifetime learning credit is a nonrefundable credit. This means that it can reduce your tax to zero, but if the credit is more than your tax the excess will not be refunded to you. You may be able to qualify for a different benefit: the American Opportunity credit. This one is (partially) refundable. See here for details. This credit is available until 2017." }, { "docid": "475580", "title": "", "text": "\"Money market accounts, insured in the same way as other deposits, are strange hybrids of traditional bank deposits and bond mutual funds. Because of the high inflation of the 1970s, banks were starved of deposits and could not produce loans at sufficient rates. For this reason, they desired a way to fund loans, and Congress enacted the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act which permitted a new form of account that retained the functionality of a deposit account, such as checking and now electronic transfers, yet transferred the risk to the account thus most of the profit. This allowed banks to fund each others' new loans through packaging them into asset backed securities to be held in these special accounts. As an added \"\"protection\"\", they are not permitted to carry a market value less than what's owed to depositors and are forcibly liquidated and paid in such event. This is a rare occurrence because of the nature of the assets held: credit assets such as commercial paper, mortgages, and corporate bonds. This is the opposite case of deposits because so long as a bank can maintain payments on its liabilities and satisfy a few other regulatory requirements, non-regulation satisfying assets could theoretically carry a zero balance, meaning that a bank could owe depositors more than what could be paid by liquidating all assets. Money market accounts will typically pay a higher rate because of their structure. While inflation is low and immediate term interest rates set by the central bank are also low, the net figure will not appear high, but the ratio will be fantastic, usually something like 3x. The one downside to money market accounts is that withdrawals are restricted by frequency. This is not such a problem as before since brokerages are now issuing debit cards tied to brokerage accounts, and excess money can be \"\"swept\"\" into money market accounts, bypassing the regulatory restriction. In short, money market accounts are currently a far better choice than traditional checking accounts but pay less than savings accounts.\"" }, { "docid": "589001", "title": "", "text": "Sadly, everyone should have left Netflix due to the Comcast bribe. If Netflix is going to spend our money paying off cable companies instead of adding content, I'm out. It might suck for a little bit but let the customer complain to Comcast about not getting the internet speeds they pay for." }, { "docid": "90632", "title": "", "text": "What can I do to make sure it won't happen? Who is the right person to report this to? (apparently, the police can't make sure that it won't be used for identity theft) You want to contact any one of the credit bureaus and put a fraud alert on your account. Once you contact one, they automatically contact the other bureaus for you. As part of this, they should send you a credit report. Review it carefully and note any items that are not yours. You'll then need to dispute any items that are a result of this identity theft. You may be required to file a police report regarding the stolen identity, but if you filed one for your stolen wallet, that may be sufficient. If the person who stole your wallet wants to steal your identity, it may be months before it shows up on your credit report. Make it a practice to regularly check your credit reports. How do I check at any given time whether my identity was stolen? Unfortunately, there is no easy way to check if your identity was stolen. The most common way is to check your credit report, but that only checks things that are reported to the credit reporting bureaus. If they use your information to start an account with a utility company at a rental house that typically won't go on your credit report until they are substantially delinquent. If they use your information to check into a hospital, that information typically won't show up on your credit report until the hospital sends the bill to collections. I've had a case where the identity theft happened at Chase, but was never reported on my credit. So my credit report was clear, but Chase disallowed me from banking with them because the identity thief had delinquent accounts with Chase that for whatever reason were not reported to the bureaus. How likely is it that it will be used in any form of identity theft? My gut feeling is that someone who snatches a wallet and immediately runs up the credit cards isn't looking to steal identities, but rather for a quick score. I don't know if there are statistics that back up my hunch." }, { "docid": "136284", "title": "", "text": "Call Comcast during a non-peak time (first thing in the morning?), wait on hold, and politely explain what happened and request a $50 credit. Also politely request that your premium support request be handled for free given how much hassle you've had getting disconnected. They'll be able to tell your premium request was never answered because there are no notes on your support tickets. Calling them is much easier than any of your other options." }, { "docid": "548967", "title": "", "text": "US bond traders have begun a new trading day looking at higher prices for Treasury paper while Wall Street is set to open lower. The mood swing comes as the head of China’s central bank has summoned the spectre of a Minsky Moment. Hyman Minsky is a economist famed for his theory about the risk of a sudden collapse in asset prices triggered by excessive debt or credit growth. The recent surge in global equity and credit markets has been accompanied by a number of strategists warning of a Minsky scenario and that chorus has elevated in tone by Zhou Xiaochuan, the PBOC governor. He reportedly expressed concern that corporate and household debt are rising too quickly and said China need to defend itself from excessive optimism that could lead to a “Minsky Moment’’. Stocks in Hong Kong closed down 1.9 per cent, its biggest fall in two months, led by property companies, while havens such as US government bonds gained. The 10-year Treasury note yield has dipped to 2.31 per cent, while gold has rebounded from early losses to rise 0.4 per cent. The yen, another haven barometer has appreciated 0.4 per cent in value versus the dollar. S&amp;P equity futures are now down 0.4 after the broad market closed at a record on Wednesday. Ian Lyngen at BMO Capital Markets notes: We’d be remiss in our assessment of the recent bid if we didn’t acknowledge that the initial downtrade in risk assets followed comments from PBOC governor Zhou citing the risk of a “Minsky Moment” for Chinese assets. This is the notion that exhausted gains in asset prices and credit growth lead to significant market collapses – also known as The Pessimists’ Delight. As today marks the 30th anniversary of the day that the Dow had its largest single-day selloff in history and Wednesday’s close above 23,000 set a new record of the index, Zhou’s comments seem very appropriately timed." }, { "docid": "292982", "title": "", "text": "For most, it's usually $30 to initially freeze ($10 x 3 major credit bureaus) then $30 in the future to unfreeze for a certain time frame each time you need a credit check, ie applying for a credit card, mortgage, auto lease. It may well be worth it to avoid thousands of dollars of losses from identity theft but still doesn't seem low cost to me. Looked into it but will take my chances. Equifax is super sketchy to not make at least their own freezing service free for life given their huge screwup. $20 for every credit check for the rest of my life would have been more reasonable but still a decent amount of money." }, { "docid": "260112", "title": "", "text": "Comcast it should be noted is following the law. Government has given them near monopoly status and government failed to support net neutrality. We should be going after comcast, yes, but also government and its cronyism and interventionism which made this possible." }, { "docid": "574121", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_imk_wp_178_2017.pdf) reduced by 100%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Economic activity may affect the development of credit through credit demand and credit supply channels. &gt; 3.1 Credit expansion and financial crises The empirical literature on the determinants of excessive credit expansion and financial instability has mostly analyzed the large build-ups of bank credit to the private non-financial sector since these data are available over a long time period. &gt; The positive correlation between economic activity and credit may result from the effect of economic activity on credit demand and credit supply but also from the effect of credit availability on economic activity. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6kt8rs/imk_macroeconomic_factors_behind_financial/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~157450 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **credit**^#1 **income**^#2 **financial**^#3 **test**^#4 **household**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "391287", "title": "", "text": "\"Fortunately, this can be solved by simply going to the website. Unfortunately, the website is not very well designed, so it took a while to find it! However, looking at the section about entering your own meter reading in, it is clear that this is indeed a \"\"credit\"\", meaning \"\"they owe you money\"\". Notice how the costs break down. They estimated an energy usage (cost equivalent) of £104.09, which resulted in a \"\"bill\"\" of £29.77 (credit). Then the customer entered a meter reading, which resulted in an actual energy usage (cost equivalent) of £142.45. Since it was £38.36 higher, it went from a credit to a debit of £8.59. Were £29.77 (Credit) to mean money was owed to SSE, they would owe a bit over £68 instead given the higher energy charges. You can see this help page to inquire about getting a refund, or simply allow this to carry over to your next bill. Or - consider doing a self-entered meter reading, if one hasn't been done recently, to make sure that any actual excessive usage comes out of your credit (rather than being a shock at one time).\"" }, { "docid": "263242", "title": "", "text": "\"You cannot contribute to the HSA in excess to the limit. The \"\"post-tax\"\" contributions \"\"some links\"\" are talking about may be referring to the case where you cannot contribute through your paycheck. In that case - you contribute from your own (after-tax) money, and then claim deduction from your taxes above the line, i.e.: you end up getting the same tax benefit with the exception of the FICA taxes. 6% excise tax is yearly until you withdraw the excess and the earnings on it, and when you do withdraw the excess and the earnings - you'll pay your ordinary rate taxes on it. For each year, you have until April 15th the following year to withdraw the excess of that year without the penalty From the IRS publication 969: Generally, you must pay a 6% excise tax on excess contributions. See Form 5329, Additional Taxes on Qualified Plans (including IRAs) and Other Tax-Favored Accounts, to figure the excise tax. The excise tax applies to each tax year the excess contribution remains in the account.\"" }, { "docid": "184337", "title": "", "text": "If it's possible in your case to get such a loan, then sure, providing the loan fees aren't in excess of the interest rate difference. Auto loans don't have the fees mortgages do, but check the specific loan you're looking at - it may have some fees, and they'd need to be lower than the interest rate savings. Car loans can be tricky to refinance, because of the value of a used car being less than that of a new car. How much better your credit is likely determines how hard this would be to get. Also, how much down payment you put down. Cars devalue 20% or so instantly (a used car with 5 miles on it tends to be worth around 80% of a new car's cost), so if you put less than 20% down, you may be underwater - meaning the principal left on the loan exceeds the value of the car (and so you wouldn't be getting a fully secured loan at that point). However, if your loan amount isn't too high relative to the value of the car, it should be possible. Check out various lenders in advance; also check out non-lender sites for advice. Edmunds.com has some of this laid out, for example (though they're an industry-based site so they're not truly unbiased). I'd also recommend using this to help you pay off the loan faster. If you do refinance to a lower rate, consider taking the savings and sending it to the lender - i.e., keeping your payment the same, just lowering the interest charge. That way you pay it off faster." }, { "docid": "255538", "title": "", "text": "The mortgage I got last year through Wells Fargo explicitly indicates in its terms that excess payment will be considered against future payments (i.e., pay $500 extra in January and you owe $500 less in February) unless indicated otherwise. It goes on to state that with electronic payments you do not get to specify where excess payment goes, so excess payment made electronically always goes toward future payments. If you want to make excess payments toward principal, you must actually send them a check and your payment stub, with the appropriate box ticked. This won't be very different for other major banks, I wouldn't imagine." }, { "docid": "593173", "title": "", "text": "No not deductible. But - If you work more than one job, you run the risk of having too much SS withheld. Each employer doesn't know what the others pays you. Tax time reconciles this. And much thanks to Dilip for the following clarification - Not only does each employer not know what the others pays you, but even if you tell him, he will not care. He is required to withhold Social Security tax on the wages he pays you (and send in an equal amount as his contribution) regardless of what anyone else pays you. If the sum of your taxable wages from all employers exceed the maximum wages subject to Social Security, the excess withholding is credited towards the income tax due (and thus reduces the amount to be paid or increases the refund you are owed) but the employer's (excess) contribution that he sent in is not returned to him..... Also, there is no such things as excess Medicare tax having been withheld because there is no maximum wage beyond which Medicare tax does not apply." }, { "docid": "61557", "title": "", "text": "\"My only issue with the whole \"\"Comcast and TWC are in cahoots to set prices 10x higher than what they should be\"\" is the fact that Comcast and TWC are hardly the most profitable companies in the US. I mean, they are large companies with decent revenues, but they aren't making much more than other companies of their size that are in different fields. If they were really a monopoly setting prices crazy high and exploiting nearly a hundred million Americans on their monthly bill... Wouldn't Comcast have like, crazy have profits that rival the oil companies? I mean, Comcast has 120,000 employees and a 10 billion USD income. That's perfectly in line with other companies of that size such as CocaCola or P&amp;G. And hell, TWC reported a net *loss* of 2 billion USD last year. People think they are a monopoly that's overcharging for services... When they aren't even making money?\"" }, { "docid": "188406", "title": "", "text": "Credit scoring has changed since the time of this question (July 2017) and it is now possible that having a high available credit balance can negatively affect your credit score. ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source" }, { "docid": "353641", "title": "", "text": "Two companies I worked for in the DC area also did WageWorks. The commuting money could be used for the Subway, Bus, and commuter rail. A separate pot of money was used for parking. We had to estimate the amount of money that would be used the next month. We had to decide by mid-June how much we would spend in July. The money was automatically added to the metro fare card on the first business day of the month. When I first started they put the money on a special debit/credit card that could only be used at commuter system. It would be rejected at the department store. If parking couldn't be paid using a special card, there was a way to claim the money with or without receipts. If the company, like the US Government does for their employees, paid the commuting expenses any excess funds at the end of the month were pulled back from the card. They were just starting to do this in 2012 for employee pre-tax funds. They were supposed to add it to your next paycheck any excess at the end of the month. There was also a way to use post tax funds from your paycheck so that all your commuting expenses could be on one card. Of course any post-tax funds would be left on the card. There was no real way for them to audit this because the system would never know if you were going to work or going to the dentist. I ended up using two cards, one for work and one for non-work usage." }, { "docid": "96011", "title": "", "text": "This is great news. Proving that Comcast is effectively (albeit indirectly) throttling specific traffic would be difficult in court, to a judge or jury. But regulators have significant expertise. They will understand Netflix's arguments. Also, since Netflix has signed a deal, they will not look like outsiders just wishing to join the party. They are complaining about their own business partners! I now expect the Comcast/TimeWarner merger to be stopped. Lobbying won't help them at this point, so I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast starts running ads to buttress their weak case." }, { "docid": "175522", "title": "", "text": "I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name." } ]

[ { "docid": "48840", "title": "", "text": "You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says. You will not without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements." } ]

[ { "docid": "25397", "title": "", "text": "As it is a cheque I don't think you can deposit online. It seems that most the banks here charge a flat fee. Bank of Queensland charges $45 plus whatever the FX rate and fees are at the time. I think most of the banks have a clearance period of up to 28 days from when you deposit the cheque to when the funds clear and you could use them. If you want a cheaper and quicker option maybe try to have the USD funds sent electronically to the Australian bank account you choose." }, { "docid": "165099", "title": "", "text": "There is very little difference these days between account types. The fee structure and interest paid is different, but the actual mechanics, and as noted by others, the coverage by deposit insurance is identical. So look at how much money you have in the account(s) you have; are you maximizing the interest that you could be receiving, even from the small amounts that the banks will pay? If you could get more interest from the savings account, and only write one or two cheques per month, you might be better off with that account only; but given common fee structures, you likely would not want that as your primary account. Another reason for separate accounts is more psychological. You might be able to train yourself to not dip in to your savings if you don't have a chequebook." }, { "docid": "438975", "title": "", "text": "Goddady.com will gladly accept payment from your personal account. They don't really care, as long as you approve the charge, whose name the account is in. I'm not sure PayPal even check the names on the invoice and the account to match, they just want you to login. However, depending on your local laws, you may be required to have a separate business account. In the US, for example, corporations must have their own accounts. For other entities with limited liability (like LLC or LLP) it is advised to have a separate account to avoid piercing corporate veil. Also, if your business name is not your personal name - clients may want to verify that the checks/transfers are deposited under your business name. In some countries checks written out to X cannot be endorsed by X to be transferred to Y. That may affect your decision as well. You'll have to get a proper legal advice valid in your jurisdiction to know the answer to your question." }, { "docid": "4044", "title": "", "text": "Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc." }, { "docid": "449279", "title": "", "text": "If bank B has a transfer limit set, you bet that there is a nice reason for that. Either risk of fraud, liability, client preferences, profiling, credit scoring, etc, etc. For a bank, the cost of denying something [1] is way lower than the potential damages and liabilities of allowing something to go through. Regarding your concerns for the ACH, here is the summarized transaction walkthrough source: An Originator– whether that’s an individual, a corporation or another entity– initiates either a Direct Deposit or Direct Payment transaction using the ACH Network. ACH transactions can be either debit or credit payments and commonly include Direct Deposit of payroll, government and Social Security benefits, mortgage and bill payments, online banking payments, person-to-person (P2P) and business-to-business (B2B) payments, to name a few. Instead of using paper checks, ACH entries are entered and transmitted electronically, making transactions quicker, safer and easier. The Originating Depository Financial institution (ODFI) enters the ACH entry at the request of the Originator. The ODFI aggregates payments from customers and transmits them in batches at regular, predetermined intervals to an ACH Operator. ACH Operators (two central clearing facilities: The Federal Reserve or The Clearing House) receive batches of ACH entries from the ODFI. The ACH transactions are sorted and made available by the ACH Operator to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI). The Receiver’s account is debited or credited by the RDFI, according to the type of ACH entry. Individuals, businesses and other entities can all be Receivers. Each ACH credit transaction settles in one to two business days, and each debit transaction settles in just one business day, as per the Rules. Take heed of this like: The Originator initiates a direct deposit/payment transaction. In your scenario, the originator would be B. But since the transaction amount is higher than the limit, B would not even initiate the ACH transaction. The request would be denied. So the transaction would look like this: [1] Usually this cost comes down to just the processing costs of the denied transaction (and it is rather fail-fast like). For the other parties involved it may have additional costs (missed deadlines, penalties for not fulfilling an obligation, fines, etc), but for the bank that is irrelevant." }, { "docid": "322456", "title": "", "text": "\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \"\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\"\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \"\"mark to market accounting\"\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\"" }, { "docid": "505473", "title": "", "text": "\"No, the best you can do is (probably) determine the bank, from the sort code. using an online checker such as this one from the UK payments industry trade association. Revealing the name of an account holder is something the bank would typically require a warrant for, I'd expect, or whatever is covered in the account T&Cs under \"\"we provide all lawfully required assistance to the authorities\"\" Switching to what I suspect is your underlying problem - if this is a dispute that's arisen at the end of your tenancy, relating to the return of the deposit, then there are plenty of people to help you, for free. Use those rather than attempting your own detective work. Start with the UK government How to Rent guide, which includes links on to Shelter's pages about deposits. The CAB has lots of good info here too. Note that if your landlord didn't put your deposit in a deposit protection scheme, then as a professional landlord they could be penalised four times (I think) the deposit amount by a court, so stick to your guns on this.\"" }, { "docid": "32092", "title": "", "text": "I am not sure about your country but I think each country must be having some fixed time frame for reversal of the transaction (Which must be less than a month), please inquire if that time limit has passed or not ? If it hasn't best will be to wait for some more time before informing them. Once the reversal time limit has passed no one (Except government agencies with court orders) can withdraw money from your bank account without your written consent even if they have deposited it themselves. World would have been a strange place if this restriction was not there. Since you want to close the account you can approach your previous boss (or executive from HR/Account department) and tell them your intention. After that either you can transfer money online to their account or give them a cheque which they can deposit in their account. This way things will end faster and you will be freed from this extra account. If above process takes time another solution will be to transfer the money to your another (permanent) account and give them a cheque from this account. Here also you can use online transfers or by sending them a cheque through courier. Whichever mode you choose to pay the money back make sure you have some documented proof that may be helpful in future." }, { "docid": "16774", "title": "", "text": "There's nothing particularly special about a two million dollar cheque. While they aren't commonplace, the bank certainly has experience with them. Many ATMs won't allow a deposit of that size but the bank cashiers will certainly accept them. They will typically get a supervisor to sign off on the deposit and may ask about the source of the money, for fraud prevention reasons. They may be held for longer than a smaller cheque if the bank manager chooses to do so. If there's nothing remotely suspicious (for example, it is a cheque from an insurance company for an expected payout), you should expect it will clear in about a week. On the other hand, if it is a cheque from a bank in another country and the bank manager has any reason to suspect it may not be legitimate, they may hold it for a month or more. Even then, you are not guaranteed the cheque was legitimate. This is used in a common scam." }, { "docid": "309023", "title": "", "text": "\"Depending on how the check was made out, you may be able to file a DBA (\"\"doing business as\"\"), which would give you the business name locally. Then open an account under that name and deposit the check. Or simply go back to the customer and say \"\"hey, I don't have yhe company bak account open yet; could I exchange this check for one made out to me personally?\"\" That's how I've been handling hobby income under a company name. (I really do ned to file that DBA!)\"" }, { "docid": "84770", "title": "", "text": "\"My dad keeps complaining that I treat him like a kid but hey, when the shoe fits, right? That right there is some wisdom. I would question why you need a student account. If I found myself in this situation; and, decided to participate. I would open a savings account (no debit card) in both of your names. This account would have little or no fees, have a branch convenient for both of you, and no ability for him to overdraft. When I wanted to, I could deposit money into his account, and he could withdraw. You might even open your own account at the same bank that he does not have access to. Then it is a matter of transferring the money into his account which can be done by mobile phone. The thing that I would say to you, beyond your question, is that you are choosing to participate and enabling this insanity. By \"\"quickly\"\" sending him money you are not allowing him to find alternatives for his poor behavior. If it was me, I would require that he have some sort of financial literacy education. He needs help budgeting, planning, and managing a bank account. I am a Dave Ramsey guy, so I would require him to attend FPU, that I would happily pay for ~$100. Alternatives are more than fine, mostly there has to be progress in his financial literacy and behavior. If he asked for money in the future, I would ask to see his budget and explain what went wrong. If there was no budget, there would be no money. If there was some legitimacy to his need, I would help meet it. One example would be the company he worked for did not meet payroll. That is something mostly beyond his control and can really hurt when a person is just starting to take control of their life. So yes, I would send a check in that case. However, that choice is yours. For perspective, when my son was 18 he came to me for help with habitual bounced checks. He wanted me to pay the fee and probably pay it every month that he went crazy. I paid the fee once, and I provided the education he needed. After that he learned and was quickly a self-sufficient adult. I also made it very clear that I would only pay it once. My situation was normal, parents should teach their children. Your situation is insanity. There is no way you should be put in the situation you are in with your father. He needs to grow up, and you will have to help him somewhat. If nothing more you should cut him off financially.\"" }, { "docid": "144698", "title": "", "text": "A USD bank draft from any of the major Canadian banks is a good solution. They clear quickly in the U.S. I use them frequently and have never had a problem depositing them in a U.S. bank account. If you carry more than $10k across the border, even as a cheque, be sure to declare it." }, { "docid": "544949", "title": "", "text": "\"When banks would return the actual physical cheque, at least you had some printing / writing from the other bank on it, as some type of not-easily-Photoshopped proof. Now many (most?) banks don't return the actual cheques anyway, just an image of it - sometimes a low quality shrunken B&W photocopy-like image too. You'd have to check with a lawyer or court in your area, but I suspect any photocopy or image, as well as a written or carbon-copy duplicate, would not be good enough proof for a law court, since they could all be easily re-written or Photoshopped. So I don't think there's a real upside anyway. Only an official bank statement saying that the name/people written actually cashed the cheque might be \"\"good evidence\"\" (I'm having doubts that the bank's own low quality \"\"image\"\" would even qualify, unless it's verified as coming directly from the bank somehow). I'd agree with Nate (+1) that a big downside could be identity theft, either online or alongside phone loss/theft.\"" }, { "docid": "350642", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's divide all bank accounts into savings and checking. The main difference is that checking is easy to get money from; savings is hard to get money from. Because of this, the federal Reserve requires that banks keep more money on hand to cover transactions in checking accounts. Here is a related question from a banking customer regarding a recent notice on their bank statement: Deposit Reclassification. It seems that the bank was moving the customer's money between hidden sub accounts to make it look like the checking account was really a savings account and thus \"\"reduce the amount of funds we are required to keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank.\"\" If they didn't have to transfer the money many times the bank could keep less cash on hand. But once they did 5 hidden transactions the rest of the money in the hidden savings account would be moved by the bank. The 6 transaction limit is done to not allow you to treat savings like checking. Here is a relevant quote from the Federal Reserve Savings Deposits Savings deposits generally have no specified maturity period. They may be interest-bearing, with interest computed or paid daily, weekly, quarterly, or on any other basis. The two most significant features of savings deposits are the ‘‘reservation of right’’ requirement and the restrictions on the number of ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals that may be made per month (or per statement cycle of at least four weeks) from the account. In order to classify an account as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the institution must in its account agreement with the customer reserve the right at any time to require seven days’ advance written notice of an intended withdrawal. In practice, this right is never exercised, but the institution must nevertheless reserve that right in the account agreement. In addition, for an account to be classified as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the depositor may make no more than six ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals per month from the account. ‘‘Convenient’’ transfers and withdrawals, for purposes of this limit, include preauthorized, automatic transfers (including but not limited to transfers from the savings deposit for overdraft protection or for direct bill payments) and transfers and withdrawals initiated by telephone, facsimile, or computer, and transfers made by check, debit card, or other similar order made by the depositor and payable to third parties. Other, less-convenient types of transfers, such as withdrawals or transfers made in person at the bank, by mail, or by using an ATM, do not count toward the six-per-month limit and do not affect the account’s status as a savings account. Also, a withdrawal request initiated by telephone does not count toward the transfer limit when the withdrawal is disbursed via check mailed to the depositor. Examiners should be particularly wary of a bank’s practices for handling telephone transfers. As noted, an unlimited number of telephone-initiated withdrawals are allowed so long as a check for the withdrawn funds is mailed to the depositor. Otherwise, the limit is six telephone transfers per month. The limit applies to telephonic transfers to move savings deposit funds to another type of deposit account and to make payments to third parties.\"" }, { "docid": "152827", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally when you open a new account, you'd be given a checkbook (usually \"\"starter\"\" checks with no personal information, but some banks will later mail you a proper checkbook with your personal details) and a debit card (again, some banks will give you a \"\"starter\"\" one on the spot with a personalized following up in the mail, others will mail you). With the debit card you can use your bank's ATM to withdraw cash from your account, or use it for purchases (will debit, as the name says, directly from your account). You can also use it in other ATMs, but that will usually be with significant fees ($2-$5 per withdrawal to both the ATM owner and your bank). Checks - you can write a check to someone or use the check to go to the cashier in the bank and withdraw money (although usually they have special withdrawal slips for that in the branches, so you don't really need to waste your own checks). As to how to deposit money in your home country - you'll have to check with the bank you have an account at back at home. Usually, you can \"\"wire\"\" transfer money from your BoA account to the account back home, but that is usually comes at a fee of about $30-$50 per transfer (in the US, additional fees may be charged at the receiving end + currency conversion costs). You can also write yourself a check and deposit that check at the home country bank, but that depends on the specific bank whether it is possible, how much it would cost, and how long it would take for them to credit the money to your account after they take your check - may take weeks with personal checks.\"" }, { "docid": "216200", "title": "", "text": "No you do not insure the cheque. A cheque is just standardized form that instructs a bank to transfer money. It is no more important than an ordinary letter. A cheque carries no commercial value, especially when it has a designated recipient. No mail insurance will cover the financial loss as a result of bank fraud. It is a kind of indirect loss. Just tell her to write your account number at the back of the paper, walk into your bank's branch and tell the teller to deposit it. There is no need of mailing." }, { "docid": "377357", "title": "", "text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"" }, { "docid": "97211", "title": "", "text": "I heard from someone that since my friends are moving money to my account, I'm liable to be taxed by the IRS Not completely true. If there are large deposits in your account, you may be asked for clarification from IRS. If there is a reasonable justification; in your case the agreement that you are sharing the apartment, the lease deed has all the 3 names, there is explicit mention in lease about how funds are transferred. Note at times the audit maybe in future for quite a bit of past. Hence you would need to keep the record for quite some time. Alternative arrangements like opening a joint account and making payments from that account may make it easier from record keeping point of view." }, { "docid": "525803", "title": "", "text": "\"Some years ago I was in a similar situation with a CAD cheque. I did not experience any reservation period of months. Within Canada, around a week was usual, and as far as I remember that was the case also for the cheque deposited to the EUR account. You could ask your bank whether a certified cheque (has to be done at the \"\"home\"\" bank of the sender) will have the same reservation period and what the processing time will be anyways. I found a large variation of the (large) fees for cashing foreign cheques. It may be worth asking a few different banks for their conditions (both fees and duration for the whole process).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "596549", "title": "", "text": "You actually don't have to open a business account with your bank, you can have a personal account with the bank and have your business funds go into it, whether it be from cheques or from Eftpos\\Credit Card Facilities. You just have to get your customers to make the cheque out under your name (the same name used for your bank account). If you are trading as a sole trader and you trade under a name other than your own name, then officially you are supposed to register that name with Fair Trading in your state. However, if you are trading using another name and it is not registered, Fair Trading will only become aware of it if someone (usually one of your customers) makes a compliant about you, and they will then ask you to either stop using that name as your trading name or have it registered (if not already registered by someone else)." } ]

[ { "docid": "583694", "title": "", "text": "I have a bank account in the US from some time spent there a while back. When I wanted to move most of the money to the UK (in about 2006), I used XEtrade who withdrew the money from my US account and sent me a UK cheque. They might also offer direct deposit to the UK account now. It was a bit of hassle getting the account set up and linked to my US account, but the transaction itself was straightforward. I don't think there was a specific fee, just spread on the FX rate, but I can't remember for certain now - I was transfering a few thousand dollars, so a relatively small fixed fee would probably not have bothered me too much." }, { "docid": "144698", "title": "", "text": "A USD bank draft from any of the major Canadian banks is a good solution. They clear quickly in the U.S. I use them frequently and have never had a problem depositing them in a U.S. bank account. If you carry more than $10k across the border, even as a cheque, be sure to declare it." }, { "docid": "268026", "title": "", "text": "\"If you sign the check \"\"For Deposit Only\"\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \"\"payable name\"\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \"\"Pay to the Order Of\"\" line on checks. Say the church's \"\"legal name\"\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \"\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\". You'll get offering checks made out to \"\"Saint Barnabas\"\", \"\"Saint B's\"\", \"\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\", \"\"Red Bluff Episcopal\"\", \"\"Youth Group Fund\"\", \"\"Pastor Frank\"\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \"\"earmarked\"\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \"\"discretionary fund\"\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\"" }, { "docid": "29372", "title": "", "text": "\"Lets say you owed me $123.00 an wanted to mail me a check. I would then take the check from my mailbox an either take it to my bank, or scan it and deposit it via their electronic interface. Prior to you mailing it you would have no idea which bank I would use, or what my account number is. In fact I could have multiple bank accounts, so I could decide which one to deposit it into depending on what I wanted to do with the money, or which bank paid the most interest, or by coin flip. Now once the check is deposited my bank would then \"\"stamp\"\" the check with their name, their routing number, the date, an my account number. Eventually an image of the canceled check would then end up back at your bank. Which they would either send to you, or make available to you via their banking website. You don't mail it to my bank. You mail it to my home, or my business, or wherever I tell you to mail it. Some business give you the address of another location, where either a 3rd party processes all their checks, or a central location where all the money for multiple branches are processed. If you do owe a company they will generally ask that in the memo section in the lower left corner that you include your customer number. This is to make sure that if they have multiple Juans the money is accounted correctly. In all my dealings will paying bills and mailing checks I have never been asked to send a check directly to the bank. If they want you to do exactly as you describe, they should provide you with a form or other instructions.\"" }, { "docid": "310103", "title": "", "text": "\"It's generally not possible to open a business account in the UK remotely. It's even difficult (near impossible) for a non-resident (even if a citizen) to open a business or personal bank account while visiting the UK. A recent report says that it may be possible to open an account via Barclays Offshore in the Isle of Man. This requires a large deposit, and probably lots of paperwork and fees (most offshore locations have stricter \"\"know your customer\"\" rules than major countries). Note that while the Isle of Man is inside the UK banking system (for sort codes, account numbers), it is a separate territory that doesn't have the same deposit guarantees as the UK. There is no legal reason why a UK company has to bank within the UK banking system, although many companies paying the company would expect it or require it, and an account in anything other than sterling would complicate the accounts. It could have an account in your home country. It's not even a legal requirement that the company has an account in its own name at all. Some people use a (separate) personal account for this purpose. There are plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea (for example it's unclear who/what owns the money in the account, and can give the appearance of director's loans), but it's a work-around. Most inbound electronic payments only require a sort code and account number, the account owner name is not checked. The UK does have a much simpler and cheaper company registry than most European countries, but the near-impossibility of opening a bank account for a business in the UK as a non-resident has made it an unsuitable place to register a small international company.\"" }, { "docid": "195207", "title": "", "text": "Do you have a separate bank account for your business? That is generally highly recommended. I have a credit card for my single-member LLC. I prefer it this way because it makes the separation of personal and business expenses very clear. Using a personal credit card, but using it for only business expenses seems to be a reasonable practice. You may be able to do one better though... For your sole proprietorship, you can file a DBA which establishes the business name. The details of this depend on your state. With a DBA, I believe you can open a bank account in the name of your business and you may also be able to open a credit card account in the name of the business. I'm not sure what practical difference it makes, but it does make the personal/business distinction clearer. Though, at that point, you might as well just do the LLC..." }, { "docid": "415312", "title": "", "text": "Your best bet is probably to limit the amount of money in the account. If there is never more in there than he would normally spend in a month, that limits the losses. I am curious why he writes cheques. Most people I know write only a few a year. Simply having another person hold the chequebook for him, and bring it to him when it's needed, wouldn't be a big deal for the people I know. Say he pays bills twice a month and needs it then, fine, but why does he need it when he's just going for a walk? But if this would be an argument then just move most of the money into an account he can't write cheques against, and put each month's expenses into the chequing account each month." }, { "docid": "153789", "title": "", "text": "\"The way they are tricking you is that they will ask you to send some of the proceeds of the check back to them, after you deposit it in your bank account. So, lets say they send you a $2000 check. You deposit it, send them $500 over western union. And then the bank pulls all $2000 out of your account (the value of the check), leaves you with a negative $500 balances and freezes your account because it took them 3 days to figure out the check was bad. You'll also be in trouble with several authorities. (Whether you send the actual fraudsters money or not) The people that \"\"enlightened you\"\" made some money. They get away with it because you don't know their name or anything, the check was written in your name, which is the main paper trail. There is no temp agency.\"" }, { "docid": "233487", "title": "", "text": "The guarantor is the Government of Latvia, the fund is the means of executing that guarantee. Unless the government defaults, the guarantee is valid. See here: In accordance with amendments to the Deposit Guarantee Law adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia (Saeima) as from December 16, 2010 compensation of EUR 100 000 (approx. LVL 70 000) is guaranteed to the clients of the Latvian banks (both natural and legal persons) per depositor per each bank (all accounts added together, if several accounts at one bank in one name). The government guaranteed compensation covers deposits, current account balance, salary accounts, savings accounts etc. further down: In accordance with the Deposit Guarantee Law, in the occurrence of a case of unavailability of deposits in the Fund for paying out the guaranteed compensations, such payments shall be made from the Government budget via FCMC." }, { "docid": "32092", "title": "", "text": "I am not sure about your country but I think each country must be having some fixed time frame for reversal of the transaction (Which must be less than a month), please inquire if that time limit has passed or not ? If it hasn't best will be to wait for some more time before informing them. Once the reversal time limit has passed no one (Except government agencies with court orders) can withdraw money from your bank account without your written consent even if they have deposited it themselves. World would have been a strange place if this restriction was not there. Since you want to close the account you can approach your previous boss (or executive from HR/Account department) and tell them your intention. After that either you can transfer money online to their account or give them a cheque which they can deposit in their account. This way things will end faster and you will be freed from this extra account. If above process takes time another solution will be to transfer the money to your another (permanent) account and give them a cheque from this account. Here also you can use online transfers or by sending them a cheque through courier. Whichever mode you choose to pay the money back make sure you have some documented proof that may be helpful in future." }, { "docid": "152827", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally when you open a new account, you'd be given a checkbook (usually \"\"starter\"\" checks with no personal information, but some banks will later mail you a proper checkbook with your personal details) and a debit card (again, some banks will give you a \"\"starter\"\" one on the spot with a personalized following up in the mail, others will mail you). With the debit card you can use your bank's ATM to withdraw cash from your account, or use it for purchases (will debit, as the name says, directly from your account). You can also use it in other ATMs, but that will usually be with significant fees ($2-$5 per withdrawal to both the ATM owner and your bank). Checks - you can write a check to someone or use the check to go to the cashier in the bank and withdraw money (although usually they have special withdrawal slips for that in the branches, so you don't really need to waste your own checks). As to how to deposit money in your home country - you'll have to check with the bank you have an account at back at home. Usually, you can \"\"wire\"\" transfer money from your BoA account to the account back home, but that is usually comes at a fee of about $30-$50 per transfer (in the US, additional fees may be charged at the receiving end + currency conversion costs). You can also write yourself a check and deposit that check at the home country bank, but that depends on the specific bank whether it is possible, how much it would cost, and how long it would take for them to credit the money to your account after they take your check - may take weeks with personal checks.\"" }, { "docid": "342212", "title": "", "text": "I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution." }, { "docid": "147197", "title": "", "text": "Assuming that the NRE (NonResident External) account is in good standing, that is, you are still eligible to have an NRE account because your status as a NonResident of India has not changed in the interim, you can transfer money back from your NRE account to your US accounts without any problems. But be aware that you bear the risk of getting back a much smaller amount than you invested in the NRE account because of devaluation of the Indian Rupee (INR). NRE accounts are held in INR, and whatever amounts (in INR) that you choose to withdraw will be converted to US$ at the exchange rate then applicable. Depending on whether it is the Indian bank that is doing the conversion and sending money by wire to your US bank, or you are depositing a cheque in INR in your US bank, you may be charged miscellaneous service fees also. To answer a question that you have not asked as yet, there is no US tax on the transfer of the money. The interest paid on your deposits into the NRE account are not taxable income to you in India, but are taxable income to you in the US, and so I hope that you have been declaring this income each year on Schedule B of your income tax return, and also reporting that you have accounts held abroad, as required by US law. See for example, this question and its answer and also this question and its answer." }, { "docid": "120609", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on the bank. According to the Uniform Commercial Code, a bank is not obliged to pay a cheque after six months, but may do so if it wants to. § 4-404. BANK NOT OBLIGED TO PAY CHECK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OLD. A bank is under no obligation to a customer having a checking account to pay a check, other than a certified check, which is presented more than six months after its date, but it may charge its customer's account for a payment made thereafter in good faith. Official link to UCC 4-404 As for your second question, if you stamp \"\"void after 60 days\"\" on your cheque; I don't have a specific answer for that part (yet). Update: I can find no specific rules about someone putting an arbitrary \"\"void after xxx days\"\" on their personal check. Businesess are alllowed to, but again the overriding rule seems to be that after six months it's the bank's choice, and you certainly couldn't make a cheque expire before six months, so I don't think that putting a stamp would make any difference. It's still up to the bank in the end.\"" }, { "docid": "64556", "title": "", "text": "If you're a sole proprietor there's no reason to have a separate business account, as long as you keep adequate records, as you are one and the same for tax purposes. My husband and I already have 5 accounts and a mortgage with one bank. I don't see the need to open up yet another account. As a contracted accountant, I don't need to write business checks, and my expenses are minimal. As long as I have an present my assumed business name certificate and ID, there's no reason for a bank not to deposit into my personal account." }, { "docid": "530446", "title": "", "text": "There are two basic issues here. First, there is the difference between accounting terms and their dictionary definitions. Second, once you dig into it there are dichotomies similar to put vs call options, long sales vs short sales, bond yield vs interest rate. (That is, while they are relatively simple ideas and opposite sides of the same coin, it will probably take some effort to get comfortable with them.) The salient points from the Wikipedia article on debits and credits: In double-entry bookkeeping debit is used for increases in asset and expense transactions and credit is used for increases in a liability, income (gain) or equity transaction. For bank transactions, money deposited in a checking account is treated as a credit transaction (increase) and money paid out is treated as a debit transaction, because checking account balances are bank liabilities. If cash is deposited, the cash becomes a bank asset and is treated as a debit transaction (increase) to a bank asset account. Thus a cash deposit becomes two equal increases: a debit to cash on hand and a credit to a customer's checking account. Your bank account is an asset to you, but a liability to your bank. That makes for a third issue, namely perspective." }, { "docid": "18844", "title": "", "text": "This is either laundering money or laundering non-money. All the other answers point out how a cheque or bank transfer will take days to actually clear. That is a red herring! There are lots of ways to illegally transfer real money out of existing accounts. Stolen cheque books, stolen banking details (partly in connection with stolen smartphones and credit cards) and cards, money transfers from other people duped in a similar manner as you are: it is much easier to steal money than invent it, and it takes quite longer until stolen rather than invented money will blow up at the banks. All of those payments will likely properly clear but not leave you in actual legal possession of money. People will notice the missing money and notify police and banks and you will be on the hook for paying back all of it. Cheques and transfers from non-existing accounts, in contrast, tend to blow up very fast and thus are less viable for this kind of scam as the time window for operating the scam is rather small. Whether or not the cheque actually clears is about as relevant of whether or not the Rolls Royce you are buying for $500 because the owner has an ingrown toe nail and cannot press down the accelerator any more has four wheels. Better hope for the Rolls to be imaginary because then you'll only be out of $500 and that's the end of it. If it is real, your trouble is only starting." }, { "docid": "16774", "title": "", "text": "There's nothing particularly special about a two million dollar cheque. While they aren't commonplace, the bank certainly has experience with them. Many ATMs won't allow a deposit of that size but the bank cashiers will certainly accept them. They will typically get a supervisor to sign off on the deposit and may ask about the source of the money, for fraud prevention reasons. They may be held for longer than a smaller cheque if the bank manager chooses to do so. If there's nothing remotely suspicious (for example, it is a cheque from an insurance company for an expected payout), you should expect it will clear in about a week. On the other hand, if it is a cheque from a bank in another country and the bank manager has any reason to suspect it may not be legitimate, they may hold it for a month or more. Even then, you are not guaranteed the cheque was legitimate. This is used in a common scam." }, { "docid": "442109", "title": "", "text": "Do you write checks? You are giving your bank account and routing number to anybody you have ever given a check to. Your employer is paying taxes on your behalf, so they need your social security number so they can pay your social security taxes. Account and routing numbers are how deposits are made. If you are concerned, create a free checking account, collect the direct deposit and each payday go to the bank and withdraw your money to put it where you like. Nothing is deposit only because you will want your money back. Finally, you would be shocked at how little it takes to make a draft on your account in the US. Certainly not your SSN, Address, or even your name." } ]

[ { "docid": "261856", "title": "", "text": "Banks has to complete KYC. In case you want to open a bank account, most will ask for proof of address. I also feel it is difficult for bank to encash a cheque payable to a business in your account. Opening a bank account in the name of your business or alternatively obtaining a cheque payable to your personal name seems the only alternatives to me." } ]

[ { "docid": "144698", "title": "", "text": "A USD bank draft from any of the major Canadian banks is a good solution. They clear quickly in the U.S. I use them frequently and have never had a problem depositing them in a U.S. bank account. If you carry more than $10k across the border, even as a cheque, be sure to declare it." }, { "docid": "525803", "title": "", "text": "\"Some years ago I was in a similar situation with a CAD cheque. I did not experience any reservation period of months. Within Canada, around a week was usual, and as far as I remember that was the case also for the cheque deposited to the EUR account. You could ask your bank whether a certified cheque (has to be done at the \"\"home\"\" bank of the sender) will have the same reservation period and what the processing time will be anyways. I found a large variation of the (large) fees for cashing foreign cheques. It may be worth asking a few different banks for their conditions (both fees and duration for the whole process).\"" }, { "docid": "406109", "title": "", "text": "\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"" }, { "docid": "473957", "title": "", "text": "Savings accounts have lower fees. If you don't anticipate doing many transactions per month, e.g. three or fewer withdrawals, then I would suggest a savings account rather than a checking account. A joint account that requires both account holder signatures to make withdrawals will probably require both account holders' signature endorsements, in order to make deposits. For example, if you are issued a tax refund by the U.S. Treasury, or any check that is payable to both parties, you will only be able to deposit that check in a joint account that has both persons as signatories. There can be complications due to multi-party account ownership if cashing versus depositing a joint check and account tax ID number. When you open the account, you will need to specify what your wishes are, regarding whether both parties or either party can make deposits and withdrawals. Also, at least one party will need to be present, with appropriate identification (probably tax ID or Social Security number), when opening the account. If the account has three or more owners, you might be required to open a business or commercial account, rather than a consumer account. This would be due to the extra expense of administering an account with more than two signatories. After the questioner specified interest North Carolina in the comments, I found that the North Carolina general banking statutes have specific rules for joint accounts: Any two or more persons may establish a deposit account... The deposit account and any balance shall be as joint tenants... Unless the persons establishing the account have agreed with the bank that withdrawals require more than one signature, payment by the bank to, or on the order of (either person on) the account satisfys the bank's obligation I looked for different banks in North Carolina. I found joint account terms similar to this in PDF file format, everywhere, Joint Account: If an item is drawn so that it is unclear whether one payee’s endorsement or two is required, only one endorsement will be required and the Bank shall not be liable for any loss incurred by the maker as a result of there being only one endorsement. also Joint accounts are owned by you individually or jointly with others. All of the funds in a joint account may be used to repay the debts of any co-owner, whether they are owed individually, by a co-owner, jointly with other co-owners, or jointly with other persons or entities having no interest in your account. You will need to tell the bank specifically what permissions you want for your joint account, as it is between you and your bank, in North Carolina." }, { "docid": "220644", "title": "", "text": "Some of these answers are actually wrong. Basically if you were to cash this cheque, you are committing bank fraud. The cheque is usually fake and ends up with them cashing it off your account--this is how cheques work, when you cash a cheque, you are the one ultimately responsible for the validity of what you're cashing. This is why large cheques are balanced against your active account--so what happens is they essentially just take money from you and leave you red handed." }, { "docid": "64556", "title": "", "text": "If you're a sole proprietor there's no reason to have a separate business account, as long as you keep adequate records, as you are one and the same for tax purposes. My husband and I already have 5 accounts and a mortgage with one bank. I don't see the need to open up yet another account. As a contracted accountant, I don't need to write business checks, and my expenses are minimal. As long as I have an present my assumed business name certificate and ID, there's no reason for a bank not to deposit into my personal account." }, { "docid": "4044", "title": "", "text": "Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc." }, { "docid": "32092", "title": "", "text": "I am not sure about your country but I think each country must be having some fixed time frame for reversal of the transaction (Which must be less than a month), please inquire if that time limit has passed or not ? If it hasn't best will be to wait for some more time before informing them. Once the reversal time limit has passed no one (Except government agencies with court orders) can withdraw money from your bank account without your written consent even if they have deposited it themselves. World would have been a strange place if this restriction was not there. Since you want to close the account you can approach your previous boss (or executive from HR/Account department) and tell them your intention. After that either you can transfer money online to their account or give them a cheque which they can deposit in their account. This way things will end faster and you will be freed from this extra account. If above process takes time another solution will be to transfer the money to your another (permanent) account and give them a cheque from this account. Here also you can use online transfers or by sending them a cheque through courier. Whichever mode you choose to pay the money back make sure you have some documented proof that may be helpful in future." }, { "docid": "165099", "title": "", "text": "There is very little difference these days between account types. The fee structure and interest paid is different, but the actual mechanics, and as noted by others, the coverage by deposit insurance is identical. So look at how much money you have in the account(s) you have; are you maximizing the interest that you could be receiving, even from the small amounts that the banks will pay? If you could get more interest from the savings account, and only write one or two cheques per month, you might be better off with that account only; but given common fee structures, you likely would not want that as your primary account. Another reason for separate accounts is more psychological. You might be able to train yourself to not dip in to your savings if you don't have a chequebook." }, { "docid": "412084", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers to your questions: (1) Do bank account numbers have a checksum. NO. (2) Is it plausible that they found out your number after sending you the money by \"\"accident\"\". NO. There is no way to find out who possesses a particular bank account just by the number. Also, how they even know they made a mistake? They targeted you and knew who you were and your bank account number before the \"\"money\"\" was sent. (3 and 4) Is this a scam? YES. They never paid you any money. They forged a check for a large amount and deposited it in an account. Then divided it up, wiring pieces to multiple people, all of whom they investigated beforehand. Since it is a bank to bank transfer it clears. Once the forgery is discovered, all the transfers will be unwound. If you had sent them money, you would have lost that money. Other things to note: There is zero chance of a wire transfer going to the wrong person because the sender has to list the name and address on the account as well as the number. You basically did the right thing which is to notify your bank that you received an unauthorized transfer into your account. Never accept money into your account from someone you don't know. If money \"\"appears\"\" in your account tell the bank it is an error and probably proceeds from a forgery and they will take care of it.\"" }, { "docid": "555486", "title": "", "text": "\"1.Why is there no \"\"United States Treasury\"\" endorsement? Why should there be, and what do you think it would look like? Some person at Treasury sitting at a desk all day signing \"\"Uncle Sam\"\"? At most you would expect to see some stamp, because it's clear that no person is going to sign all of these checks. 2.Can I have the check returned for proper endorsement? No, this is none of your business unless you have some serious reason to believe that someone other than the treasury cashed your check. (If that were really your concern, then you'd have a bigger issue than the endorsement.) 3.If I am required to endorse checks made out to me, why isn't the US Treasury? As others have noted, an endorsement is often not required as long as the name on the check matches a name on the account to which it is deposited. Individual banks may have stricter rules, but that's between you and your bank.\"" }, { "docid": "29372", "title": "", "text": "\"Lets say you owed me $123.00 an wanted to mail me a check. I would then take the check from my mailbox an either take it to my bank, or scan it and deposit it via their electronic interface. Prior to you mailing it you would have no idea which bank I would use, or what my account number is. In fact I could have multiple bank accounts, so I could decide which one to deposit it into depending on what I wanted to do with the money, or which bank paid the most interest, or by coin flip. Now once the check is deposited my bank would then \"\"stamp\"\" the check with their name, their routing number, the date, an my account number. Eventually an image of the canceled check would then end up back at your bank. Which they would either send to you, or make available to you via their banking website. You don't mail it to my bank. You mail it to my home, or my business, or wherever I tell you to mail it. Some business give you the address of another location, where either a 3rd party processes all their checks, or a central location where all the money for multiple branches are processed. If you do owe a company they will generally ask that in the memo section in the lower left corner that you include your customer number. This is to make sure that if they have multiple Juans the money is accounted correctly. In all my dealings will paying bills and mailing checks I have never been asked to send a check directly to the bank. If they want you to do exactly as you describe, they should provide you with a form or other instructions.\"" }, { "docid": "262485", "title": "", "text": "No you will have no problems. It's been fourteen years since I've lived in the UK and I've had no trouble with my UK bank accounts in that time. They have happily mailed me statements and new cards abroad for all that time, and I've deposited cheques by mailing them to the branch. Online banking takes care of almost everything else. The only thing I wasn't able to do from abroad was open a new account, because of anti money-laundering regulations. Even that may be possible if you presented the right kind of ID when you opened the original account - mine predated the regulations. Most UK banks will also offer 'offshore' banking for non-residents in which interest is not deducted at source." }, { "docid": "417769", "title": "", "text": "How do I directly get my Freelancing amount in my Axis bank account? Do I need to inform my Bank before receiving any such payment? Yes you can get it directly into your Axis Bank Account. You would need to inform your client your Bank Account Number, Bank Name and Address and Swift BIC or IFSC Code [Axis Bank website or Branch can tell you]. You can receive credits in Euro's. Upon receipt Axis Bank will automatically convert this into Rupees using standard rate. Your Bank [Axis] may also charge some Bank fees for the wire transfer. How do I pay tax for this extra income in India? You would need to treat this as income and add it to total income including salary and calculate tax accordingly. You can pay taxes online using Income Tax India website. You can also approach a CA who would do the tax computation, paying taxes and filing returns for as little as Rs 1000 - 2000/- Edit: IBAN is International Bank Account Number. Explain to you client that India does not subscribe to IBAN. Its right now only used by Europe and Australia. Give you normal Bank Account Number. Please call up your Bank / walk into your Branch to get the SWIFT BIC. It will be something like this http://www.theswiftcodes.com/india/page/3/" }, { "docid": "350642", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's divide all bank accounts into savings and checking. The main difference is that checking is easy to get money from; savings is hard to get money from. Because of this, the federal Reserve requires that banks keep more money on hand to cover transactions in checking accounts. Here is a related question from a banking customer regarding a recent notice on their bank statement: Deposit Reclassification. It seems that the bank was moving the customer's money between hidden sub accounts to make it look like the checking account was really a savings account and thus \"\"reduce the amount of funds we are required to keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank.\"\" If they didn't have to transfer the money many times the bank could keep less cash on hand. But once they did 5 hidden transactions the rest of the money in the hidden savings account would be moved by the bank. The 6 transaction limit is done to not allow you to treat savings like checking. Here is a relevant quote from the Federal Reserve Savings Deposits Savings deposits generally have no specified maturity period. They may be interest-bearing, with interest computed or paid daily, weekly, quarterly, or on any other basis. The two most significant features of savings deposits are the ‘‘reservation of right’’ requirement and the restrictions on the number of ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals that may be made per month (or per statement cycle of at least four weeks) from the account. In order to classify an account as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the institution must in its account agreement with the customer reserve the right at any time to require seven days’ advance written notice of an intended withdrawal. In practice, this right is never exercised, but the institution must nevertheless reserve that right in the account agreement. In addition, for an account to be classified as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the depositor may make no more than six ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals per month from the account. ‘‘Convenient’’ transfers and withdrawals, for purposes of this limit, include preauthorized, automatic transfers (including but not limited to transfers from the savings deposit for overdraft protection or for direct bill payments) and transfers and withdrawals initiated by telephone, facsimile, or computer, and transfers made by check, debit card, or other similar order made by the depositor and payable to third parties. Other, less-convenient types of transfers, such as withdrawals or transfers made in person at the bank, by mail, or by using an ATM, do not count toward the six-per-month limit and do not affect the account’s status as a savings account. Also, a withdrawal request initiated by telephone does not count toward the transfer limit when the withdrawal is disbursed via check mailed to the depositor. Examiners should be particularly wary of a bank’s practices for handling telephone transfers. As noted, an unlimited number of telephone-initiated withdrawals are allowed so long as a check for the withdrawn funds is mailed to the depositor. Otherwise, the limit is six telephone transfers per month. The limit applies to telephonic transfers to move savings deposit funds to another type of deposit account and to make payments to third parties.\"" }, { "docid": "589", "title": "", "text": "So does a post-dated check have any valid use in a business or personal transaction? Does it provide any financial or legal protections at all? Yes, most definitely. You're writing a future date on the check, not past, to ensure that the check will not be deposited before that day. Keep in mind that this may change from place to place, since not every country has the same rules. In the US, for example, such trick would not work since the check may be presented any time and is not a limited obligation. However, in some other countries banks will not pay a check presented before the date written on it. While in the US the date on the check is the date on which it was (supposedly) written and as such is meaningless for obligation purposes, in many other countries the date on the check is the date on which the payment to be made, thus constitutes the start of the commitment and payment will not be made before that date. For example, in Canada: If you write a post-dated cheque, under the clearing rules of the Canadian Payments Association (CPA), your cheque should not be cashed before the date that is written on it. If the post-dated cheque is cashed early, you can ask your financial institution to put the money back into your account up to the day before the cheque should have been cashed." }, { "docid": "80538", "title": "", "text": "\"If you forgot to put the name on the \"\"pay to the order of\"\" line then anybody who gets their hands on the check can add their name to the check and deposit it at their bank into their account. If it goes to the correct person they will have an easy time making sure that the check is made out correctly. They don't have to worry about that picky teller who doesn't know what to do with a check made out to Billy Smith and a drivers license for Xavier William Smith. On the other hand... a criminal will also be able to make sure it is processed exactly the way they want it. If I made it out to a small business or a person I would let them know. You might not have a choice but to wait and see what happens if it was sent to a large business, the payment processing center could be a long way from where you will be calling.\"" }, { "docid": "97211", "title": "", "text": "I heard from someone that since my friends are moving money to my account, I'm liable to be taxed by the IRS Not completely true. If there are large deposits in your account, you may be asked for clarification from IRS. If there is a reasonable justification; in your case the agreement that you are sharing the apartment, the lease deed has all the 3 names, there is explicit mention in lease about how funds are transferred. Note at times the audit maybe in future for quite a bit of past. Hence you would need to keep the record for quite some time. Alternative arrangements like opening a joint account and making payments from that account may make it easier from record keeping point of view." }, { "docid": "309023", "title": "", "text": "\"Depending on how the check was made out, you may be able to file a DBA (\"\"doing business as\"\"), which would give you the business name locally. Then open an account under that name and deposit the check. Or simply go back to the customer and say \"\"hey, I don't have yhe company bak account open yet; could I exchange this check for one made out to me personally?\"\" That's how I've been handling hobby income under a company name. (I really do ned to file that DBA!)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "86852", "title": "", "text": "\"Unfortunately, Australian bureocrats made it impossible to register a small business without making the person's home address, full name, date of birth and other personal information available to the whole world. They tell us the same old story about preventing crime, money laundering and terrorism, but in fact it is just suffocating small business in favour of capitalistic behemoths. With so many weirdos and identity thieves out there, many people running a small business from home feel unsafe publishing all their personal details. I use a short form of my first name and real surname for my business, and reguraly have problems cashing in cheques written to this variation of my name. Even though I've had my account with this bank for decades and the name is obviously mine, just a pet or diminitive form of my first name (e.g. Becky instead of Rebecca). This creates a lot of inconvenience to ask every customer to write the cheque to my full name, or make the cheque \"\"bearer\"\" (or not to cross \"\"or bearer\"\" if it is printed on the cheque already). It is very sad that there is protection for individual privacy in Australia, unless you can afford to have a business address. But even in this case, your name, date of birth and other personal information will be pusblished in the business register and the access to this information will be sold to all sorts of dubious enterprises like credit report companies, debt collectors, market researchers, etc. It seems like Australian system is not interested in people being independent, safe, self-sufficient and working for themselves. Everyone has to be under constant surveliance.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "32092", "title": "", "text": "I am not sure about your country but I think each country must be having some fixed time frame for reversal of the transaction (Which must be less than a month), please inquire if that time limit has passed or not ? If it hasn't best will be to wait for some more time before informing them. Once the reversal time limit has passed no one (Except government agencies with court orders) can withdraw money from your bank account without your written consent even if they have deposited it themselves. World would have been a strange place if this restriction was not there. Since you want to close the account you can approach your previous boss (or executive from HR/Account department) and tell them your intention. After that either you can transfer money online to their account or give them a cheque which they can deposit in their account. This way things will end faster and you will be freed from this extra account. If above process takes time another solution will be to transfer the money to your another (permanent) account and give them a cheque from this account. Here also you can use online transfers or by sending them a cheque through courier. Whichever mode you choose to pay the money back make sure you have some documented proof that may be helpful in future." }, { "docid": "402314", "title": "", "text": "AU rates are higher than 3.75%. The market for deposits here in Australia is very competitive (banks have change increased deposits as a share of liabilities from ~50% to ~60% in just the last few years) and, as a result, demand deposits here pay far more than the central bank rate. My demand savings account, for example, pays 4.95%. That AU-US interest differentials are so staggeringly high means that, inmevitably, lots of investors are carrying. Depending of FX moves over the next year, a lot of investors will either gain heaps or lose more. If you can leverage, you can gain even more (or lose the house)." }, { "docid": "199508", "title": "", "text": "This may not answer your question but it may be an alternative. My credit union credits my account for deposits immediately (ones I make in an envelope). They view it as a service to their members. They take the risk that the member could deposit an empty envelope, say they deposited $400, and then withdraw the money. There may be banks in your country that do business this way." }, { "docid": "16774", "title": "", "text": "There's nothing particularly special about a two million dollar cheque. While they aren't commonplace, the bank certainly has experience with them. Many ATMs won't allow a deposit of that size but the bank cashiers will certainly accept them. They will typically get a supervisor to sign off on the deposit and may ask about the source of the money, for fraud prevention reasons. They may be held for longer than a smaller cheque if the bank manager chooses to do so. If there's nothing remotely suspicious (for example, it is a cheque from an insurance company for an expected payout), you should expect it will clear in about a week. On the other hand, if it is a cheque from a bank in another country and the bank manager has any reason to suspect it may not be legitimate, they may hold it for a month or more. Even then, you are not guaranteed the cheque was legitimate. This is used in a common scam." }, { "docid": "216200", "title": "", "text": "No you do not insure the cheque. A cheque is just standardized form that instructs a bank to transfer money. It is no more important than an ordinary letter. A cheque carries no commercial value, especially when it has a designated recipient. No mail insurance will cover the financial loss as a result of bank fraud. It is a kind of indirect loss. Just tell her to write your account number at the back of the paper, walk into your bank's branch and tell the teller to deposit it. There is no need of mailing." }, { "docid": "260889", "title": "", "text": "As NRI/PIO (Non-Resident Indian/Person of Indian Origin), the overseas income and transfers in foreign currency are exempt from Indian income taxes. However, the account in India has to be designated NRE or FCNR. There are three kind of accounts that an NRI can maintain Interest earned in NRE and FCNR accounts is exempt from income taxes. Interest earned in NRO accounts is not exempt from income taxes, in fact banks would withhold about 30% of interest (TDS). The exact tax liability would depend upon income generated in India and TDS could be applied towards that liability when the tax returns are filed. There are other implications also of designating the account as NRE or NRO. NRE accounts can only be funded via inward remittance of permitted foreign currency e.g. deposit USD/GBP. So proceeds like rental income, pension etc. that are generated in INR within India can't be deposited in this account. The money deposited in NRE account can grow tax free and can be converted back in any foreign currency freely. On the other hand NRO accounts can be funded through both inward remittance of permitted foreign currency or local income e.g. rental, pension etc. All the amount in this account is treated as Indian originated INR (even if remitted in foreign currency) and thus is taxed as any other bank account. The amount in this account is subject to the annual cap of convertibility of USD 1 million. Both NRE and NRO accounts are maintained in INR and can be Saving and Term Deposit. Any remittance made to these accounts in any foreign currency is converted to INR at the time of deposit and is maintained in INR. FCNR account are held in foreign currency and can only be Term Deposit. Official definitions: Accounts for Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs)" }, { "docid": "438975", "title": "", "text": "Goddady.com will gladly accept payment from your personal account. They don't really care, as long as you approve the charge, whose name the account is in. I'm not sure PayPal even check the names on the invoice and the account to match, they just want you to login. However, depending on your local laws, you may be required to have a separate business account. In the US, for example, corporations must have their own accounts. For other entities with limited liability (like LLC or LLP) it is advised to have a separate account to avoid piercing corporate veil. Also, if your business name is not your personal name - clients may want to verify that the checks/transfers are deposited under your business name. In some countries checks written out to X cannot be endorsed by X to be transferred to Y. That may affect your decision as well. You'll have to get a proper legal advice valid in your jurisdiction to know the answer to your question." }, { "docid": "412084", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers to your questions: (1) Do bank account numbers have a checksum. NO. (2) Is it plausible that they found out your number after sending you the money by \"\"accident\"\". NO. There is no way to find out who possesses a particular bank account just by the number. Also, how they even know they made a mistake? They targeted you and knew who you were and your bank account number before the \"\"money\"\" was sent. (3 and 4) Is this a scam? YES. They never paid you any money. They forged a check for a large amount and deposited it in an account. Then divided it up, wiring pieces to multiple people, all of whom they investigated beforehand. Since it is a bank to bank transfer it clears. Once the forgery is discovered, all the transfers will be unwound. If you had sent them money, you would have lost that money. Other things to note: There is zero chance of a wire transfer going to the wrong person because the sender has to list the name and address on the account as well as the number. You basically did the right thing which is to notify your bank that you received an unauthorized transfer into your account. Never accept money into your account from someone you don't know. If money \"\"appears\"\" in your account tell the bank it is an error and probably proceeds from a forgery and they will take care of it.\"" }, { "docid": "310103", "title": "", "text": "\"It's generally not possible to open a business account in the UK remotely. It's even difficult (near impossible) for a non-resident (even if a citizen) to open a business or personal bank account while visiting the UK. A recent report says that it may be possible to open an account via Barclays Offshore in the Isle of Man. This requires a large deposit, and probably lots of paperwork and fees (most offshore locations have stricter \"\"know your customer\"\" rules than major countries). Note that while the Isle of Man is inside the UK banking system (for sort codes, account numbers), it is a separate territory that doesn't have the same deposit guarantees as the UK. There is no legal reason why a UK company has to bank within the UK banking system, although many companies paying the company would expect it or require it, and an account in anything other than sterling would complicate the accounts. It could have an account in your home country. It's not even a legal requirement that the company has an account in its own name at all. Some people use a (separate) personal account for this purpose. There are plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea (for example it's unclear who/what owns the money in the account, and can give the appearance of director's loans), but it's a work-around. Most inbound electronic payments only require a sort code and account number, the account owner name is not checked. The UK does have a much simpler and cheaper company registry than most European countries, but the near-impossibility of opening a bank account for a business in the UK as a non-resident has made it an unsuitable place to register a small international company.\"" }, { "docid": "80538", "title": "", "text": "\"If you forgot to put the name on the \"\"pay to the order of\"\" line then anybody who gets their hands on the check can add their name to the check and deposit it at their bank into their account. If it goes to the correct person they will have an easy time making sure that the check is made out correctly. They don't have to worry about that picky teller who doesn't know what to do with a check made out to Billy Smith and a drivers license for Xavier William Smith. On the other hand... a criminal will also be able to make sure it is processed exactly the way they want it. If I made it out to a small business or a person I would let them know. You might not have a choice but to wait and see what happens if it was sent to a large business, the payment processing center could be a long way from where you will be calling.\"" }, { "docid": "350642", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's divide all bank accounts into savings and checking. The main difference is that checking is easy to get money from; savings is hard to get money from. Because of this, the federal Reserve requires that banks keep more money on hand to cover transactions in checking accounts. Here is a related question from a banking customer regarding a recent notice on their bank statement: Deposit Reclassification. It seems that the bank was moving the customer's money between hidden sub accounts to make it look like the checking account was really a savings account and thus \"\"reduce the amount of funds we are required to keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank.\"\" If they didn't have to transfer the money many times the bank could keep less cash on hand. But once they did 5 hidden transactions the rest of the money in the hidden savings account would be moved by the bank. The 6 transaction limit is done to not allow you to treat savings like checking. Here is a relevant quote from the Federal Reserve Savings Deposits Savings deposits generally have no specified maturity period. They may be interest-bearing, with interest computed or paid daily, weekly, quarterly, or on any other basis. The two most significant features of savings deposits are the ‘‘reservation of right’’ requirement and the restrictions on the number of ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals that may be made per month (or per statement cycle of at least four weeks) from the account. In order to classify an account as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the institution must in its account agreement with the customer reserve the right at any time to require seven days’ advance written notice of an intended withdrawal. In practice, this right is never exercised, but the institution must nevertheless reserve that right in the account agreement. In addition, for an account to be classified as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the depositor may make no more than six ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals per month from the account. ‘‘Convenient’’ transfers and withdrawals, for purposes of this limit, include preauthorized, automatic transfers (including but not limited to transfers from the savings deposit for overdraft protection or for direct bill payments) and transfers and withdrawals initiated by telephone, facsimile, or computer, and transfers made by check, debit card, or other similar order made by the depositor and payable to third parties. Other, less-convenient types of transfers, such as withdrawals or transfers made in person at the bank, by mail, or by using an ATM, do not count toward the six-per-month limit and do not affect the account’s status as a savings account. Also, a withdrawal request initiated by telephone does not count toward the transfer limit when the withdrawal is disbursed via check mailed to the depositor. Examiners should be particularly wary of a bank’s practices for handling telephone transfers. As noted, an unlimited number of telephone-initiated withdrawals are allowed so long as a check for the withdrawn funds is mailed to the depositor. Otherwise, the limit is six telephone transfers per month. The limit applies to telephonic transfers to move savings deposit funds to another type of deposit account and to make payments to third parties.\"" }, { "docid": "147197", "title": "", "text": "Assuming that the NRE (NonResident External) account is in good standing, that is, you are still eligible to have an NRE account because your status as a NonResident of India has not changed in the interim, you can transfer money back from your NRE account to your US accounts without any problems. But be aware that you bear the risk of getting back a much smaller amount than you invested in the NRE account because of devaluation of the Indian Rupee (INR). NRE accounts are held in INR, and whatever amounts (in INR) that you choose to withdraw will be converted to US$ at the exchange rate then applicable. Depending on whether it is the Indian bank that is doing the conversion and sending money by wire to your US bank, or you are depositing a cheque in INR in your US bank, you may be charged miscellaneous service fees also. To answer a question that you have not asked as yet, there is no US tax on the transfer of the money. The interest paid on your deposits into the NRE account are not taxable income to you in India, but are taxable income to you in the US, and so I hope that you have been declaring this income each year on Schedule B of your income tax return, and also reporting that you have accounts held abroad, as required by US law. See for example, this question and its answer and also this question and its answer." }, { "docid": "462050", "title": "", "text": "\"The easiest and least expensive way of doing this, similar to the answer from Randy Coulman, is to write a check and deposit it into the Canadian Institution. Since this transfer is between accounts you own the easiest thing to do is to do a deposit by mail. Contact your current institution on where you would need to mail your deposit to. You can then write yourself a check on the US bank and mail it to the Canadian bank; be sure to write \"\"For Deposit Only\"\" along with your account number (and Branch Number for Canada) on the back. This is the slowest, but cheapest method. An alternative option is to use Wire Transfers, but they can be very costly (you'll usually incur a fee when sending and when receiving). I only recommend them when you need the money in the account fast (they are usually settled within an hour).\"" }, { "docid": "543812", "title": "", "text": "\"In India, Can I write a multi-city cheque to myself (Self cheque) and present to non-home branch to withdraw money? If yes, Can bank deny this transaction? Yes you can. There are limitations on the amount advised from time to time. What is \"\"genuine transactions / bonafide remittances\"\"? The multi-city cheque were created / issued to ease the clearing time. Previously outstation cheques would take max of 1 month by law. having a Multi-City cheque reduces this to max of 3 days. So what the clause says is one should use MCC to make genuine payments for parties outside your city. These should not be used as conduits for money laundering activities. No cash payment to third parties It means cash payment is not given to others except to account holder in non-home branch. A 3rd party can withdraw from home branch. Suppose someone gave me a cheque and I don't have an account in that bank (or I am out of town, so I go to a non-home branch), how can I get the money in cash? You can't. Generally I have seen that this can be en-cashed in the same city and not necessarily the same branch. However its been sometime when I have done this. Best is deposit this into your Bank or have payer initiate an IMPS/NEFT transfer.\"" }, { "docid": "505473", "title": "", "text": "\"No, the best you can do is (probably) determine the bank, from the sort code. using an online checker such as this one from the UK payments industry trade association. Revealing the name of an account holder is something the bank would typically require a warrant for, I'd expect, or whatever is covered in the account T&Cs under \"\"we provide all lawfully required assistance to the authorities\"\" Switching to what I suspect is your underlying problem - if this is a dispute that's arisen at the end of your tenancy, relating to the return of the deposit, then there are plenty of people to help you, for free. Use those rather than attempting your own detective work. Start with the UK government How to Rent guide, which includes links on to Shelter's pages about deposits. The CAB has lots of good info here too. Note that if your landlord didn't put your deposit in a deposit protection scheme, then as a professional landlord they could be penalised four times (I think) the deposit amount by a court, so stick to your guns on this.\"" }, { "docid": "322456", "title": "", "text": "\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \"\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\"\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \"\"mark to market accounting\"\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\"" }, { "docid": "426844", "title": "", "text": "\"I know of at least one case where a person was convicted of \"\"structuring\"\". The person was depositing his own money into his own bank account and was found guilty of \"\"structuring\"\" since he made several deposits under $10K. The man did nothing illegal. He just felt it was safer to make several small deposits instead of one large deposit. From the article: Prosecutors did not offer evidence of any other motive for Gaskins' behavior. They said at trial that Gaskins should have known better. \"\"The point of the law is to make sure we don't have people who try to fool the bank,\"\" federal prosecutor Randall Galyon told jurors last week. \"\"The fact that he was trying is against the law.\"\" The law states the bank has to report any transactions over $10K so the government can investigate any suspicous monetary activity. Of course, if you make several deposits under $10K you'll also be investigated and you could actually be breaking \"\"intent\"\" of the law for depositing your own money into your own bank account.\"" }, { "docid": "377357", "title": "", "text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"" }, { "docid": "171242", "title": "", "text": "Some banks give you an indemnity form that will allow them to clear the payment available in a different name. This is usually in case the name on the cheque is slightly misspelled. For example, color (American) could be spelt as colour (British). In India for example, names can often be spelt in multiple ways. the indeminity form is common place." } ]

[ { "docid": "322171", "title": "", "text": "In highly developed and competitive industries companies tread a continuous and very fine line between maximising shareholder profits by keeping prices up while making products as cheaply as possible, vs competitors lowering prices when they work out a way to make equivalents cheaper. In the short run you will quite often see companies hold onto large portions of efficiency savings (particularly if they make a major breakthrough in a specific manufacturing process etc) by holding old prices up, but in the long run competition pretty quickly lowers prices as the companies trying to keep high margins and prices get ruthlessly undercut by smaller competitors happy to make a bit less." } ]

[ { "docid": "544630", "title": "", "text": "\"Designed by Apple in California, manufactured in China. At this point in time Apple has more employees in the US than in the past. They never really moved jobs overseas, mostly they just spun up work overseas because that's where all of the components of the supply chain were. When you say \"\"hey... I want to start cranking out devices. I need to know how fast you can turn if there's a design change late in the pre-production stage\"\" and the best answers you get are from makers in China, that's where your work goes.\"" }, { "docid": "340791", "title": "", "text": "\"It appears that the company in question is raising money to invest in expanding its operations (specifically lithium production but that is off topic for here). The stock price was rising on the back of (perceived) increases in demand for the company's products but in order to fulfil demand they need to either invest in higher production or increase prices. They chose to increase production by investing. To invest they needed to raise capital and so are going through the motions to do that. The key question as to what will happen with their stock price after this is broken down into two parts: short term and long term: In the short term the price is driven by the expectation of future profits (see below) and the behavioural expectations from an increase in interest in the stock caused by the fact that it is in the news. People who had never heard of the stock or thought of investing in the company have suddenly discovered it and been told that it is doing well and so \"\"want a piece of it\"\". This will exacerbate the effect of the news (broadly positive or negative) and will drive the price in the short run. The effect of extra leverage (assuming that they raise capital by writing bonds) also immediately increases the total value of the company so will increase the price somewhat. The short term price changes usually pare back after a few months as the shine goes off and people take profits. For investing in the long run you need to consider how the increase in capital will be used and how demand and supply will change. Since the company is using the money to invest in factors of production (i.e. making more product) it is the return on capital (or investment) employed (ROCE) that will inform the fundamentals underlying the stock price. The higher the ROCE, the more valuable the capital raised is in the future and the more profits and the company as a whole will grow. A questing to ask yourself is whether they can employ the extra capital at the same ROCE as they currently produce. It is possible that by investing in new, more productive equipment they can raise their ROCE but also possible that, because the lithium mines (or whatever) can only get so big and can only get so much access to the seams extra capital will not be as productive as existing capital so ROCE will fall for the new capital.\"" }, { "docid": "342855", "title": "", "text": "Keep in mind this is a great primer on *macro*economics, or how the economies and money supplies of societies as a whole work. It's equally fascinating and important to learn about the basics of *micro*economics, the other side of that coin (pun intended), or how individual people and businesses make decisions about production and consumption. You've probably heard of the laws of supply and demand which are really important for understanding things like how and why prices change and why some businesses and industries are more successful than others." }, { "docid": "65147", "title": "", "text": "At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders. Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread. As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00. If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation. A number of buyers cancel their orders. Now the highest buy order is $7. There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7. That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000. Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share). Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock. Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1. Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money. Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE." }, { "docid": "435963", "title": "", "text": "A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions." }, { "docid": "58859", "title": "", "text": "\"Most people can't see trends and trajectories. Who knows why, but only few can and they write articles like this and we laugh at them. Or they come up with slogans like \"\"This changes everything\"\" and again, we laugh at them. You can see \"\"This changes everything. Again.\"\" used and abused all over the internet every day. But let's take a look at this particular meme. When iPhone came out just five years ago, Apple was making computers for 5% of the world market and was totally irrelevant for 95% of the market, Microsoft was making an OS for other companies' hardware and Google was just a search engine. Motorola, Nokia and RIM were the biggest phone manufactures. Well, damn! Five years later - everything has changed - like it or not. EDIT: se -&gt; see\"" }, { "docid": "477138", "title": "", "text": "Productivity *can* increase, but it doesn't have to. Productivity can remain the same but if you've got two people competing for one job they bid wages lower since even a lower wage is better (up to a point in welfare state) to no wage at all. It's why so many jobs went to southeast Asia, they bid a wage lower than their competitors on the international market and the jobs migrated to them. Now that they're bidding their wages up that no longer applies to the same extent it once did (and it's why, for example, [Google built their new manufacturing plant in the US](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/technology/google-and-others-give-manufacturing-in-the-us-a-try.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all))." }, { "docid": "396662", "title": "", "text": "&gt;If everyone in auto manufacturing labor was replaced by a cheap robot tomorrow, then cars would be cheaper. Why? *All* the auto manufacturers installed robots, so they've *all* got the same incentive to keep prices the same and pocket the additional productivity as profits. Auto manufacturers *have* switched largely to robotic labor. Prices have stayed mostly the same, adjusted for inflation. Quality has increased, which is good, but fewer and fewer people can afford the higher-quality vehicles due to lack of jobs and other factors in the cost of living rising (housing, health-care, education, energy). &gt;video game and plastic surgery business, robot manufacturing, and robot programming Actually, programmers work *more* than auto workers. Auto workers were unionized and thus had a 40-hour work-week, sometimes even with lunch breaks out of work hours instead of leisure hours!" }, { "docid": "115553", "title": "", "text": "No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security." }, { "docid": "333339", "title": "", "text": "\"4) Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? There seems to be confusion behind this question. A company does not set the price for their stock, so they can't \"\"reduce\"\" it either. In fact, nobody sets \"\"the price\"\" for a stock. The price you see reported is simply the last price that the stock was traded at. That trade was just one particular trade in a whole sequence of trades. The price used for the trade is simply the price which the particular buyer and particular seller agreed to for that particular trade. (No agreement, well then, no trade.) There's no authority for the price other than the collection of all buyers and sellers. So what happens when Nokia declares a 55 cent dividend? When they declare there is to be a dividend, they state the record date, which is the date which determines who will get the dividend: the owners of the shares on that date are the people who get the dividend payment. The stock exchanges need to account for the payment so that investors know who gets it and who doesn't, so they set the ex dividend date, which is the date on which trades of the stock will first trade without the right to receive the dividend payment. (Ex-dividend is usually about 2 days before record date.) These dates are established well before they occur so all market participants can know exactly when this change in value will occur. When trading on ex dividend day begins, there is no authority to set a \"\"different\"\" price than the previous day's closing price. What happens is that all (knowledgeable) market participants know that today Nokia is trading without the payment 55 cents that buyers the previous day get. So what do they do? They take that into consideration when they make an offer to buy stock, and probably end up offering a price that is about 55 cents less than they would have otherwise. Similarly, sellers know they will be getting that 55 cents, so when they choose a price to offer their stock at, it will likely be about that much less than they would have asked for otherwise.\"" }, { "docid": "427932", "title": "", "text": "Pretty garbage policy, especially since the niche we're in results in customers using the product, then deciding its our fault (the reseller of another manufacturer), and returns used items to us that we cant resell. So on Amazon's end, it shows the buyer received the part, returns it a week later, and they are entitled to a refund, while we're stuck with $500 of useless inventory. - Fuck that" }, { "docid": "209937", "title": "", "text": "Isn't most of today's shopping all about convenience? Isn't the Amazon go concept much more convenient for a shopper than the current situation? Do you not think they will implement that into all Whole Foods stores? People change where they buy their products based on price changes and convenience all the time." }, { "docid": "510043", "title": "", "text": "If the work is unnecessary, the jobs were made obsolete. The only thing that's changed is we're paying less to create the same product. The worker's former compensation doesn't disappear into the ether, it's re-allocated to the new players (electric company, robotics manufacturer, mechanic, etc.); a person being fired is only half the story. Blaming Amazon for becoming more efficient by being an early adopter of new technology and business practices seems like misplaced aggression" }, { "docid": "515738", "title": "", "text": "No. The market cap has no relation to actual money that flowed anywhere, it is simple the number of shares multiplied by the current price, and the current price is what potential buyers are (were) willing to pay for the share. So any news that increases or decreases interest in shares changes potentially the share price, and with that the market cap. No money needs to flow." }, { "docid": "187698", "title": "", "text": "It's the Apple approach: sell your own product at the price you want it to be set at, then sell it wholesale to other retailers at a price so close to that they can't undercut you without having zero margin. That's why you never see discounts worth anything on a lot of electronic products. The manufacturers have effectively captured the entire margin by competing against the retailers via direct sale options." }, { "docid": "444589", "title": "", "text": "\"EBITDA is in my opinion not a useful measure for an investor looking to buy shares on the stock market. It is more useful for private businesses open to changing their structuring, or looking to sell significant parts of their business. One of the main benefits of reporting Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation & Amortization, is that it presents the company as it would look to a potential buyer. Consider that net income, as a metric, includes interest costs, taxes, and depreciation. Interest costs are (to put it simply) a result of multiplying a business's debt by its interest rate. If you own a business, and personally guarantee the loan that the company has with the bank, your interest rates might be artificially low. If you have a policy of reaching high debt levels relative to your equity, in order to achieve high 'financial leveraging', your interest cost might be artificially high. Either way, if I bought your business, my debt structure could be completely different, and therefore your interest costs are not particularly relevant to me, a potential buyer. Instead, I should attempt to anticipate what my own interest costs would be, under my plans for your business. Taxes are a result of many factors, including the corporate structure of the business. If you run your business as a sole proprietorship (ie: no corporation), but I want to buy it under my corporation, then my tax rates could look nothing like yours. Or if we operated in multiple jurisdictions. etc. etc. Instead of using your taxes as an estimate for mine, I should anticipate my taxes based on my plans for your business. Depreciation / amortization is a measure that estimates how much of a business's \"\"fixed assets\"\" were \"\"used up\"\" during the year. ie: how much wear and tear occurred on your fleet of trucks? It is generally calculated as a % of your overall asset value. It is a (very loose) proxy for the cash costs which will ultimately be incurred to make repairs/replacements. D&A is also something which could significantly change if a business changes hands. If the value of your building is much higher now than when you bought it, I will have higher D&A costs than you [because I will be recording a % of total costs higher than yours], and therefore I should forecast my own D&A. Removing these costs from Net Income is not particularly relevant for a casual stock investor, because these costs will not change when you buy shares. Whatever IBM's interest cost is, reflects the debt structuring policy that the company currently has. Therefore when you buy a share in IBM, you should consider the impact that interest has on net income. Similarly for taxes and D&A - they reflect costs to the business that impact the company's ability to pay you a dividend, and therefore you should look at net income, which includes those costs. Why would a business with 'good net income' and 'good EBITDA' report EBITDA? Because EBITDA will always be higher than net income. Why say $10M net income, when you could say $50M EBITDA? The fact is, it's easy to report, and is generally well understood - so why not report it, when it also makes you look better, from a purely \"\"big number = good\"\" perspective? I'm not sure that reporting EBITDA implies any sort of manipulative reporting, but it would seem that Warren Buffet feels this is a risk.\"" }, { "docid": "380851", "title": "", "text": "\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"" }, { "docid": "223694", "title": "", "text": "\"Usually... if you can't figure the business model for a cheap or \"\"free\"\" product it's because you ARE the product and just don't know it. In this case, moviepass has found a buyer who will pay more for the data on your movie watching habits than they have to fork out for movie tickets. This is why the price dropped from $60 to $10. It's a data play now. Don't worry... You're giving Google and Facebook way more for access to their \"\"free\"\" technologies, I assure you.\"" }, { "docid": "546299", "title": "", "text": "Sales taxes are charged at the point of purchase, while a VAT is assessed during the production process of the item. In the end, the amount paid by the consumer is the same, but with the VAT, the tax was collected from the manufacturer, instead of the consumer. One of the big arguments for VAT is that it prevents lost revenue due to things like smuggling (if sales tax increases past 10% smuggling spikes, so the VAT is a good mechanism if you're looking to implement large taxes on goods). It also keeps the tax burden away from shippers and other tiers of the production process that don't change the intrinsic value of the item." } ]

[ { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "582571", "title": "", "text": "\"You're confusing so many things at once here...... First thing first: we cannot suggest you what to do business-wise since we have no idea about your business. How on Earth can anyone know if you should sell the software to someone or try to distribute to customers yourself? How would we know if you should hire employees or not? If you say you don't need employees - why would you consider hiring them? If you say you want to sell several copies and have your own customers - why would you ask if you should sell your code to someone else? Doesn't make sense. Now to some more specific issues: I heard sole proprietary companies doesn't earn more than 250k and it's better to switch to corporation or LLC etc. because of benefits. I heard it was snowing today in Honolulu. So you heard things. It doesn't make them true, or relevant to you. There's no earning limit above which you should incorporate. You can be sole proprietor and make millions, and you can incorporate for a $10K/year revenue business. Sole proprietorship, incorporation (can be C-Corp or S-Corp), or LLC - these are four different types of legal entity to conduct business. Each has its own set of benefits and drawbacks, and you must understand which one suits you in your particular situation. For that you should talk to a lawyer who could help you understand what liability protection you might need, and to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) who can help you understand the tax-related costs and benefits of each choice. On the other hand I heard that if I create LLC company, in case of failure, they can get EVERYTHING from me, what's this all about? No. This is not true. Who are \"\"they\"\", how do you define \"\"failure\"\", and why would they get anything from you at all? Even without knowing all that, your understanding is wrong, because the \"\"LL\"\" in LLC stands for LIMITED liability. The whole point of forming LLC or Corporation is to limit your own personal liability. But mere incorporation or forming LLC doesn't necessarily mean your liability is limited. Your State law defines what you must do for that limited liability protection, and that includes proper ways to run your business. Again - talk to your lawyer and your tax adviser about what it means to you. I'm totally unfamiliar with everything related to taxes/companies/LLC/corporation etc Familiarize yourself. No-one is going to do it for you. Start reading, ask specific questions on specific issues, and get a proper legal and tax advice from licensed professionals.\"" }, { "docid": "502283", "title": "", "text": "\"They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a \"\"sole proprietorship\"\" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're \"\"Zolani Enterprises\"\", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a \"\"Limited Liability Company\"\". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your \"\"avatar\"\" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a \"\"disregarded entity\"\". Most one-man LLCs are typically \"\"disregarded\"\", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an \"\"employee\"\" would get). Nothing can be \"\"retained\"\" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to \"\"own\"\" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an \"\"employee\"\" of your own company, and pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies \"\"retained\"\" by the company, or paid out to members as \"\"dividends\"\", is \"\"profit\"\" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a \"\"distribution\"\" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple \"\"members\"\" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different.\"" }, { "docid": "38016", "title": "", "text": "\"I would not concede your money to your dad IF he is really wronging you - and we need much more detail to tell. This is the first lesson in life that actually following up on \"\"wrong\"\" things will save you thousands of dollars throughout your adulthood. It is really easy to turn the other way and be out a few thousand dollars. Then the hospital overbills you and you let it go and so on. Follow up, it is your money. The laws behind this are pretty cut and dry. Basically if you put money into one account and only your money was touching the account then it is your money. As a minor this is an expectation and once your turn 18 in the US you have a right to your money. That is given that the money was in the account at 18. So if your dad truly did not touch the account and withdraw the money before you turned 18, it is cut and dry. If your dad took money out before 18 or added his own money to the account it gets rather fuzzy since it is easy for dad to say that I took money out for your expenses. As for this being \"\"nuclear\"\" as keshlam suggests - he is right. His advice is fine but sets you up for people taking advantage of your throughout your life, especially your family. In fact the situation is already nuclear but you were the only thing the bomb hit. So talk to your dad. Explain that you will have to go and file a small claims trial if he does not agree to give you the money. If your situation is already over the top I would bring the paperwork with you filled out. (a person at your local clerk's office will help you find the right forms) You on the other hand better weigh this conversation. We \"\"internet peoples\"\" are only hearing one side of the story. We do not understand your situation at your home. We don't understand who pays for your car, gas, clothes, and room and board. You are 18, so there is no obligation for parents to pay for these things. If I had an 18 year old that had 3K in the bank under my name and they hadn't helped around the house in a year, didn't buy their car, had a poor attitude, and so on I would probably have the same action as your dad. Yea it's \"\"your money\"\" but is it really? When I was 18 I bought ALL my clothes, bought my car, bought my gas/insurance, and so on. I paid for my toothpaste. If this is where you are at and you help out around the house like an adult would then you have solid ground to stand on. If not... I would laugh if I were your dad. My first thought would be you want your money, that is fine. But you are paying rent. Car is gone, get your own. You would be paying for everything. But you would have \"\"your money\"\". So you have some pros and cons to weigh here and taking the money could cost you a TON of money in the future. However if your dad is just being a pure jerk (I kind of doubt this but who knows) then you have an obligation to fight for what is yours. (Note that the end goal of any meeting like this in your life shouldn't be court. It should be an agreement so that the right action is taken and both parties are happy. It could be very well that your dad would be happy with something that has nothing to do with the money. Also there are people with really really bad situations at their homes. A controlling parent is a pretty good \"\"bad\"\" situation and an easy one to solve at 18 - move out. If you don't want to move out then accept your family members, not complain about them. No matter how controlling your dad is your question spews of ungrateful teenager. I am sure you aren't that bad and I am sure your dad isn't that bad.) (And another note: In no way, shape, or form am I suggesting you drop the money issue. There is nothing worse than not talking about it even if you think your dad will kick you out of the house. Resentment building up in yourself or family is the worst possible thing. This needs to be dealt with.)\"" }, { "docid": "457352", "title": "", "text": "\"I speak from personal experience. Even now, as I type this, I've had very sleep so, I'm on the edge a little, but you don't see me blogging about how ridiculous it is for me to stay up to learn something new, and I'm in my thirties where I've had to do this several year already. That being said, I don't enjoy the long hours, but I do enjoy the problem-solving process, which can be time consuming. I tend to lose track of time when I'm immersed in learning or figuring a problem. Given the fact that tech is ever evolving, no one should ever be surprised to find out that there are long hours involved. It's not busy work. It's part of the learning process. If I figure it out, then it goes on my blog on how I resolved the issue instead of bitching how some VC (that was smart enough to become one) is going to benefit from my time. I'm paid for the work. That is the path I chose to be in. With that in mind, I've worked for seven well known tech firm (most startups) so far. One was my own shop, which I ran for nearly six years. Nowhere did I hear anyone glorify the long hours. If I stayed after hours, I was asked if the work could be delayed, or if I can do it from home. Most managers want their direct reports to be happy, happy equals productivity. I haven't seen what you've observed in the tech firms that I have worked for, but I suspect you might have had a difference experience. In my experience, the work-life balance was always preached in the interest of keeping people happy, despite work-life balance being nothing more than a term coined to get managers out of a sticky situation with HR-related events. Any how, I digress. Amy has applied some deep rationale to her blog post because she felt robbed of her time and possibly her youth. Sadly, her reputation with prospective employers might be influenced by her choice of words in the interest of \"\"fucking glory.\"\" I suppose in the arrogance of youth that's a way of saying fuck glory. There is a part of me that think this will work to her advantage at some point...\"" }, { "docid": "446928", "title": "", "text": "From Schwab - What are the eligibility requirements for a business to establish a SEP-IRA? Almost any type of business is eligible to establish a SEP-IRA, from self-employed individuals to multi-person corporations (including sole proprietors, partnerships, S and C corporations, and limited liability companies [LLCs]), tax-exempt organizations, and government agencies. What are the contribution limits? You may contribute up to 25% of compensation (20% if you’re self-employed3) or $49,000 for 2011 and $50,000 for 2012, whichever is less. If we set the PC aside, you and the son have an LLC renting office space, this addresses the ability of the LLC to offer the retirement account." }, { "docid": "574684", "title": "", "text": "\"I can see why you are feeling financial stress. If I understand right you have put yourself in a very uncomfortable and unsustainable situation and one that should indeed be very stressful for a person of your age. I feel a lot of stress just reading over your question. I'm going to be very frank. Your financial situation suggests that you have very aggressively taken wealth from your future self in order to consume and to make inefficient investments. Well, look in the mirror and say to yourself \"\"I am now my future self and it is time to pay for my past decisions.\"\" Don't take money out of your IRA. That would be continuing the behavior as it is a very inefficient use of your resources that will lead to yet more extreme poverty down the line. Ok, you can't take back what you have done in the past. What to do now? Major life restructuring. If I were you, I'd sell my house if I had one. Move in with one of your kids if you have any nearby. If not, move into the cheapest trailer you can find. Take a second job. Very seriously look to see if you can get a job that pays more for your primary job--I know you love your current job but you simply cannot continue as you are now. Start eating really cheap food and buying clothes at thrift stores. Throw everything you can at your debts, starting with the ones with the highest interest rate. Plan now to continue working long after your peers have retired. Early in life is the time to be borrowing. Middle age is when you should be finishing paying off any remaining debts and tucking away like crazy for retirement. Now is not an OK time to be taking on additional debt to fund consumption. I know changing your life is going to be very uncomfortable, but I think you will find that there is more peace of mind in having some amount of financial security (which for you will require a LOT of changes) than in borrowing ever more to fund a lifestyle you cannot sustain.\"" }, { "docid": "220032", "title": "", "text": "So My question is. Is my credit score going to be hit? Yes it will affect your credit. Not as much as missing payments on the debt, which remains even if the credit line is closed, and not as much as missing payments on other bills... If so what can I do about it? Not very much. Nothing worth the time it would take. Like you mentioned, reopening the account or opening another would likely require a credit check and the inquiry will add another negative factor. In this situation, consider the impact on your credit as fact and the best way to correct it is to move forward and pay all your bills on time. This is the number one key to improving credit score. So, right now, the key task is finding a new job. This will enable you to make all payments on time. If you pay on time and do not overspend, your credit score will be fine. Can I contact the creditors to appeal the decision and get them to not affect my score at the very least? I know they won't restore the account without another credit check). Is there anything that can be done directly with the credit score companies? Depending on how they characterize the closing of the account, it may be mostly a neutral event that has a negative impact than a negative event. By negative events, I'm referring to bankruptcy, charge offs, and collections. So the best way to recover is to keep credit utilization below 30% and pay all your bills and debt payments on time. (You seem to be asking how to replace this line of credit to help you through your unemployment.) As for the missing credit line and your current finances, you have to find a way forward. Opening new credit account while you're not employed is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. You might find yourself in a situation where you need to take whatever part time gig you can find in order to make ends meet until your job search is complete. Grocery store, fast food, wait staff, delivery driver, etc. And once you get past this period of unemployment, you'll need to catch up on all bills, then you'll want to build your emergency fund. You don't mention one, but eating, paying rent/mortgage, keeping current on bills, and paying debt payments are the reasons behind the emergency fund, and the reason you need it in a liquid account. Source: I'm a veteran of decades of bad choices when it comes to money, of being unemployed for periods of time, of overusing credit cards, and generally being irresponsible with my income and savings. I've done all those things and am now paying the price. In order to rebuild my credit, and provide for my retirement, I'm having to work very hard to save. My focus being financial health, not credit score, I've brought my bottom line from approximately 25k in the red up to about 5k in the red. The first step was getting my payments under control. I have also been watching my credit score. Two years of on time mortgage payments, gradual growth of score. Paid off student loans, uptick in score. Opened new credit card with 0% intro rate to consolidate a couple of store line of credit accounts. Transferred those balances. Big uptick. Next month when utilization on that card hits 90%, downtick that took back a year's worth of gains. However, financially, I'm not losing 50-100 a month to interest. TLDR; At certain times, you have to ignore the credit score and focus on the important things. This is one of those times for you. Find a job. Get back on your feet. Then look into living debt free, or working to achieve financial independence." }, { "docid": "529600", "title": "", "text": "\"Dear Bot of Doom, I appreciate your concern, and will consider your suggestions. However, you don't know anything about my level of knowledge or the training that I've had, what risks I'm taking and how I calculate them, or where my gambles will take me and my financial situation. A lot of people like to try to tell me that I'll fail.. Who knows what my future holds? All I can do is make my plan and stick to it, while educating myself along the way. And if I do in fact fail sometime in the future, walk into a buzzsaw, lose nearly everything, the blame will be solely on myself. Not on some \"\"professional\"\" who I've paid to manage my finances. I don't know.. Like I said, I appreciate your concern, I really do.. We shall see what happens in the future :) Love, Rachel\"" }, { "docid": "87150", "title": "", "text": "To point #1: We are moving but I don't know If I can afford the rent as the family grows I would start by looking at your debt-to-income ratio. In the US, most banks look at this for mortgage purposes, but it also gives you a general idea of what monthly mortgage payments will be comfortable given your particular financial situation. Think of it this way, if a bank is unwilling to lend you money because of a high debt-to-income level, this indicates that you have very little leeway with regard to your budget. So a lower number indicates that you will have more flexibility and comfort with meeting your rent/mortgage obligations when unforeseen bills pop up. The article below indicates having < 43% DTI is ideal (in the US). Here's a link to a debt to income calculator and some extra info (I suggest finding one aimed at the UK market): WellsFargo debt to income calculator Why is the 43% debt to income ratio important? Point #2: How can a person measure how much to spend on food, car, bills or rent from his salary? Is there a formula to keep in check? Other answers have addressed how to make a budget, so I will not repeat that. However, here's another angle with regards to spending/saving. This article recommends 50/30/20: According to the popular 50/30/20 rule, you should reserve 50 percent of your budget for essentials like rent and food, 30 percent for discretionary spending, and at least 20 percent for savings. Read more at: https://www.moneyunder30.com/how-much-should-you-save-every-month-2 In the real world, these goals may not be realistic, and different people have different ideas about how aggressive to be with regards to savings. However, you can get a general idea and adapt for your particular needs. Point 3: I find myself looking at my account every single day and get tensed and sad because almost whenever the money (pay) comes in I freak out that after everything there is nothing for us to enjoy or save." }, { "docid": "252859", "title": "", "text": "Considering I'm putting 30% down and having my father cosign is there any chance I would be turned down for a loan on a $100k car? According to BankRate, the average credit score needed to buy a new car is 714, but they also show average interest rates at 6.39% for new-car loans to people with credit scores in the 601-660 range. High income certainly helps offset credit score to some extent. Not every bank/dealership does things the same way. Being self-employed you'd most likely be required to show 2 years of tax returns, and they'd use those as a basis for your income rather than whatever you have made recently. If using a co-signer, their income matters. Another key factor is debt to income ratio, if too much of someone's income is already spoken for by other debts a lender will shy away. So, yes, there's a chance, given all the information we don't know and the variability with lender policies, that you could be turned down for a car loan. How should I go about this? If you're set on pursuing the car loan, just go talk to some lenders. You'll want to shop around for a good rate anyway, so no need to speculate just go find out. Include the dealership as a potential financing option, they can have great rates. Personally, I'd get a much cheaper car. Your insurance premium on a 100k car will be quite high due to your age. You might be rightly confident in your earning potential, but nothing is guaranteed, situations can change wildly in short order. A new car is not a good investment or a value-retaining asset, so why bother going into debt for one if you don't have to? If you buy something in cash now, you could upgrade in a few years without financing if your earning prediction holds and would save quite a bit in car insurance and interest over the years between." }, { "docid": "321566", "title": "", "text": "In addition to asking an accountant, I would also ask a lawyer. When exploring the same question for myself, I found that one of the benefits of incorporating or forming an LLC is that your personal assets are better protected. Including asset protection, here are 5 reasons to incorporate: Initially, I thought that as I had so few assets, I should not be concerned. I was glad I was able to do a free consult with a lawyer who advised me to look into forming an LLC. (Ultimately, my planned business idea never panned out. So, I never went the incorporation/LLC route.) Hope this helps!" }, { "docid": "487870", "title": "", "text": "Creating a corporation is not necessarily less taxes. In fact, you'll face the problem of double taxation, and since you must pay yourself a reasonable salary, if your corporation doesn't earn much to give you as dividend after the salary, and/or your tax bracket is low, you'll in fact may end up paying more taxes. Also there's a lot of bureaucracy involved in managing a corporation. Liability on the other hand is important, and what's more important - is asset separation and limiting the liability to the corporation assets, keeping your personal assets safe. To achieve that, you don't have to create a corporation, but you can create a Limited Liability Company (LLC). LLC are disregarded entities for tax purposes (i.e.: you won't have to pay taxes twice, only once as a sole proprietor/partner), but provide the liability limitation and asset separation. LLC's are much less formal, and require much less paperwork reducing the risk of corporate veil piercing because of non-compliance. I myself decided to manage my investments through LLC's for that very reason (asset separation)." }, { "docid": "569645", "title": "", "text": "I agree with your strategy of using a conservative estimate to overpay taxes and get a refund next year. As a self-employed individual you are responsible for paying self-employment tax (which means paying Social Security and Medicare tax for yourself as both: employee and an employer.) Current Social Security Rate is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45%, so your Self-employment tax is 15.3% (7.65%X2) Assuming you are single, your effective tax rate will be over 10% (portion of your income under $ 9,075), but less than 15% ($9,075-$36,900), so to adopt a conservative approach, let's use the 15% number. Given Self-employment and Federal Income tax rate estimates, very conservative approach, your estimated tax can be 30% (Self-employment tax plus income tax) Should you expect much higher compensation, you might move to the 25% tax bracket and adjust this amount to 40%." }, { "docid": "51728", "title": "", "text": "What do I need to know if I'm unemployed and need to take out a home loan to finance a litigious divorce? Which companies are best to shop around at? How do I present my self and situation? What harms or hurts my chances of getting a home loan? Is this the same hung as refinancing a house? Is there a website or article you can recommend about this?" }, { "docid": "123356", "title": "", "text": "\"Wow, I cannot believe this is a question. Of course reading the 10Ks and 10Qs from the SEC are incredibly beneficial. Especially if you are a follower of the investing gurus such as Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Shelby Davis. Personally I only read the 10K's I copy the pertinent numbers over to my spreadsheets so I can compare multiple companies that I am invested in. I'm sure there are easier ways to obtain the data. I'm a particular user of the discounted free cash flow methodology and buying/selling in thirds. I feel like management that says what they are going to do and does it (over a period of years) is something that cannot be underestimated in investing. yes, there are slipups, but those tend to be well documented in the 10Qs. I totally disagree in the efficient market stuff. I tend to love using methodologies like Hewitt Heisermans \"\" It's Earnings that Count\"\" you cannot do his power-staircase without digging into the 10Qs. by using his methodology I have several 5 baggers over the last 5 years and I'm confident that I'll have more. I think it is an interesting factoid as well that the books most recommended for investing in stocks on Amazon all advocate reading and getting information from 10Ks. The other book to read is Peter Lynch's one-up-wall-street. The fact is money manager's hands are tied when it comes to investing, especially in small companies and learning over the last 6 years how to invest on my own has given me that much more of my investing money back rather than paying it to some money manager doing more trades than they should to get commision fees.\"" }, { "docid": "465172", "title": "", "text": "\"I spend hours researching two comparable products to try to save $3. Me too! I have also argued for hours with customer support to get $5/month off a bill (that's $60/year!), and I feel guilty every time I eat out or do something remotely luxurious, like getting fries with my $1 McChicken. Geez, even when I play video games, I hate spending the in-game currency. For me, it's obsessive-compulsive traits that cause it, but please note that I'm not claiming @Eddie has them. Just speaking for myself here, but I hope it helps. I still struggle with my miserliness, but I can share what works for me and what doesn't. I don't think I'm valuing my time nearly as much as I should. Me neither, but knowing that doesn't help; it makes it worse. For me, putting a dollar amount on how much I value my time does not work because that just complicates the problem and amplifies how much time I spend solving that multi-variable optimization problem. Consider trying to convince Monk not to avoid germs in order to build antibodies; it just makes him think more about germs, raising anxiety and making easy decisions (use a handkerchief to touch doorknobs) into a hard decision (should I touch it or should I not?). It also amplifies the regret whenever you finally make a certain choice (\"\"what if I did the calculation wrong?\"\" or \"\"what if I'm going to get sick tomorrow because I touched that doorknob?\"\"). Making the problem more complicated isn't the solution. So how to make it simpler? Make the decision ahead of time! For me, budgets are the key to reducing the anxiety associated with financial decision making. Every six months or so, my wife and I spend hours deciding how much to spend per month on things. We can really take our time analyzing it because we only have to do it occasionally. Once we set $50/month for restaurants, I no longer have to feel like a loser every time we eat out -- similarly for discretionary spending and everything else. TBH, I'm not sure exactly why it works -- why I don't regret the dollar amounts we put on every budget -- but it really does help. I join my coworkers for lunch on Fridays because I already decided that was okay. At that point, I can focus my OC-tendencies on eating every last gram of organic matter on my plate. Without directly touching the ketchup bottle, of course. :) Again, just speaking for myself, but having budgets has done wonders for my stress level with respect to finances. For me, budgets are less about restricting my spending and more about permitting me to spend! It's not perfect, but it helps. (Not that it's relevant, but I reworded this answer about 20 times and only hit 'Post' with great effort to suppress the need to keep editing it! I'll be refreshing every 30 seconds for updates.)\"" }, { "docid": "323469", "title": "", "text": "Some builders -- if given the first chance to deal with the problem, instead of being presented with a bill after the fact -- will fix the problem at no charge to the homeowner. Good faith matters. My house was built by such a builder. If I have a problem that I am competent enough to diagnose and fix, I fix it myself, at my cost. If I have a problem that that I cannot diagnose and fix myself, but that I think the builder (or his subcontractor) is competent enough to diagnose and/or fix, I contact the builder (or subcontractor directly). I am willing to pay for the diagnosis and/or fix, especially if it is an aging or wear-and-tear issue, or the logical consequence of a cost-saving measure that I voluntarily chose when the house was being designed. If the problem is a plumbing problem, I contact my preferred plumber for a diagnosis and/or repair. I pay for my preferred plumber's work. On two occasions, my preferred plumber was unable to fix the problem. Both problems turned out to be installation (or testing) errors related to work done specifically for building inspections. In both cases, I paid for my preferred plumber's diagnosis, and the builder (and/or his subcontractor) fixed the problem at no additional cost to me. The diagnosis and repair work that you describe seems like a similar situation to me. (In fact, I had my builder's subcontractor replace a few prematurely damaged shingles on my roof. This repair prevented a roof leak. I noticed the problem while trimming a tree back from the roof. The shingles were damaged because the building permit implied that the tree could not be trimmed back. I'm spotting a pattern with these problems…) In my opinion, the alleged problem with the roof pitch seems like a design flaw that should have been obvious at the time you chose the house design. I expect that any corrections of this design flaw will need to come out of your remodelling budget. In the absence of further details, I doubt that either the builder or the homeowners' insurance company is responsible for it. Some builders make a point of minimizing the warranty work they pay for, regardless of its effect on the builder's reputation. I do not know which kind of builder you have. The lawyer has probably told you whether the relevant statutes of limitations have lapsed. (The statutes of limitations vary from state-to-state, and vary depending on the alleged tort.) Starting a lawsuit is likely to further damage your relationship with your builder. Homeowners' insurance companies now share the number of claims that have been made historically at each property address. Most insurance companies now use this cumulative number of claims when setting rates, even if the claim(s) were made against a different insurance company, or by a different homeowner. I do not know whether any insurance companies ignore claims older than a certain number of years, or ignore the first claim." }, { "docid": "112435", "title": "", "text": "It's not typically possible for someone to jointly own the house, who is not also jointly liable for the mortgage. This doesn't matter however, because it is possible for two people to get a mortgage together, where only one person's income is assessed by the lender. If that person could get a mortgage of that amount on their own, then the couple should also be able to get the same mortgage. Source: My wife and I got a mortgage like this. She is self-employed, rather than meet the very high requirements for proving her self-employment income, we simply said that we only wanted my income to be taken into consideration." }, { "docid": "72240", "title": "", "text": "\"Lots of loans that are shady to say the least are advertised currently on TV in the UK. I'm happily in a situation where I don't need a loan but might be asked to be a guarantor. If anyone asked me to be a guarantor for a loan, I'd either be capable and willing to loan that money to the person myself, or I wouldn't guarantee. I'd never, ever in a million years be a guarantor. There is one company in particular offering loans \"\"the good old-fashioned way\"\" asking for 49.9% interest with a guarantor. That is an interest rate that can bankrupt the guarantor. If you take the loan with me as the guarantor, and you decide that you are not interested in paying back the loan, I'm stuck with this loan. So since the guarantor must trust you, if he or she is established in the UK, the best thing to do would be for them to take a loan from a bank (or any supermarket nowadays will give you a loan at a decent rate) in their own name, give the money to you, and hope that you pay back the money. I'm equally responsible for repayment whether I'm guarantor or whether the loan is in my name, so I'd get that loan at a decent rate from a reputable bank.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "237785", "title": "", "text": "As you have indicated, the 1042-S reflects no income or withholding. As such, you are not required to file a US tax return unless you have other income from the US. Gains on stocks are not reported until realized upon sale. FYI, your activity does not fit the requirements of being engaged in a trade or business activity. While the definition is documented in several places of the Code, I have attached Publication 519 which most accurately represents the application to your situation as you have described it. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch04.html#en_US_2016_publink1000222308" } ]

[ { "docid": "422886", "title": "", "text": "Can this be possible that I wish to convert some amount of INR to USD and keep USD in my bank account? This is not possible the way you have described. A resident Indian can hold a Foreign Currency account designated in USD. The deposit into this accounts are only due to specified transactions. One cannot directly convert INR to USD. Read the RBI guideline here. A simplified info is also available on ICICI Bank site." }, { "docid": "528880", "title": "", "text": "Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate." }, { "docid": "253030", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/07/trump-tpp-deal-withdrawal-trade-effects-215459) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Trump&amp;#039;s decision to walk away from the TPP has stoked uncertainty about U.S. trade policy and, more notably, the president&amp;#039;s commitment to rural America. &gt; The county&amp;#039;s residents are grappling with life under a Trump presidency and all its unanswered questions: Will the president&amp;#039;s next tweet about trade send commodity prices crashing? Will Trump ever follow through on his promise to create new opportunities through bilateral trade deals? And, even more pressing: Will the new plant that Prestage is building be able to hire a second shift of workers, helping families who have struggled through the recent agricultural downturn? &gt; Not only did the remaining TPP countries reaffirm their commitment to retain the benefits of the deal, but Chile and its Latin American trade allies in the Pacific Alliance announced their own efforts to advance regional trade integration by pursuing trade deals with other countries. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6s6hxa/trumps_trade_pullout_roils_rural_america_after/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~185408 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Trade**^#1 **U.S.**^#2 **deal**^#3 **export**^#4 **TPP**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "260889", "title": "", "text": "As NRI/PIO (Non-Resident Indian/Person of Indian Origin), the overseas income and transfers in foreign currency are exempt from Indian income taxes. However, the account in India has to be designated NRE or FCNR. There are three kind of accounts that an NRI can maintain Interest earned in NRE and FCNR accounts is exempt from income taxes. Interest earned in NRO accounts is not exempt from income taxes, in fact banks would withhold about 30% of interest (TDS). The exact tax liability would depend upon income generated in India and TDS could be applied towards that liability when the tax returns are filed. There are other implications also of designating the account as NRE or NRO. NRE accounts can only be funded via inward remittance of permitted foreign currency e.g. deposit USD/GBP. So proceeds like rental income, pension etc. that are generated in INR within India can't be deposited in this account. The money deposited in NRE account can grow tax free and can be converted back in any foreign currency freely. On the other hand NRO accounts can be funded through both inward remittance of permitted foreign currency or local income e.g. rental, pension etc. All the amount in this account is treated as Indian originated INR (even if remitted in foreign currency) and thus is taxed as any other bank account. The amount in this account is subject to the annual cap of convertibility of USD 1 million. Both NRE and NRO accounts are maintained in INR and can be Saving and Term Deposit. Any remittance made to these accounts in any foreign currency is converted to INR at the time of deposit and is maintained in INR. FCNR account are held in foreign currency and can only be Term Deposit. Official definitions: Accounts for Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs)" }, { "docid": "20283", "title": "", "text": "As an Indian resident you can open an Resident Foreign Currency Account, i.e. an USD account. This facility is provided by all major banks. I am not sure if PayPal would transfer money to these accounts or would convert. The alternative is to give this account number along with other Bank details to the company in US and ask them to send money via remittance services." }, { "docid": "160313", "title": "", "text": "First, the SSN isn't an issue. She will need to apply for an ITIN together with tax filing, in order to file taxes as Married Filing Jointly anyway. I think you (or both of you in the joint case) probably qualify for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, if you've been outside the US for almost the whole year, in which cases both of you should have all of your income excluded anyway, so I'm not sure why you're getting that one is better. As for Self-Employment Tax, I suspect that she doesn't have to pay it in either case, because there is a sentence in your linked page for Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident that says However, you may still be treated as a nonresident alien for the purpose of withholding Social Security and Medicare tax. and since Self-Employment Tax is just Social Security and Medicare tax in another form, she shouldn't have to pay it if treated as resident, if she didn't have to pay it as nonresident. From the law, I believe Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident is described in IRC 6013(g), which says the person is treated as a resident for the purposes of chapters 1 and 24, but self-employment tax is from chapter 2, so I don't think self-employment tax is affected by this election." }, { "docid": "579512", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://bunky1787.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/jim-rickards-free-trade-a-barbarous-relic/) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; What Rickards ignores is that as these dollars were being accumulated abroad(voluntarily as countries attempted to increase their reserve balances), the attempt to prevent the fall of the dollar&amp;#039;s value by the U.S. government through foreign investment disincentives, restrictions on foreign lending, efforts to stem the official outflow of dollars, and cooperation with other countries did not succeed(in addition to foreign trade restrictions). &gt; On the contrary, the depreciation of the Yuan improves the purchasing power of U.S. citizens in terms of Chinese imports and has little correlation with U.S. consumer prices. &gt; A foreigner needs dollars to purchase U.S. goods, and if exporters cannot acquire as many dollars from sales to the U.S., then they will be unable to effectively demand our goods and services in return. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6f5k71/jim_rickards_free_trade_a_barbarous_relica/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~135950 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **U.S**^#1 **price**^#2 **dollar**^#3 **Rickards**^#4 **foreign**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "157712", "title": "", "text": "I am a US citizen and I want to transfer some amount 10 lakhs+ to my brother from my NRE account in India to his account. My brother is going to purchase something for his business. He is going to return my amount after 3-4 Months From the description it looks like you would like to loan to your brother on repatriation basis. Yes this is allowed. See the RBI Guide here and here for more details. There are some conditions; (iv) Scheme for raising loans from NRIs on repatriation basis Borrowings not exceeding US$ 2,50,000 or its equivalent in foreign exchange by an individual resident in India from his close relatives resident outside India, subject to the conditions that - a) the loan is free of interest; b) the minimum maturity period of the loan is seven years; c) The amount of loan is received by inward remittance in free foreign exchange through normal banking channels or by debit to the NRE/FCNR account of the non-resident lender; d) The loan is utilised for the borrower's personal purposes or for carrying on his normal business activity but not for carrying on agricultural/plantation activities, purchase of immovable property or shares/debentures/bonds issued by companies in India or for re-lending. Although it is mentioned as Seven years, this is revised to one year. Since he cannot deposit into my NRE account I guess he has to deposit it into my NRO account. A repatriate-able loan as above can be deposited into NRE Account. Is there any illegality here doing such transaction? No. Please ensure proper paper work to show this as loan and document the money trail. Also once I get my money in NRO account do I need to pay taxes in India on the money he deposited? This question does not arise." }, { "docid": "442853", "title": "", "text": "\"As I understand it the usual rule is that the country you are \"\"resident\"\" in taxes you on your worldwide income but gives you credit for foreign tax paid. The country you are not normally resident in taxes you only on income from that one country. Note that residence for tax purposes can have different rules from residence for immigration purposes. At least in the UK being resident in the country for more than half the tax year normally makes you tax resident and there are some other cases too. I expect other countries are similar but the details of the rules and the start/end of the tax years may vary. I don't know the exact rules for finland and belgium but I expect your Belgian taxes will be based on your Belgian income only and your Finnish taxes will be based on your worldwide income but with a credit for your Belgian taxes. Engaging accountants from both countries to confirm the exact rules and what exactly you should put on the forms is almost certainly a good idea.\"" }, { "docid": "284805", "title": "", "text": "\"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \"\"foreign-controlled trust\"\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\"" }, { "docid": "326559", "title": "", "text": "The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person)." }, { "docid": "43217", "title": "", "text": "There's no requirement of US citizenship to open a bank account in the US. Any person, citizen or not, can do that. I don't know where this assumption of yours come from, but it is false. So the easiest solution is to open a bank account for your nephew next time he visits the US and get him an ATM card from that account. You can then deposit money to that account as much as you want (beware of the gift tax consequences). If he doesn't want to travel to the US and cannot open a US bank account remotely from Russia (which is probably the case), then follow the @BrenBarn's suggestion: have him open a bank account in Russia and just wire money there. Having a foreigner tapping freely into your own personal bank account may cause legal issues both with regards to gift tax and money laundering provisions that require you to certify that the money on the account is yours only. Also, check if there's an issue for a Russian resident to have control over foreign accounts (there's definitely such an issue for a US resident, Russians are generally not far behind when it comes to government oppression)." }, { "docid": "30596", "title": "", "text": "Answering for US tax only: The bank account makes absolutely zero difference. If you are not a US national and not resident in the US, but earn income from a US employer/client/customer, generally that income is not subject to US tax (no matter where it is banked). However there are (complicated) exceptions, particularly if you are considered to be operating a 'trade or business' in the US or US real estate is involved. Start at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/nonresident-aliens and proceed through pub 519 if you have time to spend. I do not know (or answer) about Argentinian taxes. Whether you can find a US bank that wants to open and maintain an account for a foreigner (which is extra paperwork and regulation for them) is a different Q, that is already asked and answered: B1/B2 visas do not allow you to work, but that isn't really in scope of money.SX and belongs over on travel.SX (or expatriates.SX for longer stay); https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/25416/work-as-freelancer-while-tourist-in-us-for-an-already-existing-us-client seems to cover it." }, { "docid": "566028", "title": "", "text": "As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track." }, { "docid": "83758", "title": "", "text": "If you are a US resident (not necessarily citizen) then yes, you do have to pay capital gains taxes on any capital gains, including interest from assets oversees (like interest from a savings account). Additionally you have to report all your foreign bank accounts according to FATCA (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca)." }, { "docid": "368938", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"" }, { "docid": "46386", "title": "", "text": "Do I need to declare it to IRS? The account? No. You do need to file a form W8-BEN with the bank though and make sure you maintain the correct information on it (it has your address there, so if you move - update it). Your account may be frozen until the form is provided, especially if it has activity on it. The 2-nd and 3-rd scenario would come as a result of some freelancing activity done while I am out of the US (definitely would qualify for Non-Resident Alien status). This you do have to report to the IRS. I'm guessing the payer is in the US, and would not know that you're a foreigner. In this case you're liable for taxes (if the payer knows you're a foreigner - they must withhold the taxes on your behalf). The payer will report payments to the IRS, so you have to submit your own tax return for a match. If there's activity on your account that might be suspicious, it will be reported to money laundering unit in the US Treasury Department, that may come after you through the treaties the US might have with your home country (tax treaty, extradition treaty, etc)." }, { "docid": "544992", "title": "", "text": "As a gift, the responsibility lays with the giver to file a 709 with their taxes for gifting to a single entity (barring certain exclusions) an amount over $14,000 within the (2017) tax year. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i709.pdf If this person is a foreign entity from outside the country, you might need to provide in your tax filing a form 3520 https://www.irs.gov/businesses/gifts-from-foreign-person The reporting limits are: more than $100,000 from a foreign estate or non-resident alien, or more than $15,102 from a foreign company. If you don't know who/where the money came from i.e. cash, it would be considered found money and fall under income (not a gift)." }, { "docid": "81150", "title": "", "text": "Form 8288 is to report to the IRS withholding of capital gains tax that may be due from the seller. Foreign nationals don't always file tax returns, so they often didn't pay capital gains tax on properties that they sold. Congress decided to make the buyers responsible for this tax so that they would have a better chance of collecting it. There is a penalty against the buyer if that tax is not withheld. Your attorney should have filed this form on your behalf as part of the closing papers. I think your first step is to look at your copy of the closing papers and see if money was withheld from the sale. There definitely should be disclosure of these requirements before the sale. You should also follow up with your attorney to see whether he has already filed the forms 8288 and 8288-A on your behalf. If you had purchased for less than $300,000 (and were purchasing for your primary residence), you would not have to file that form, but since the property was under $1,000,000 the withholding rate is only 10% (rather than 15%)." } ]

[ { "docid": "338348", "title": "", "text": "Nice try. No. If you were in the music industry, you might have a case. Depending on the exact job, certain things related to music would be a business expense. I don't see how this would pass an audit as it really is unrelated to the work you do." } ]

[ { "docid": "73032", "title": "", "text": "\"Schwab is a highly diversified operation and has a multitude of revenue streams. Schwab obviously thinks it can make more off you than you will cost in ATM fees and it's probably safe to assume most Schwab clients use more services than the ATM card. It's not worthwhile to discuss the accounting of ATM/Debit/Credit card fee norms because for a diversified operation it's about the total relationship, not whether each customer engagement is specifically profitable. People who get Schwab accounts soley for the ATM fee refunds are in the minority. In 2016 10-k filing Schwab posted $1.8B in net earnings, 10 million client accounts with a total of $2.78T in client assets. A couple grand in ATM fees over several years is a rounding error. \"\"ATM\"\" doesn't even appear in the 2016 10-K.\"" }, { "docid": "436871", "title": "", "text": "Audio video service can make a big difference in your working style and turn them from tedious to enthusiastic one. You just need to count on a company who has been in the industry for long years and has proven its authenticity in providing the good quality equipments at least price." }, { "docid": "59795", "title": "", "text": "As your is a very specific case, please get an advice of CA. It should not cost you much and make it easier. The sale of agriculture land is taxable in certain conditions and exempt from tax in other cases. Sale of agricultural land is subject to capital gains tax. But there are certain exemptions under Section 54B, subject to conditions, which are as follows: If deemed taxable, you can avail indexation, ie the price at which you grandfather got [the date when he inherited it as per indexation] and pay 10% on the difference. If the price is not known, you can take the govt prescribed rate. As there is a large deposit in your fathers account, there can be tax queries and need to be answered. Technically there is no tax liable even if your grandfather gifts the money to your father. More details at http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130401/jsp/business/story_16733007.jsp and http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/publications/4_compute_your_capital_gains/chapter2.asp" }, { "docid": "498150", "title": "", "text": "I think you just hit the nail on the head as to why I enjoy it so much. I find I have a much lower attention span to music played digitally, the fact I have the power to skip songs, queue other artists. Even though I tend to be pickier with my Vinyl purchases I still struggle to listen to the same albums through Spotify." }, { "docid": "30006", "title": "", "text": "\"I think that your best option is to use the internet to look for sites comparing the various features of accounts, and especially forums that are more focused on discussion as you can ask about specific banks and people who have those accounts can answer. \"\"Requests for specific service provider recommendations\"\" are off-topic here, so I won't go into making any of my own bank recommendations, but there are many blogs and forums out there focusing on personal finance.\"" }, { "docid": "224689", "title": "", "text": "The issue yo have to consider is that under many state laws, you must give a merchant three opportunities to correct an issue before you can sue them, so check with your state before considering that option. Here's a link to the Federal Trade Commission's warranty information page, which may give you some ideas about what your options are. Keep in ind, if you let someone else work on the computer rather than the store you bought it from, you might give the guy a valid claim in court to throw out your lawsuit! Many times, warranties will spell out the conditions under which repair work can or must be done, so make sure you follow every step to the letter in order to preserve your claim. I would strongly suggest that you start creating a paper trail for your claim. Start by writing a very precise and detailed letter to the store owner, with copies of all relevant documents (your receipts, warranty papers, etc.) included. Explain the entire history, including what steps you've taken to date to get him to honor the warranty. Offer him the option to let you take the computer to another shop for repairs at his expense. Then, send the letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the store owner so that he can't deny receiving your letter. This is all in order to make the best case you can for your claim just in case you do have to sue him. Do not take the computer to anyone else until or unless he tells you in writing that he is willing to let you do that. You don't want to risk him arguing that the other shop is responsible for the problems now. I hope this helps. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "297994", "title": "", "text": "\"Why is it that people who know nothing about games constantly attempt to write about them? Games as a subscription service is a stupid idea for oh so many reasons. As an aside &gt;\"\"Pay $10 per month month, and immediately gain the ability to download over 100 games. Unlike Netflix, you're not streaming games — you outright download them.\"\". No shit, because streaming something the size of GTA V would be a phenomenally stupid idea.\"" }, { "docid": "303041", "title": "", "text": "\"Not specifically a \"\"stream\"\", but there are royalty companies that operate based on a similar concept. With a royalty, a party will pay upfront to a another party, usually a product manufacturer, oil & gas producer, or miner, and in return they will receive a percentage of the proceeds from the sale of the goods. For example, Company A owns 100 sections of land which carry mineral rights and they would like to drill on the land to produce oil & gas. However, Company A does not have the capital to produce the resource. Company B, a royalty company, agrees to provide upfront capital to Company A in return for a royalty, sometimes fixed, sometimes sliding scale based on other factors. The royalty is calculated based on a percentage of the sales proceeds that Company A receives from the sale of their oil & gas production. In this way, royalty companies act similarly to streaming companies, where they provide upfront capital and in return receive a cash flow stream that is dependant on another party's actions. What is different is that the selling price is not fixed. Instead, it is the % of proceeds that is fixed, at least in the short term. In Canada, PrairieSky Royalty and Freehold Royalties do exactly this.\"" }, { "docid": "137226", "title": "", "text": "\"I hear you (and those answering) use the words \"\"my money\"\" (or \"\"me to pay for stuff\"\") The sooner that ends, the better off you'll both be. My wife and I do have our own checking accounts that we maintain so she can write a check without notifying me, or I can buy her a birthday/mother's day/ etc gift without it showing in the joint account, but nearly all money flows through our joint account. Before we were married, the joint bank accounts were opened as was the joint brokerage account. You need to work on the budget as a single project and without judging. It's good that your incomes are similar, it makes the dynamics of pooling seem more fair, but for those where one spouse is making far more than the other, the impulse to 'chip in' equally towards bills leaves the lower earner with nothing. Will your wife go back to work after a maternity leave? Once she's back, and working for a time, things will settle down a bit. There's a postpartum time that's difficult. Women who have been through it will tell you that it can be pretty bad, and the best a guy can do is be understanding and supportive. As long as you are talking \"\"we\"\" with your wife, she'll see that you are both in it together. At the risk of sounding sexist, Women's clothing needs are different than men's. I could get away with owning 5 suits which could be replaced at the rate of one per year. If not for my wife, I can see in my own daughter how clothing makes her feel good about herself, and while I'm frugal with most of our budget, my clothing questions are 2 - Will it last? & Will it match other pieces you have? Therefore, clothing gets a line item all its own in the budget. There are a number of financial things to consider, but I see you are in the UK, so I'll generalize. In the States, there are pretax benefits to help care for a child under 13 (called a dependent care account) and for medical expenses not covered by insurance (called flexible spending account). These let you take money from your pay pretax to use for specific expenses. If UK offers similar, I invite a user to edit the detail into my answer. Last - once the kid comes into our lives, there's little room for many of the late teen/early 20's spending. Comics? DVDs? Those are the low hanging fruit of wasted money. Saving for retirement, and for University for the kid take priority. I'm not one to quote cliches but a friend once offered this observation - \"\"If you are not happy but your wife is happy, you are still far happier than if you were happy but your wife is not happy.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "450742", "title": "", "text": "\"How low you can reduce your costs does depend on your calling pattern. How many minutes per month you call locally; call long distance; call internationally; and how many minutes you receive calls for. If all these figures are low, you can be better off with a pay-per-minute service, if any of the outbound figures are high then you could consider a flat-rate \"\"unlimited\"\" service. So that's the first step, determine your needs: don't pay for what you don't need. For example, I barely use a \"\"landline\"\" voip phone any more. But it is still useful for incoming calls, and for 911 service. So I use a prepaid pay-per-minute VOIP company, that has a flat rate (< $2/mo) for the incoming number, an add-on fee for the 911 service (80c/mo), and per-minute costs for outgoing calls (1c/min or less to US, Canada, western Europe). I use my own Obitalk box (under $50 to buy). There is a bit of setup and learning needed, but the end result means my \"\"landline\"\" bill is usually under $4/mo (no other taxes or fees). Companies in this BYOD (bring your own device) space in the US/Canada include (in alphabetic order), Anveo, Callcentric, Callwithus, Futurenine, Localphone, Voip.ms and many others. A good discussion forum to learn more about them is the VOIP forum at DSLreports (although it can be a bit technical). There is also a reviews section at that site. If your usage is higher (you make lots of calls to a variety of numbers), most of these companies, and others, have flat-rate bundles, probably similar to what you have now. Comparing them depends on your usage pattern, so again that's the first thing to consider, then you know what to shop for. If you need features like voicemail or voicemail transcription, be sure to look at whether you need an expensive bundle with it in, or whether you're better off paying for that seperately. If your outbound calls are to a limited number of numbers, such as relatives far away or internationally, consider getting a similar VOIP system for those relatives. Most VOIP companies have free \"\"on network\"\" calls between their customers, regardless of the country they are in. So your most common, and most lengthy calls, could be free. The Obitalk boxes (ATA's: analog telephone adapters) have an advantage here, if you install them in yours and relatives houses. As well as allowing you to use any of the \"\"bring your own device\"\" VOIP companies like those listed above, they have their own Obitalk network allowing free calls between their boxes, and also to/from their iOS and Android apps. There are other ATA's from other companies (Cisco have well-known models), and other ways to make free calls between them, so Obitalk isn't the only option. I mentioned above I pay for the incoming number. Not every supplier has incoming numbers available in every area, you need to check this. Some can port-in (transfer in) your existing number, if you are attached to it, but not all can, so again check. You can also get incoming numbers in other areas or countries, that ring on your home line (without forwarding costs). This means you can have a number near a cluster of relatives, who can call you with a local call. Doesn't directly save you money (each number has a monthly fee) but could save you having to call them back!\"" }, { "docid": "443859", "title": "", "text": "On form 8829, line 20 you can list utilities paid for the home office. You have two choices: 1) You can list the entire amount under column (b) as an indirect expense. You will then get a deduction for the fraction of the amount based on what fraction of your home is an office. This makes sense if the service equally benefits your entire home. 2) You can compute the portion of the expense reasonably attributable to the business/office and list that amount under column (a). This entire amount will be deducted. Which option you choose depends on how well you think you can allocate the expense between your office and the rest of your home. For example, I have had to do this with electricity, but I specifically measured the electricity used by my office. If you think you can defend allocating a larger portion to the office, use option 2. If you would have paid the same amount even if you didn't have an office, it's hard to justify allocating more of the expense to the office than its portion of the home. If you opted for a more expensive service or otherwise incurred additional costs, it makes sense to allocate a higher fraction to the office and to calculate that yourself." }, { "docid": "386535", "title": "", "text": "\"Can't work out why I'm getting heat for this. Looking at 2010, Netflix wiki history... \"\"By 2010, Netflix's streaming business had grown so quickly that within months the company had shifted from the fastest-growing customer of the United States Postal Service's first-class service to the largest source of Internet streaming traffic in North America in the evening. In November, it began offering a standalone streaming service separate from DVD rentals.\"\" Given the interview I had was at the start of 2011 it still feels to me like a fairly relevant question to ask someone on the blockbuster Board.\"" }, { "docid": "436488", "title": "", "text": "I’d chalk amazon up to 1) the market giving then a pass on earnings, 2) AWS rising to eat everything else. I didn’t think it could break past 750-800 last year. Netflix on the other hand...not sure on the value there. Best case scenario they are HBO or all the content providers realize the game sucks and go back? Content is king and everyone is charging more and more for it OR launching their own streaming options. Unlike hbo, I can subscribe for a month and consume all the content I want and then be done. The pro for them is their service is amazing...apps, online, etc. really good experience." }, { "docid": "179893", "title": "", "text": "For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales." }, { "docid": "556029", "title": "", "text": "\"Facebook is an \"\"online social networking service\"\" which I'd categorize as an ad-supported social media platform for a type of company. Facebook makes money from advertisers and applications on the site, so there are a couple of different income streams though in recent years Facebook has done a number of acquisitions that should be noted as the company is much more than just the FB site. In terms of B2C or B2B, I see Facebook as being a B2C where businesses are paying for access to consumers rather than businesses looking for other businesses. Some of the posts on Facebook can be \"\"Sponsored posts\"\" that are where things can be a bit blurry for what is an advertisement. At the same time, various games run through Facebook may also make Facebook some money since some games may use in-game purchases that are worth noting. B2B requires one to have 3 companies in the overall system: One that is the middle, one that is providing a service and one that is consuming a service. While Facebook is selling advertising on this site, I don't see this as that different from TV Networks and other distribution channels that ads are bought for consumers to use. There is something to be said for what audience is one aiming. B2B implies corporate customers which I doubt is what Facebook's customers want. Rather they are personal consumers that aren't companies on their own to my mind. If you want something closer to B2B consider Amazon.com's cloud services where companies may buy resources from Amazon as part of the systems they may use to interface with others. I can remember in a previous job that we used Clay Tablet for doing translation services that took content from my employer's servers to Amazon's cloud that would then be taken by the translation company for more than a few different pieces to the puzzle. While part of Facebook could be seen as B2B, I doubt I'd see them as a large part of it but I could be wrong as B2B/B2C distinctions aren't my specialty. Are they yours? Consider Paypal in contrast where a business may use Paypal for payment processing. Paypal has agreements that enable them to process payments either through individual bank accounts or merchant accounts as well as for the company that wants to use Paypal for their e-commerce site. Thus, there can be businesses on each side which is where I see this being a B2B company that is also B2C as some people may just be consumers. Consider Google as another contrast where companies may pay to use Google for e-mail and the Office-like products like Google Docs and Google Drive that I'm not sure is B2B as this is just a business buying services from Google that doesn't involve another company. While there is B2C, B2B and B2G, not every business has to tie into a specific category here for something else to consider.\"" }, { "docid": "484149", "title": "", "text": "mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account. In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions. In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets. As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well. (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.)" }, { "docid": "460043", "title": "", "text": "Killer product descriptions that prompt deals aren't really difficult to compose. Notwithstanding what may be normal, once you know the condition and key fixings that make one up, you can take after a clear game plan of steps each time you create another for an item. But hiring a Professional is a better idea. You can get Amazon Product Description Writing Services from Mmf Infotech." }, { "docid": "327115", "title": "", "text": "You would have to do the specific math with your specific situation to be certain, but - generally speaking it would be smarter to use extra money to pay down the principle faster on the original loan. Your ability to refinance in the future at a more favorable rate is an unknowable uncertainty, subject to a number of conditions (only some of which you can control). But what is almost always a complete certainty is that paying off a debt is, on net, better than putting the same money into a low-yield savings account." }, { "docid": "11557", "title": "", "text": "Where are you operating your business and how is it structured? DBA, LLC? How do you plan on taxing the business? You can purchase whatever hardware you want and resale at whatever price you want. You may be able to contact a vendor and open a dealer account. This means they'll will give you a price break if you purchase X amount of volume but this may require more upfront capital. Warranty will probably be best to be done under your name. Most manufacture warranties require proof of purchase from an approved vendor. If you're buying and reselling at a higher cost then the original receipt will show your profits. Likewise, you can sale the hardware at cost and make all your money on labor. This would allow you to pass the warranty responsibility to the customer. Depending on the customer’s site you may have to mount your routers, repeaters and access points in hard to reach places. The customer might prefer to call you and have you take care of it from there. The way I would do it structure the installations by square footage and predicted users. The greater the square footage the more hardware you’ll need. Offer a remote support plan at a reasonable rate. For 20/month you will provide tear 1 support which can include troubleshooting dead access points remotely, changing network names, and providing up to X amount of network reports. ( Ubiquiti offers network monitoring for free in their suite. You would just be interpreting this information) For issues that require you to come to site you can charge X amount of dollars per visit plus parts and labor. I would offer on the spot replacement for hardware under warranty for a very small fee and then you can ship off the defective hardware and have it replaced. If you do purchase with amazon I know they offer extended plans on a lot of their electronics. It would be worth considering these plans and adding the cost to the hardware you’re reselling. Most of these plans simply write you a check for defective hardware after you ship them in. I would highly suggest going with a business structure that protects your personal assets such as an LLC. I recommend this because you will be proving a service to other people and you may be blamed for damages. If you are found to be at fault they company takes the hit, not you. edit: Also, you can take advantage of amazon's two day shipping. When a customer contracts you for a job simply ask for 50% deposit and a 4 day notice. When you receive the deposit place the order on amazon for the hardware. This will mean less money out of your pocket." } ]

[ { "docid": "279149", "title": "", "text": "If your parents' business isn't viable (regardless of what combination of the economy or their management of it caused it not to be viable) it would seem that you'd be throwing good money after bad to save it. If the whole thing gets paid off, then they get rid of the debt, but the economy will still be in the tank and they'll be going in the hole again. If they think they're five years away from retirement, then they're kidding themselves. They won't be able to retire. They should get bankruptcy advice and should start looking for other sources of income. Maybe sell their house and get something smaller. Have their expenses match their income. Sorry if this sounds harsh but it will be difficult for them to recover from this mess if they're in their late fifties." } ]

[ { "docid": "16392", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-illinois-be-the-first-state-to-file-for-bankruptcy/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; A financial crunch is spiraling into a serious problem for Illinois lawmakers, prompting some observers to wonder if the state might make history by becoming the first to go bankrupt. &gt; At the moment, it&amp;#039;s impossible for a state to file for bankruptcy protection, which is only afforded to counties and municipalities like Detroit. &gt; As for Illinois, Rauner on Thursday called state legislators to a 10-day special session starting next week to hammer out a budget deal and end an unprecedented impasse that could soon enter a third year. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6hq2wx/could_obamas_illinois_be_the_first_state_to_file/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~146184 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **state**^#1 **pension**^#2 **Illinois**^#3 **year**^#4 **bankruptcy**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "21325", "title": "", "text": "A couple of thoughts from someone who's kind of been there... Is the business viable at all? A lot of people do miss the jumping-off point where the should stop throwing good money after bad and just pull the plug on the business. If the business is not that viable, then selling it might not be an option. If the business is still viable (and I'd get advice from a good accountant on this) then I'd be tempted to try and pull through to until I'd get a good offer for the business. Don't just try to sell it for any price because times are bad if it's self-sustaining and hopefully makes a little profit. I does sound like their business is on the up again and if that's a trend and not a fluke, IMHO pouring more energy into (not money) would be the way to go. Don't make the mistake of buying high and selling low, so to speak. I'm also a little confused re their house - do they own it or do they still owe money on it? If they owe money on it, how are they making their payments? If they close the business, do they have enough income to make the payments still? Before they find another job, even if it's just a part-time job? As to paying off their debts or at least helping with paying them off, I'd only do that if I was in a financial position to gift them the money; anything else is going to wreak havoc with the family dynamics (including co-signing debt for them) and everybody will wish they didn't go there. Ask me how I know. Re debt consolidation, I don't think it's going to do much for them, apart from costing them more money for something they could do themselves. Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt)." }, { "docid": "19183", "title": "", "text": "\"If your sole proprietorship losses exceed all other sources of taxable income, then you have what's called a Net Operating Loss (NOL). You will have the option to \"\"carry back\"\" and amend a return you filed in the last 2 years where you owed tax, or you can \"\"carry forward\"\" the losses and decrease your taxes in a future year, up to 20 years in the future. For more information see the IRS links for NOL. Note: it's important to make sure you file the NOL correctly so I'd advise speaking with an accountant. (Especially if the loss is greater than the cost of the accountant...)\"" }, { "docid": "258736", "title": "", "text": "More to the point, why are executive incentives, bonuses, options, etc, not on the chopping block just as much as union contracts, when bankruptcy is declared? I'm far from pro-union, but this seems like basic fairness. At the very least the unions (and other disenfranchised creditors) should be able to get a lien on those incentives to partially compensate their losses. As a matter of public policy, there should never be a financial incentive to enter bankruptcy." }, { "docid": "252762", "title": "", "text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\"" }, { "docid": "453263", "title": "", "text": "Is your name on the title at all? You may have (slightly) more leverage in that case, but co-signing any loans is not a good idea, even for a friend or relative. As this article notes: Generally, co-signing refers to financing, not ownership. If the primary accountholder fails to make payments on the loan or the retail installment sales contract (a type of auto financing dealers sell), the co-signer is responsible for those payments, or their credit will suffer. Even if the co-signer makes the payments, they’re still not the owner if their name isn’t on the title. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) notes: If you co-sign a loan, you are legally obligated to repay the loan in full. Co-signing a loan does not mean serving as a character reference for someone else. When you co-sign, you promise to pay the loan yourself. It means that you risk having to repay any missed payments immediately. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the creditor can use the same collection methods against you that can be used against the borrower such as demanding that you repay the entire loan yourself, suing you, and garnishing your wages or bank accounts after a judgment. Your credit score(s) may be impacted by any late payments or defaults. Co-signing an auto loan does not mean you have any right to the vehicle, it just means that you have agreed to become obligated to repay the amount of the loan. So make sure you can afford to pay this debt if the borrower cannot. Per this article and this loan.com article, options to remove your name from co-signing include: If you're name isn't on the title, you'll have to convince your ex-boyfriend and the bank to have you removed as the co-signer, but from your brief description above, it doesn't seem that your ex is going to be cooperative. Unfortunately, as the co-signer and guarantor of the loan, you're legally responsible for making the payments if he doesn't. Not making the payments could ruin your credit as well. One final option to consider is bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a drastic option, and you'll have to weigh whether the disruption to your credit and financial life will be worth it versus repaying the balance of that auto loan. Per this post: Another not so pretty option is bankruptcy. This is an extreme route, and in some instances may not even guarantee a name-removal from the loan. Your best bet is to contact a lawyer or other source of legal help to review your options on how to proceed with this issue." }, { "docid": "80563", "title": "", "text": "It depends completely on the nature of the takeover. When a business is bought, the new owner takes on the obligations of the prior owner, the debts don't just go away. When a business files for bankruptcy, its debts may get discharged, and gift card holders can easily be the first ones to get nothing back. A case in point was Sharper Image who stopped honoring gift cards even while the doors were open as they filed for bankruptcy." }, { "docid": "192120", "title": "", "text": "\"The IRS isn't going to care how you filed for benefits - they're effectively the high man on the totem pole. The agency that administers the SNAP program is the one who might care. File the 1040 correctly, and then deal with SNAP as you note. Do deal with SNAP, though; otherwise they might be in trouble if SNAP notices the discrepancy in an audit of their paperwork. Further, SNAP doesn't necessarily care here either. SNAP defines a household as the people who live together in a house and share expenses; a separated couple who neither shared expenses nor lived together would not be treated as a single household, and thus one or both would separately qualify. See this Geeks on Finance article or this Federal SNAP page for more details; and ask the state program administrator. It may well be that this has no impact for him/her. The details are complicated though, particularly when it comes to joint assets (which may still be joint even if they're otherwise separated), so look it over in detail, and talk to the agency to attempt to correct any issues. Note that depending on the exact circumstances, your friend might have another option other than Married Filing Jointly. If the following are true: Then she may file as \"\"Head of Household\"\", and her (soon-to-be) ex would file as \"\"Married Filing Separately\"\", unless s/he also has dependents which would separately allow filing as Head of Household. See the IRS document on Filing Status for more details, and consider consulting a tax advisor, particularly if she qualifies to consult one for free due to lower income.\"" }, { "docid": "23955", "title": "", "text": "If you have both consumer debt and IRS debt, you can file Chapter 7 bankruptcy to get rid of all of it. The trick is your taxes have to be at least 3 years old from the due date in order to be considered for bankruptcy. So newer taxes, like 2010 and on, can't be discharged yet (and earlier ones may not be yet, there are rules which toll the time) You'll definitely want to talk to a bankruptcy attorney in your area who focusing on discharge in tax debts. You may be able to kill two birds with one stone. My other concern is are you current? Typically people routinely run up a new debt when trying to settle up on 9old debt. So the OIC route may be a waste of your time. Also, $6000 isn't a lot of money, so there's not a lot of room to negotiate down. It's all how you fill out the 656-OIC. I've seen way to many people not fill it out incorrectly. The IRS has a limited amount of time to collect on a debt, so if there are old taxes, you may be better off getting into CNC status, which it seems like you would qualify for and let the debt expire on your own. That may be another viable solution. Unfortunately, this is really complicated to get the best result. And good tax debt attorneys fees start at the amount of taxes you owe! So that's not really cost effective to hire one." }, { "docid": "501559", "title": "", "text": "It will be similar to what you have said -- the options price will adjust accordingly following a stock split - Here's a good reference on different scenarios - Splits, Mergers, Spinoffs & Bankruptcies also if you have time to read Characteristics & Risks of Standardized Options" }, { "docid": "572272", "title": "", "text": "\"If the interest rate on the student loan is lower than inflation, then the student loan will be \"\"cheaper\"\" the longer you take to pay it. This is now a very rare instance, but there were programs and loan consolidation opportunities in the mid-200x's that allowed savvy student's to convert their loans to have an interest rate of around 1.5%. Right now the inflation rate is actually quite low, but it's not expected to stay there, and wasn't that low just a few years ago, so in the long run this type of debt will only be cheaper the longer it takes to pay off. It is risky, as others point out, as it can't be written off in bankruptcy, but there are other situations where it can be written off more easily than other debts, so on balance the risks aren't better or worse than other loans in general. For specific individual situations the risk equation might work out differently, though. Further, student loans aren't considered traditional debt by some lenders for specific lending opportunities, thus allowing you to go into greater debt for certain types of purchases. Whether this is good for you or not depends on the importance of the purchase. If you need to buy a house and the interest rate is higher than your student loan rate, it will be better, financially, to pay off the house first, while paying the minimum on the student loans. If you have no other debt with a higher interest, and the student loan interest is higher than inflation, there is no reason to delay paying off the student loan.\"" }, { "docid": "303489", "title": "", "text": "You should double-check what it means to be in [Chapter 11](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code) Yes, by filing for bankruptcy, the company gets some protection from creditors and some of their investment dries up, but it's the owners who take it on the nose first. Also, individuals can file for Chapter 11, too. It's not just corporations." }, { "docid": "565698", "title": "", "text": "It is possible to consolidate mortgages with Nationwide, in some circumstances. Quote from their website: It is possible to consolidate different mortgages and other debts such as personal loans and credit cards. However it does depend on your individual circumstances, including the exact type of loans you want to consolidate and whether you are still in a special deal period I, personally, would be amazed if you couldn't get them all in one mortgage without changing provider. But... I wouldn't be at all surprised if they forced you to have this one mortgage as a new mortgage, rather than adding balances to an existing one. My reasoning is as follows: Coming at it from a different angle: whatever there was that required your further borrowing to be in new mortgages, rather than added to your existing mortgage, will also preclude your multiple mortgages being added to one of your existing mortgages." }, { "docid": "167304", "title": "", "text": "\"When you buy a put option, you're buying the right to sell stock at the \"\"strike\"\" price. To understand why you have to pay separately for that, consider the other side of the transaction. If I agree to trade stock for money at above market rates, I need to make up the difference somewhere or face bankruptcy. That risk of loss is what the option price is about. You might assume that means the market expects the price of AMD to fall to 8.01 from it's current price of 8.06 by the option expiration date. But that would also mean call options below the market price is worthless. But that's not quite true; people who price options need to factor in volatility, since things change with time. The price MIGHT fall, and traders need to account for that risk. So 1.99 roughly represents the probability of AMD rising to 10. There's probably some technical analysis one can do to the chain, but I don't see any abnormality of AMD here.\"" }, { "docid": "520079", "title": "", "text": "according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid" }, { "docid": "26581", "title": "", "text": "\"The only thing I'd be concerned about is whether or not the credit report site offers a loan consolidation option right next to the statement that \"\"too many installment loans are lowering your score.\"\" If it is, then the site stands to get a kickback for referring you, and you might question whether or not the advice is correct. But if not, then take that statement at face value and look to consolidate. Just run the numbers to see what it will cost (or save) you.\"" }, { "docid": "592325", "title": "", "text": "\"Several student loans are backed by government guarantee and this will allow you to get attractive rates. This may require them to consolidate the three classes of loans separately. Many commercial banks offer consolidation services, one example is Wachovia discussed at https://www.wellsfargo.com/student/private-loan-consolidation/ Other methods of \"\"consolidation\"\" are of course anything that pays off the original loan. If available, using a parent's home equity line of credit to pay of the loans and then paying back the parents can save money. An additional benefit of HELOC-style loans is that they are very flexible in their payment terms. For example you may pay $25 per year to keep the account open and then only be required to make interest payments. Links: https://origin.bankrate.com/finance/college-finance/faqs-on-student-loan-consolidation-1.aspx\"" }, { "docid": "479576", "title": "", "text": "All great answers. The only thing I didn't see mentioned was that student loans are not dischargable in a bankruptcy. So for example if you took money that could have gone to student loans and poured it into other debt, then for some reason declared bankruptcy later, your student load debt would remain while other debt would be discharged; essentially that money would have been better spent on the student loan. This isn't to advocate that you should pay down student loans with the intent of declaring bankruptcy, or that this makes it a better decision necessarily, just a factor that is sometimes forgotten." }, { "docid": "371758", "title": "", "text": "There are a few loan programs that grant exceptions to bankruptcy requirements in the event of extenuating circumstances that can be proven to be outside of your control (i.e. massive medical bills that you used bankruptcy to settle, etc.) however, in order to make the case for this exemption, you would need to make a strong case for your solvency, shown the ability to re-establish your credit reputation since the discharge of your bankruptcy, and would almost certainly have to go through a bank that offers manual underwriting. Additionally, if you are Native American, the HUD-184 program is a great option for your situation as it allows for a wide latitude in terms of underwriter discretion and is always manually underwritten as there is no automated underwriting system developed for the loan program. There are several great lenders that offer nationwide financing (as long as you're in a HUD-184 eligible area) and would be a great potential solution if you meet the qualifying parameter of being Native American." } ]

[ { "docid": "439003", "title": "", "text": "If your parents can afford to shell out $1,250 a month for 5 years, they would pretty much have the debt paid off, provided the credit card companies don't start playing games with rates. If that payment is too high, maybe you could kick in $5k every few months to knock the principal down. If they think the business can keep puttering along without losing more money, that may be the way to go. Five years is long enough that the business or property may have recovered some value. Another option, depending on the value of the home, could be a reverse mortgage. I don't know how the economy has affected those programs, but that might be a good option to get the debt cleared away. My grandfather was in a similar position back in the 70's. He owned taverns in NYC that catered to an industrial clientele... the place was booming in the 60s and my grandfather and his brother owned 4 locations at one point. But the death of his brother, post-Vietnam malaise, suburban exodus and shutting of industry really hurt the business, and he ended up selling out his last tavern in 1979 -- which was a dark hour in NYC history and real estate values. A few years later, that building sold for a tremendous amount of money... I believe 10x more. I don't know whether there was a way for his business to survive for another 5-7 years, as I was too young to remember. But I do remember my grandfather (and my father to this day) being melancholy about the whole affair. It's hard to have to work part-time in your 60's and be constantly reminded that your family business -- and to some degree a part of your life -- ended in failure. The stress of keeping things afloat when you're broke is tough. But there's also a mental reward from getting through a tough situation on your own. Good luck!" } ]

[ { "docid": "192680", "title": "", "text": "You can be a millionaire and either not own a home (e.g. rent) or have a home whose value has declined to less than the original purchase price. Bankruptcy is for people unable to pay their debts. There is a difference between being unable to pay ones debts and unemployed. Unemployment benefits exist simply to help those out of work. Additionally, hiring a lawyer and filing for bankruptcy is neither free nor cheap." }, { "docid": "551635", "title": "", "text": "Its original owners envisioned it as a luxury resort that just happened to have a casino, and eschewed many staples of casino culture, including a buffet and bus trips for day-trippers. But that strategy - as well as the only overall smoking ban in Atlantic City - turned off customers, and Revel filed for bankruptcy in 2013, a little over a year after opening. Yup - stupid plan in the beginning killed it." }, { "docid": "414215", "title": "", "text": "\"From the Times A Reader Q.&A. on G.M.’s Bankruptcy Q. I own G.M. preferred shares. Should I be looking to sell them, or hold on? I bought them at $25 a share when they were issued in late 2001. — Karen, Manhattan A. When a company files for bankruptcy, its various stock and bondholders essentially get in line. The first investors to be repaid are secured debt holders, then senior bond investors, followed by subordinated debt holders. Preferred shareholders are next, and lastly, holders of common stock. In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock. But in the case of G.M., there may be some good — or at least somewhat better — news. Most of G.M.’s preferred shares are actually senior notes or “quarterly interest bonds,” which means you will be treated as a bondholder, according to Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management. So you will be able to exchange your preferreds for G.M. stock (bondholders will receive 10 percent of the new company’s stock). It’s not the best deal, but it beats the empty bag true preferred shareholders would have been left holding. Of course this is just one example, and you were hoping to get some larger picture. The article stated \"\"In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock\"\" which at least is a bit closer to that, if you accept usually as a statistic.\"" }, { "docid": "244016", "title": "", "text": "\"Don't ignore it. If this is a non-trivial amount of money you need a lawyer. You've acknowledged that a loan exists and have personally guaranteed it, so a court can and will ultimately order you to pay. In doing so, they can put liens on your assests. Depending on the state, how the property is titled and other factors, that can include your home. If you don't have the money and are pretty much broke, try to negotiate a settlement. If they balk, you'll eventually need to start talking about bankruptcy -- that's the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and a motivator to settle. Otherwise, you need to either seriously explore bankruptcy or be prepared to lose your stuff to a judgement and having your dirty laundry aired in court. If you're not broke, but don't have liquid capital, you need to figure out a way to raise the money somehow. Again, you need to consult an attorney.\"" }, { "docid": "177464", "title": "", "text": "As many have said consult a bankruptcy attorney and think of it this way: Are you realistically going to be able to pay off said debt (less the student loans, you cant escape these in bk) in the next 7 years? If not, strongly consider bankruptcy. It'll fuck your credit for 7 years, but if you're going to be pinching your pennies to barely cover interest for &gt;7 years anyway, who cares. Further, you don't need more credit anyway, so who cares if you cant get it. If you do plan on the bk route, be sure you're comfortable with your job prior to filing. It will obviously fuck your credit score and many employers check said score when hiring. Chances of switching jobs are diminished to some extent. EDIT: On a second note, 11k in debt is not that much money. Take a second job.. Sell shit.. Sell drugs.. Sell a kidney. Do something. 11k is not hard to earn. But earn it now before exorbitant interest rates turn it to 22k, then 44k, etc.." }, { "docid": "274011", "title": "", "text": "For sure they are about to take a hit through winter. People in California either have solar, waiting for better technology (mostly cause by hype of Tesla home batteries) or hate it because of the looks. Then there are people who have shade / low electric bills and just aren't qualified. I've had my whole division in solar (managers, everyone) be laid off in two different companies in two years, after getting promoted too :(. One filed for bankruptcy recently the other has been around awhile and might barely survive...another asked me for an interview...nah I can't take another lay off." }, { "docid": "394298", "title": "", "text": "This can mean a few things to me. Some of which has been mentioned already. It can mean one (or all) of the following to me: You take out a new credit card and transfer ALL other credit balances to it. (Only good if you destroy the others, this is a 0% offer, AND you plan on paying this card off furiously.) You do the loan thing mentioned earlier. You go to a credit consolidation service who will handle your paying your payments and you send them one payment each month. (Highly discourage using them. A majority of them are shady, and won't get do what they say they will do. Check Better Business Bureau if you find yourself considering them as an option.) In the first two cases, you are just reducing the number of hands reaching into your bank account. But keep in mind, doing this is not the same as paying off debt. You can't borrow your way out. You can do this as part of your plan, but do so CAREFULLY." }, { "docid": "298424", "title": "", "text": "\"robinhood is a member of finra, just like any other broker. as such, they can't legally \"\"lose\"\" your assets. even if they file bankruptcy, you will get your money back. obviously, any broker can steal your assets, but i doubt robinhood is any more likely to steal from you, even if you are rich. here is a quote from an article on thestreet.com: So, despite the name, the Robinhood philosophy isn't about stealing from rich, but rather taking perks often reserved for top-tier investors and giving them to the everyman trader\"" }, { "docid": "187581", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/07/27/Bank-Consolidation-Efficiency-and-Profitability-in-Italy-45063) reduced by 49%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; This paper examines the case for efficiency-driven banking sector consolidation in Italy, evaluates its potential effects on profitability, and discusses policy options to facilitate a consolidation process that is as effective as possible. &gt; A bottom-up analysis of 386 Italian banks suggests that while profitability is expected to improve as the economy gradually recovers, operational efficiency gains are nonetheless needed to restore large parts of the banking system to healthy profitability. &gt; Banking system consolidation can play a role in facilitating such efficiency gains, but its effectiveness is likely to be most as part of a comprehensive strategy that includes complementary reforms to clean up bank balance sheets. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6pxk55/imfbank_consolidation_efficiency_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~177073 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **IMF**^#2 **consolidation**^#3 **profitability**^#4 **paper**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "179808", "title": "", "text": "Debt consolidation is basically getting all your debt into one loan. This is possibly more convenient, and lets you close the other accounts (in the case of credit cards, preventing you from incurring any more debt). Ideally, your consolidated debt will have a better interest rate, so it saves you money as well. If you're defaulting on your debt already, you're likely combining this process with some negotiation with your existing creditors." }, { "docid": "192120", "title": "", "text": "\"The IRS isn't going to care how you filed for benefits - they're effectively the high man on the totem pole. The agency that administers the SNAP program is the one who might care. File the 1040 correctly, and then deal with SNAP as you note. Do deal with SNAP, though; otherwise they might be in trouble if SNAP notices the discrepancy in an audit of their paperwork. Further, SNAP doesn't necessarily care here either. SNAP defines a household as the people who live together in a house and share expenses; a separated couple who neither shared expenses nor lived together would not be treated as a single household, and thus one or both would separately qualify. See this Geeks on Finance article or this Federal SNAP page for more details; and ask the state program administrator. It may well be that this has no impact for him/her. The details are complicated though, particularly when it comes to joint assets (which may still be joint even if they're otherwise separated), so look it over in detail, and talk to the agency to attempt to correct any issues. Note that depending on the exact circumstances, your friend might have another option other than Married Filing Jointly. If the following are true: Then she may file as \"\"Head of Household\"\", and her (soon-to-be) ex would file as \"\"Married Filing Separately\"\", unless s/he also has dependents which would separately allow filing as Head of Household. See the IRS document on Filing Status for more details, and consider consulting a tax advisor, particularly if she qualifies to consult one for free due to lower income.\"" }, { "docid": "422020", "title": "", "text": "Just clarifying in case some people just skim and walk away thinking the author is bankrupt. Kiyosaki is involved in many business ventures. One of his companies filed for bankruptcy, which is a separate entity to himself. He himself did not lose any personal assets and is still very rich. Thanks for reading." }, { "docid": "338361", "title": "", "text": "Yeah it's sad. I read in the paper that their Finnish supplier company filed for bankruptcy because Nokia looked to Asia for suppliers. I like Nokia hardware, other phones feel flimsy compared to my N8. The Lumia hardware feels solid too, too bad I'm deterred from buying it because Nokia is going under." }, { "docid": "479576", "title": "", "text": "All great answers. The only thing I didn't see mentioned was that student loans are not dischargable in a bankruptcy. So for example if you took money that could have gone to student loans and poured it into other debt, then for some reason declared bankruptcy later, your student load debt would remain while other debt would be discharged; essentially that money would have been better spent on the student loan. This isn't to advocate that you should pay down student loans with the intent of declaring bankruptcy, or that this makes it a better decision necessarily, just a factor that is sometimes forgotten." }, { "docid": "312903", "title": "", "text": "Louis Ottimo has always been a controversial character within the securities industry, cited and sanctioned for fraud and misrepresentation, who has had many liens and bankruptcies, and was officially barred for life from the industry by FIRNA in 2017. He filed personal bankruptcy in 2016 despite being the alleged shadow president of Cold Spring Advisory Group. Just search Louis Ottimo for more information." }, { "docid": "87977", "title": "", "text": "\"If you owe the money to A, and B owes you money and goes bankrupt, that has no effect whatsoever on your loan from A. Obviously. Your best bet -- while you still owe and are owed by the same company -- is either get them to agree to apply your credit to your debt (reducing it to $30,000) -- or rush to the courthouse and ask a judge to order this done. You want to do this well before the bankruptcy is filed; too close and someone could object to you having been paid preferentially or \"\"out of turn\"\" -- and claw back the money, meaning you now owe it to the bankruptcy trustee. Your debt to them is, from their perspective, an asset. It is an asset with a cash value (based on the probability of people in that portfolio paying). It can be sold to gain some immediate cash instead of more cash over a time period. This is routine in the debt world. Before or during the throes of bankruptcy, and depending on what the reorganization plan is, the bank is quite likely to sell your debt to someone else to raise cash - typically a distress sale for a fraction of its principal value (e.g. 20% or $10,000). That goes into the pool of money to pay creditors such as yourself, and if you're lucky, you'll get some of it. So good on you, you got $2000 back from the bank and now you owe someone else $50,000. I'm assuming they owe you $20,000 for IT services or because you put a new roof on their branch, or something like that. If it's money on deposit at the bank, then two things are true: First, pre-bankruptcy, you can trivially command the bank to dump the entire $20,000 into paying down the debt. Instantly: done, and irreversible. The bankruptcy trustee can't claw that back because it was never the bank's money, it was yours. Second, any civilized country has deposit insurance, which they typically implement by helping another bank buy out your bank, and continue to honor your deposits, so this is seamless and hands-off for you. Your old checks continue to work, your branch just changes their sign. This deposit insurance has limits, which is only a problem for the very rich (who are dumb enough to put over the limit in one bank).\"" }, { "docid": "406867", "title": "", "text": "The debt consolidation programs that are offered by leading companies prove a great option for small businesses to take care of all their previous obligations. The loans offered by such companies are not only suitable for reducing monthly payments but retain the cash flow your business needs to grow." }, { "docid": "572272", "title": "", "text": "\"If the interest rate on the student loan is lower than inflation, then the student loan will be \"\"cheaper\"\" the longer you take to pay it. This is now a very rare instance, but there were programs and loan consolidation opportunities in the mid-200x's that allowed savvy student's to convert their loans to have an interest rate of around 1.5%. Right now the inflation rate is actually quite low, but it's not expected to stay there, and wasn't that low just a few years ago, so in the long run this type of debt will only be cheaper the longer it takes to pay off. It is risky, as others point out, as it can't be written off in bankruptcy, but there are other situations where it can be written off more easily than other debts, so on balance the risks aren't better or worse than other loans in general. For specific individual situations the risk equation might work out differently, though. Further, student loans aren't considered traditional debt by some lenders for specific lending opportunities, thus allowing you to go into greater debt for certain types of purchases. Whether this is good for you or not depends on the importance of the purchase. If you need to buy a house and the interest rate is higher than your student loan rate, it will be better, financially, to pay off the house first, while paying the minimum on the student loans. If you have no other debt with a higher interest, and the student loan interest is higher than inflation, there is no reason to delay paying off the student loan.\"" }, { "docid": "453263", "title": "", "text": "Is your name on the title at all? You may have (slightly) more leverage in that case, but co-signing any loans is not a good idea, even for a friend or relative. As this article notes: Generally, co-signing refers to financing, not ownership. If the primary accountholder fails to make payments on the loan or the retail installment sales contract (a type of auto financing dealers sell), the co-signer is responsible for those payments, or their credit will suffer. Even if the co-signer makes the payments, they’re still not the owner if their name isn’t on the title. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) notes: If you co-sign a loan, you are legally obligated to repay the loan in full. Co-signing a loan does not mean serving as a character reference for someone else. When you co-sign, you promise to pay the loan yourself. It means that you risk having to repay any missed payments immediately. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the creditor can use the same collection methods against you that can be used against the borrower such as demanding that you repay the entire loan yourself, suing you, and garnishing your wages or bank accounts after a judgment. Your credit score(s) may be impacted by any late payments or defaults. Co-signing an auto loan does not mean you have any right to the vehicle, it just means that you have agreed to become obligated to repay the amount of the loan. So make sure you can afford to pay this debt if the borrower cannot. Per this article and this loan.com article, options to remove your name from co-signing include: If you're name isn't on the title, you'll have to convince your ex-boyfriend and the bank to have you removed as the co-signer, but from your brief description above, it doesn't seem that your ex is going to be cooperative. Unfortunately, as the co-signer and guarantor of the loan, you're legally responsible for making the payments if he doesn't. Not making the payments could ruin your credit as well. One final option to consider is bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a drastic option, and you'll have to weigh whether the disruption to your credit and financial life will be worth it versus repaying the balance of that auto loan. Per this post: Another not so pretty option is bankruptcy. This is an extreme route, and in some instances may not even guarantee a name-removal from the loan. Your best bet is to contact a lawyer or other source of legal help to review your options on how to proceed with this issue." } ]

[ { "docid": "21325", "title": "", "text": "A couple of thoughts from someone who's kind of been there... Is the business viable at all? A lot of people do miss the jumping-off point where the should stop throwing good money after bad and just pull the plug on the business. If the business is not that viable, then selling it might not be an option. If the business is still viable (and I'd get advice from a good accountant on this) then I'd be tempted to try and pull through to until I'd get a good offer for the business. Don't just try to sell it for any price because times are bad if it's self-sustaining and hopefully makes a little profit. I does sound like their business is on the up again and if that's a trend and not a fluke, IMHO pouring more energy into (not money) would be the way to go. Don't make the mistake of buying high and selling low, so to speak. I'm also a little confused re their house - do they own it or do they still owe money on it? If they owe money on it, how are they making their payments? If they close the business, do they have enough income to make the payments still? Before they find another job, even if it's just a part-time job? As to paying off their debts or at least helping with paying them off, I'd only do that if I was in a financial position to gift them the money; anything else is going to wreak havoc with the family dynamics (including co-signing debt for them) and everybody will wish they didn't go there. Ask me how I know. Re debt consolidation, I don't think it's going to do much for them, apart from costing them more money for something they could do themselves. Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt)." } ]

[ { "docid": "244016", "title": "", "text": "\"Don't ignore it. If this is a non-trivial amount of money you need a lawyer. You've acknowledged that a loan exists and have personally guaranteed it, so a court can and will ultimately order you to pay. In doing so, they can put liens on your assests. Depending on the state, how the property is titled and other factors, that can include your home. If you don't have the money and are pretty much broke, try to negotiate a settlement. If they balk, you'll eventually need to start talking about bankruptcy -- that's the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and a motivator to settle. Otherwise, you need to either seriously explore bankruptcy or be prepared to lose your stuff to a judgement and having your dirty laundry aired in court. If you're not broke, but don't have liquid capital, you need to figure out a way to raise the money somehow. Again, you need to consult an attorney.\"" }, { "docid": "453263", "title": "", "text": "Is your name on the title at all? You may have (slightly) more leverage in that case, but co-signing any loans is not a good idea, even for a friend or relative. As this article notes: Generally, co-signing refers to financing, not ownership. If the primary accountholder fails to make payments on the loan or the retail installment sales contract (a type of auto financing dealers sell), the co-signer is responsible for those payments, or their credit will suffer. Even if the co-signer makes the payments, they’re still not the owner if their name isn’t on the title. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) notes: If you co-sign a loan, you are legally obligated to repay the loan in full. Co-signing a loan does not mean serving as a character reference for someone else. When you co-sign, you promise to pay the loan yourself. It means that you risk having to repay any missed payments immediately. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the creditor can use the same collection methods against you that can be used against the borrower such as demanding that you repay the entire loan yourself, suing you, and garnishing your wages or bank accounts after a judgment. Your credit score(s) may be impacted by any late payments or defaults. Co-signing an auto loan does not mean you have any right to the vehicle, it just means that you have agreed to become obligated to repay the amount of the loan. So make sure you can afford to pay this debt if the borrower cannot. Per this article and this loan.com article, options to remove your name from co-signing include: If you're name isn't on the title, you'll have to convince your ex-boyfriend and the bank to have you removed as the co-signer, but from your brief description above, it doesn't seem that your ex is going to be cooperative. Unfortunately, as the co-signer and guarantor of the loan, you're legally responsible for making the payments if he doesn't. Not making the payments could ruin your credit as well. One final option to consider is bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a drastic option, and you'll have to weigh whether the disruption to your credit and financial life will be worth it versus repaying the balance of that auto loan. Per this post: Another not so pretty option is bankruptcy. This is an extreme route, and in some instances may not even guarantee a name-removal from the loan. Your best bet is to contact a lawyer or other source of legal help to review your options on how to proceed with this issue." }, { "docid": "192680", "title": "", "text": "You can be a millionaire and either not own a home (e.g. rent) or have a home whose value has declined to less than the original purchase price. Bankruptcy is for people unable to pay their debts. There is a difference between being unable to pay ones debts and unemployed. Unemployment benefits exist simply to help those out of work. Additionally, hiring a lawyer and filing for bankruptcy is neither free nor cheap." }, { "docid": "560294", "title": "", "text": "Thanks for the info! It seems the consolidation option is the best; switching to the new merchant services provider and getting the discount from our POS on gift card software Can you give me a but more info about the customer loyalty/marketing info?" }, { "docid": "575530", "title": "", "text": "\"And with 18 $millions of \"\"compensation\"\" for all the hard work they have done for Equifax and its customers (actually milking money for data about customers.) It seems that Equifax will have to file for bankruptcy. Lastly, please don't bother him about the lawsuits against Equifax while he's retired - he should not be held responsible.\"" }, { "docid": "3778", "title": "", "text": "Why is the US still working with paper checks when Europe went digital about a decade ago? Tax filing is just another area in which the US is lagging. Modernizing it costs money, and the US is quite close to bankruptcy (as seen by the repeated government shutdowns). Also, the US tax code is quite complicated. For instance, I doubt there's anyone who has a full and complete list of all allowed deductions. Some comments wonder about multiple incomes. This doesn't require tax filing either. My local tax authority just sends me a combined statement with data from 2 employers and 2 banks, and asks me to confirm the resulting payment. This is possible because tax number usage is strictly regulated. SSN abuse in the US presumably makes this problematic." }, { "docid": "138511", "title": "", "text": "Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts." }, { "docid": "220861", "title": "", "text": "Eh, a corporation owned in part by the person who directed the corporation to file for bankrupcy after the corporation lost a legal challenge, doesn't really mean much. Corporations exist to protect shareholders for exactly this reason. Sounds like this Bill Zanker person got hurt by the bankruptcy filing the most not Kiyosaki." }, { "docid": "520079", "title": "", "text": "according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid" }, { "docid": "572272", "title": "", "text": "\"If the interest rate on the student loan is lower than inflation, then the student loan will be \"\"cheaper\"\" the longer you take to pay it. This is now a very rare instance, but there were programs and loan consolidation opportunities in the mid-200x's that allowed savvy student's to convert their loans to have an interest rate of around 1.5%. Right now the inflation rate is actually quite low, but it's not expected to stay there, and wasn't that low just a few years ago, so in the long run this type of debt will only be cheaper the longer it takes to pay off. It is risky, as others point out, as it can't be written off in bankruptcy, but there are other situations where it can be written off more easily than other debts, so on balance the risks aren't better or worse than other loans in general. For specific individual situations the risk equation might work out differently, though. Further, student loans aren't considered traditional debt by some lenders for specific lending opportunities, thus allowing you to go into greater debt for certain types of purchases. Whether this is good for you or not depends on the importance of the purchase. If you need to buy a house and the interest rate is higher than your student loan rate, it will be better, financially, to pay off the house first, while paying the minimum on the student loans. If you have no other debt with a higher interest, and the student loan interest is higher than inflation, there is no reason to delay paying off the student loan.\"" }, { "docid": "87977", "title": "", "text": "\"If you owe the money to A, and B owes you money and goes bankrupt, that has no effect whatsoever on your loan from A. Obviously. Your best bet -- while you still owe and are owed by the same company -- is either get them to agree to apply your credit to your debt (reducing it to $30,000) -- or rush to the courthouse and ask a judge to order this done. You want to do this well before the bankruptcy is filed; too close and someone could object to you having been paid preferentially or \"\"out of turn\"\" -- and claw back the money, meaning you now owe it to the bankruptcy trustee. Your debt to them is, from their perspective, an asset. It is an asset with a cash value (based on the probability of people in that portfolio paying). It can be sold to gain some immediate cash instead of more cash over a time period. This is routine in the debt world. Before or during the throes of bankruptcy, and depending on what the reorganization plan is, the bank is quite likely to sell your debt to someone else to raise cash - typically a distress sale for a fraction of its principal value (e.g. 20% or $10,000). That goes into the pool of money to pay creditors such as yourself, and if you're lucky, you'll get some of it. So good on you, you got $2000 back from the bank and now you owe someone else $50,000. I'm assuming they owe you $20,000 for IT services or because you put a new roof on their branch, or something like that. If it's money on deposit at the bank, then two things are true: First, pre-bankruptcy, you can trivially command the bank to dump the entire $20,000 into paying down the debt. Instantly: done, and irreversible. The bankruptcy trustee can't claw that back because it was never the bank's money, it was yours. Second, any civilized country has deposit insurance, which they typically implement by helping another bank buy out your bank, and continue to honor your deposits, so this is seamless and hands-off for you. Your old checks continue to work, your branch just changes their sign. This deposit insurance has limits, which is only a problem for the very rich (who are dumb enough to put over the limit in one bank).\"" }, { "docid": "350555", "title": "", "text": "Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis." }, { "docid": "497963", "title": "", "text": "You mean the moron prior to the last president? Zero interest-rate policy was enacted by Bush, Bernanke and Paulson. The Fed acted late by most accounts, Bernanke was pushing for swift action when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September of 2008, while most of the Fed did not see the need till the end of 08." }, { "docid": "251303", "title": "", "text": "You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk." }, { "docid": "187581", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/07/27/Bank-Consolidation-Efficiency-and-Profitability-in-Italy-45063) reduced by 49%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; This paper examines the case for efficiency-driven banking sector consolidation in Italy, evaluates its potential effects on profitability, and discusses policy options to facilitate a consolidation process that is as effective as possible. &gt; A bottom-up analysis of 386 Italian banks suggests that while profitability is expected to improve as the economy gradually recovers, operational efficiency gains are nonetheless needed to restore large parts of the banking system to healthy profitability. &gt; Banking system consolidation can play a role in facilitating such efficiency gains, but its effectiveness is likely to be most as part of a comprehensive strategy that includes complementary reforms to clean up bank balance sheets. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6pxk55/imfbank_consolidation_efficiency_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~177073 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **IMF**^#2 **consolidation**^#3 **profitability**^#4 **paper**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "120837", "title": "", "text": "The debt on Credit Cards is pretty high. Its in the range of 30-40% APR. There could also be a case very high personal loan for medical or other personal emergencies at a rate in excess of 15%. The debt consolidation would offer this at a very low APR There are institutions that offer debt consolidation services that would consolidate all your debt into a single loan at a lower rate of interest. They would also negotiate with all your lenders to waive charges and accrued interests to the max extent. The benefit to the institution offering this service is that they have a larger loan on books and hence the servicing cost is less. Most of the time the debt consolidation is offered with some asset as the guarantee for the new loan. By doing this the advantages are: Of course if you are looking for the balance transfer on cards to new one, then its same and in fact may at times be more expensive." }, { "docid": "355605", "title": "", "text": "\"My answer is similar to Ben Miller's, but let me make some slightly different points: There is one excellent reason to get a consolidation loan: You can often get a lower interest rate. If you are presently paying 19% on a credit card and you can roll that into a personal loan at 13.89%, you'll be saving over 5%, which can add up. I would definitely not consolidate a loan at 12.99% into a loan at 13.89%. Then you're just adding 1% to your interest rate. What's the benefit in this? Another good reasons for a consolidation loan is psychological. A consolidation loan with fixed payments forces you to pay that amount every month. You say you have trouble with credit cards. It's very easy to say to yourself, \"\"Oh, just this month I'm going to pay just the minimum so I can use my cash for this other Very Important Thing that I need to buy.\"\" And then next month you find something else that you just absolutely have to buy. And again the next month, and the next, and your determination to seriously pay down your debt keeps getting pushed off. If you have a fixed monthly payment, you can't. You're committed. Also, if you have many credit cards, juggling payments on all of them can get complex and confusing. It's easy to lose track of how much you owe and to budget for payments. At worst, when there are many bills to pay you may forget one. (Personally I now have 3 bank cards, an airline card, and 2 store cards, and managing them is getting out of hand. I have good reasons for having so many cards: the airline card and the store cards give me special discounts. But it's confusing to keep track of.) As to adding $3,000 to the consolidation loan: Very, very bad idea. You are basically saying, \"\"I have to start seriously paying down my debt ... tomorrow. Today I need a some extra cash so I'm going to borrow just a little bit more, but I'm going to get started paying it off next month.\"\" This is a trap, and the sort of trap that leads people into spiraling debt. Start paying off debt NOW, not at some vague time in the future that never seems to come.\"" }, { "docid": "218257", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Does he manipulate the Corporate BK laws by playing a Corp shell game and filing for BK protection - Yes. Is that like how I manipulate the laws of physics when I walk across the street? All parties are well aware of securities and bankruptcy law. It's not like he gets federal bankruptcy laws changed halfway through his business deals. Companies go bankrupt all the time, just because he lends his brand to a business doesn't mean that he should be personally responsible for anything. If Nike went bankrupt, should Lebron James NBA salary be taken from him?" }, { "docid": "414215", "title": "", "text": "\"From the Times A Reader Q.&A. on G.M.’s Bankruptcy Q. I own G.M. preferred shares. Should I be looking to sell them, or hold on? I bought them at $25 a share when they were issued in late 2001. — Karen, Manhattan A. When a company files for bankruptcy, its various stock and bondholders essentially get in line. The first investors to be repaid are secured debt holders, then senior bond investors, followed by subordinated debt holders. Preferred shareholders are next, and lastly, holders of common stock. In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock. But in the case of G.M., there may be some good — or at least somewhat better — news. Most of G.M.’s preferred shares are actually senior notes or “quarterly interest bonds,” which means you will be treated as a bondholder, according to Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management. So you will be able to exchange your preferreds for G.M. stock (bondholders will receive 10 percent of the new company’s stock). It’s not the best deal, but it beats the empty bag true preferred shareholders would have been left holding. Of course this is just one example, and you were hoping to get some larger picture. The article stated \"\"In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock\"\" which at least is a bit closer to that, if you accept usually as a statistic.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "395499", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you're asking yourself the wrong question. The real question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Do I want to a) give my parents a $45,000 gift, b) make them $45,000 loan, or c) neither?\"\" The way you are talking in your question is as if you have the responsibility and authority to manage their lives. Whether they choose bankruptcy, and the associated stigma and/or negative self-image of financial or moral failure, or choose to muddle through and delay retirement to pay off their debt, is their question and their decision. Look, you said that loaning it to them was out, because you'd rather see them retire than continue to work. But what if they want to continue to work? For all the stress they're dealing with now, entrepreneurial people like that are not happy You're mucking about in their lives like you can run it. Stop it. You don't have the right; they're adults. There may come a time when they are too senile to be responsible for themselves, and then you can, and should, step up and take responsibility for them in their old age, just as they did for you when you were a child. But that time is not now. And by the way, from the information you've given, the answer should be C) neither. If giving or loaning them this kind of money taps you out, then you can't afford it.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "406867", "title": "", "text": "The debt consolidation programs that are offered by leading companies prove a great option for small businesses to take care of all their previous obligations. The loans offered by such companies are not only suitable for reducing monthly payments but retain the cash flow your business needs to grow." }, { "docid": "479576", "title": "", "text": "All great answers. The only thing I didn't see mentioned was that student loans are not dischargable in a bankruptcy. So for example if you took money that could have gone to student loans and poured it into other debt, then for some reason declared bankruptcy later, your student load debt would remain while other debt would be discharged; essentially that money would have been better spent on the student loan. This isn't to advocate that you should pay down student loans with the intent of declaring bankruptcy, or that this makes it a better decision necessarily, just a factor that is sometimes forgotten." }, { "docid": "418639", "title": "", "text": "Thanks for your thorough reply. Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it. So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model. That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares. I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS?" }, { "docid": "280111", "title": "", "text": "\"No. If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: \"\"During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.\"\" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company.\"" }, { "docid": "11263", "title": "", "text": "The actual financial statements should always be referenced first before opening or closing a position. For US companies, they are freely available on EDGAR. Annual reports are called 10-Ks, and quarterly reports are called 10-Qs. YHOO and GOOG do a great job of posting financials that are quickly available, but money.msn has the best. These should be starting point, quick references. As you can see, they may all have the same strange accounting. Sometimes, it's difficult to find the information one seeks in the consolidated financial statements as in this case, so searching through the filing is necessary. The notes can be helpful, but Ctrl-F seems to do everything I need when I want something in a report. In AAPL's case, the Interest expense can be found in Note 3." }, { "docid": "244016", "title": "", "text": "\"Don't ignore it. If this is a non-trivial amount of money you need a lawyer. You've acknowledged that a loan exists and have personally guaranteed it, so a court can and will ultimately order you to pay. In doing so, they can put liens on your assests. Depending on the state, how the property is titled and other factors, that can include your home. If you don't have the money and are pretty much broke, try to negotiate a settlement. If they balk, you'll eventually need to start talking about bankruptcy -- that's the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and a motivator to settle. Otherwise, you need to either seriously explore bankruptcy or be prepared to lose your stuff to a judgement and having your dirty laundry aired in court. If you're not broke, but don't have liquid capital, you need to figure out a way to raise the money somehow. Again, you need to consult an attorney.\"" }, { "docid": "47276", "title": "", "text": "Presumably you mean to ask what happens if State Street files chapter 7 bankruptcy, since not all bankruptcy proceedings end in liquidation. SPY is a well known ticker, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an eager bank willing to pay to pick up that ticker and immediately acquire all the assets related to it. The most likely scenario is that another bank would assume control of the ticker and assets, and the shares would continue trading as they always have. A less likely scenario is that no other financial institution wanted to acquire SPY, and the shares would be liquidated and the proceeds would go to the owners of shares of the ETF. Since the underlying assets are in companies that have actual value, the shares shouldn't trade at much of a discount prior to liquidation. Additionally, if there is a black swan event, there will probably be losses on the underlying assets, so it might even be helpful if the SPY fund was tied up in legal proceedings while everyone gets their heads straight in the market." }, { "docid": "441836", "title": "", "text": "You should also look outside the box. There are non profit credit relief organizations that will give you free credit counseling. Don't pay for it though. There are some organizations that are shady in offering counseling but they wreck your credit by asking you to stop making your payments. Some of the legitimate organizations out there have ties to credit unions and banks that can offer you some loans to consolidate your debt at rates lower than those you mentioned in your questions. You should probably also approach a credit union directly and discuss debt consolidation loan options. Even if you can only knock out the debts with the highest interest rate, that's a good first step." }, { "docid": "458507", "title": "", "text": "The article clearly states the tax dodging isn't more than an ancillary benefit. Who knows. I do know Big Tobacco split their co's in half between domestic (US) and international operations due to the incredibly burdensome regulatory environment. It was holding back growth plans. There may be some of that here. Or maybe BK doesn't want to file for bankruptcy for the umpteenth time this decade. This is a way to spread the debt around and stabilize." }, { "docid": "497963", "title": "", "text": "You mean the moron prior to the last president? Zero interest-rate policy was enacted by Bush, Bernanke and Paulson. The Fed acted late by most accounts, Bernanke was pushing for swift action when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September of 2008, while most of the Fed did not see the need till the end of 08." }, { "docid": "414215", "title": "", "text": "\"From the Times A Reader Q.&A. on G.M.’s Bankruptcy Q. I own G.M. preferred shares. Should I be looking to sell them, or hold on? I bought them at $25 a share when they were issued in late 2001. — Karen, Manhattan A. When a company files for bankruptcy, its various stock and bondholders essentially get in line. The first investors to be repaid are secured debt holders, then senior bond investors, followed by subordinated debt holders. Preferred shareholders are next, and lastly, holders of common stock. In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock. But in the case of G.M., there may be some good — or at least somewhat better — news. Most of G.M.’s preferred shares are actually senior notes or “quarterly interest bonds,” which means you will be treated as a bondholder, according to Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management. So you will be able to exchange your preferreds for G.M. stock (bondholders will receive 10 percent of the new company’s stock). It’s not the best deal, but it beats the empty bag true preferred shareholders would have been left holding. Of course this is just one example, and you were hoping to get some larger picture. The article stated \"\"In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock\"\" which at least is a bit closer to that, if you accept usually as a statistic.\"" }, { "docid": "21325", "title": "", "text": "A couple of thoughts from someone who's kind of been there... Is the business viable at all? A lot of people do miss the jumping-off point where the should stop throwing good money after bad and just pull the plug on the business. If the business is not that viable, then selling it might not be an option. If the business is still viable (and I'd get advice from a good accountant on this) then I'd be tempted to try and pull through to until I'd get a good offer for the business. Don't just try to sell it for any price because times are bad if it's self-sustaining and hopefully makes a little profit. I does sound like their business is on the up again and if that's a trend and not a fluke, IMHO pouring more energy into (not money) would be the way to go. Don't make the mistake of buying high and selling low, so to speak. I'm also a little confused re their house - do they own it or do they still owe money on it? If they owe money on it, how are they making their payments? If they close the business, do they have enough income to make the payments still? Before they find another job, even if it's just a part-time job? As to paying off their debts or at least helping with paying them off, I'd only do that if I was in a financial position to gift them the money; anything else is going to wreak havoc with the family dynamics (including co-signing debt for them) and everybody will wish they didn't go there. Ask me how I know. Re debt consolidation, I don't think it's going to do much for them, apart from costing them more money for something they could do themselves. Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt)." }, { "docid": "355605", "title": "", "text": "\"My answer is similar to Ben Miller's, but let me make some slightly different points: There is one excellent reason to get a consolidation loan: You can often get a lower interest rate. If you are presently paying 19% on a credit card and you can roll that into a personal loan at 13.89%, you'll be saving over 5%, which can add up. I would definitely not consolidate a loan at 12.99% into a loan at 13.89%. Then you're just adding 1% to your interest rate. What's the benefit in this? Another good reasons for a consolidation loan is psychological. A consolidation loan with fixed payments forces you to pay that amount every month. You say you have trouble with credit cards. It's very easy to say to yourself, \"\"Oh, just this month I'm going to pay just the minimum so I can use my cash for this other Very Important Thing that I need to buy.\"\" And then next month you find something else that you just absolutely have to buy. And again the next month, and the next, and your determination to seriously pay down your debt keeps getting pushed off. If you have a fixed monthly payment, you can't. You're committed. Also, if you have many credit cards, juggling payments on all of them can get complex and confusing. It's easy to lose track of how much you owe and to budget for payments. At worst, when there are many bills to pay you may forget one. (Personally I now have 3 bank cards, an airline card, and 2 store cards, and managing them is getting out of hand. I have good reasons for having so many cards: the airline card and the store cards give me special discounts. But it's confusing to keep track of.) As to adding $3,000 to the consolidation loan: Very, very bad idea. You are basically saying, \"\"I have to start seriously paying down my debt ... tomorrow. Today I need a some extra cash so I'm going to borrow just a little bit more, but I'm going to get started paying it off next month.\"\" This is a trap, and the sort of trap that leads people into spiraling debt. Start paying off debt NOW, not at some vague time in the future that never seems to come.\"" }, { "docid": "501559", "title": "", "text": "It will be similar to what you have said -- the options price will adjust accordingly following a stock split - Here's a good reference on different scenarios - Splits, Mergers, Spinoffs & Bankruptcies also if you have time to read Characteristics & Risks of Standardized Options" }, { "docid": "290829", "title": "", "text": "Check out this Relevant Article. Here's the first paragraph that answers your question: The opening and closing of bank (deposit) accounts doesn't affect your credit score. Your credit score is based on your lending relationships and public records, such as bankruptcy filings or court judgments recorded against you. The rest of the article goes into more detail." }, { "docid": "371758", "title": "", "text": "There are a few loan programs that grant exceptions to bankruptcy requirements in the event of extenuating circumstances that can be proven to be outside of your control (i.e. massive medical bills that you used bankruptcy to settle, etc.) however, in order to make the case for this exemption, you would need to make a strong case for your solvency, shown the ability to re-establish your credit reputation since the discharge of your bankruptcy, and would almost certainly have to go through a bank that offers manual underwriting. Additionally, if you are Native American, the HUD-184 program is a great option for your situation as it allows for a wide latitude in terms of underwriter discretion and is always manually underwritten as there is no automated underwriting system developed for the loan program. There are several great lenders that offer nationwide financing (as long as you're in a HUD-184 eligible area) and would be a great potential solution if you meet the qualifying parameter of being Native American." }, { "docid": "294152", "title": "", "text": "It depends solely on the risk your willing to take. For example, few years back one of the leading banks in my country was offering 25% interest rate for 5 year fixed deposits and the lending rate in the market was around 12%. So people borrowed money from other banks and invested in the high return fixed deposits. After 6 months the bank filed for bankruptcy and people lost their money. Later investigations revealed that abnormal high return was offered because the bank had a major liquidity problem. So all depends on the risk associated with return on your investment. Higher the risk, higher the return." }, { "docid": "219474", "title": "", "text": "Well, first and foremost you're out of luck if GameStop hits rough times and stops refunding cash, or files bankruptcy. It's a really, really (REALLY), bad idea to use something other than an FDIC insured bank as a bank. This is a lot of administrative effort on your part when internet banking exists and most of the online checking accounts refund ATM fees. This idea is also not funny or hilarious, I would call it something but the mods here will just edit it out........" }, { "docid": "87977", "title": "", "text": "\"If you owe the money to A, and B owes you money and goes bankrupt, that has no effect whatsoever on your loan from A. Obviously. Your best bet -- while you still owe and are owed by the same company -- is either get them to agree to apply your credit to your debt (reducing it to $30,000) -- or rush to the courthouse and ask a judge to order this done. You want to do this well before the bankruptcy is filed; too close and someone could object to you having been paid preferentially or \"\"out of turn\"\" -- and claw back the money, meaning you now owe it to the bankruptcy trustee. Your debt to them is, from their perspective, an asset. It is an asset with a cash value (based on the probability of people in that portfolio paying). It can be sold to gain some immediate cash instead of more cash over a time period. This is routine in the debt world. Before or during the throes of bankruptcy, and depending on what the reorganization plan is, the bank is quite likely to sell your debt to someone else to raise cash - typically a distress sale for a fraction of its principal value (e.g. 20% or $10,000). That goes into the pool of money to pay creditors such as yourself, and if you're lucky, you'll get some of it. So good on you, you got $2000 back from the bank and now you owe someone else $50,000. I'm assuming they owe you $20,000 for IT services or because you put a new roof on their branch, or something like that. If it's money on deposit at the bank, then two things are true: First, pre-bankruptcy, you can trivially command the bank to dump the entire $20,000 into paying down the debt. Instantly: done, and irreversible. The bankruptcy trustee can't claw that back because it was never the bank's money, it was yours. Second, any civilized country has deposit insurance, which they typically implement by helping another bank buy out your bank, and continue to honor your deposits, so this is seamless and hands-off for you. Your old checks continue to work, your branch just changes their sign. This deposit insurance has limits, which is only a problem for the very rich (who are dumb enough to put over the limit in one bank).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "406340", "title": "", "text": "\"Tough spot. I'm guessing the credit cards are a personal line of credit in their name and not the company's (the fact that the business can be liquidated separately from your parents means they did at least set up an LLC or similar business entity). Using personal debt to save a company that could have just been dissolved at little cost to their personal credit and finances was, indeed, a very bad move. The best possible end to this scenario for you and your parents would be if your parents could get the debt transferred to the LLC before dissolving it. At this point, with the company in such a long-standing negative situation, I would doubt that any creditor would give the business a loan (which was probably why your parents threw their own good money after bad with personal CCs). They might, in the right circumstances, be able to convince a judge to effectively transfer the debt to the corporate entity before liquidating it. That puts the debt where it should have been in the first place, and the CC companies will have to get in line. That means, in turn, that the card issuers will fight any such motion or decision tooth and nail, as long as there's any other option that gives them more hope of recovering their money. Your parents' only prayer for this to happen is if the CCs were used for the sole purpose of business expenses. If they were living off the CCs as well as using them to pay business debts, a judge, best-case, would only relieve the debts directly related to keeping the business afloat, and they'd be on the hook for what they had been living on. Bankruptcy is definitely an option. They will \"\"re-affirm\"\" their commitment to paying the mortgage and any other debts they can, and under a Chapter 13 the judge will then remand negotiations over what total portion of each card's balance is paid, over what time, and at what rate, to a mediator. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is the less damaging form to your parent's credit; they are at least attempting to make good on the debt. A Chapter 7 would wipe it away completely, but your parents would have to prove that they cannot pay the debt, by any means, and have no hope of ever paying the debt by any means. If they have any retirement savings, anything in their name for grandchildren's college funds, etc, the judge and CC issuers will point to it like a bird dog. Apart from that, their house is safe due to Florida's \"\"homestead\"\" laws, but furniture, appliances, clothing, jewelry, cars and other vehicles, pretty much anything of value that your parents cannot defend as being necessary for life, health, or the performance of whatever jobs they end up taking to dig themselves out of this, are all subject to seizure and auction. They may end up just selling the house anyway because it's too big for what they have left (or will ever have again). I do not, under any circumstance, recommend you putting your own finances at risk in this. You may gift money to help, or provide them a place to live while they get back on their feet, but do not \"\"give till it hurts\"\" for this. It sounds heartless, but if you remove your safety net to save your parents, then what happens if you need it? Your parents aren't going to be able to bail you out, and as a contractor, if you're effectively \"\"doing business as\"\" Reverend Gonzo Contracting, you don't have the debt shield your parents had. It looks like housing's faltering again due to the news that the Fed's going to start backing off; you could need that money to weather a \"\"double-dip\"\" in the housing sector over the next few months, and you may need it soon.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "490294", "title": "", "text": "Some lenders will work with you if you contact them early and openly discuss your situation. They are not required to do so. The larger and more corporate the lender, the less likely you'll find one that will work with you. My experience is that your success in working out repayment plan for missed payments depends on the duration of your reduced income. If this is a period of unemployment and you will be able to pay again in a number of months, you may be able to work out a plan on some debts. If you're permanently unable to pay in full, or the duration is too long, you may have to file bankruptcy to save your domicile and transportation. The ethics of this go beyond this forum, as do the specifics of when it is advisable to file bankruptcy. Research your area, find debt counselling. They can really help with specifics. Speak with your lenders, they may be able to refer you to local non-profit services. Be sure that you find one of those, not one of the predatory lenders posing as credit counselling services. There's even some that take the money you can afford to pay, divide it up over your creditors, allowing you to keep accruing late/partial payment fees, and charge you a fee on top of it. To me this is fraudulent and should be cause for criminal charges. The key is open communication with your lenders with disclosure to the level that they need to know. If you're disabled, long term, they need to know that. They do not need to know the specific symptoms or causes or discomforts. They need to know whether the Social Security Administration has declared you disabled and are paying you a disability check. (If this is the case, you probably have a case worker who can find you resources to help negotiate with your creditors)." }, { "docid": "427589", "title": "", "text": "http://www.bills.com/private-student-loan-settlement/ Here is a page that seems to have specific advice on the matter. This site speculates that even though the private loan industry does not have to settle (and the private student loans, like federal loans cannot be discharged with a bankruptcy) they sometimes will anyway. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/private-student-loans-bankruptcy-law_n_1753462.html ... If she could file bankruptcy to erase the private student loan debt she owes to Sallie Mae, she would. But because of a 2005 reform law, private student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, except in extremely rare cases. ... The advice that works for you is the same advice with negotiating any debt. Get it in writing that the amount will constitute payment in full. Be sure that the written agreement makes some mention of how they will report it on your credit. (You are going to take a credit hit if you settle, but time will heal that.) The best plan is to pay, but if you can't, and you can honestly prove you can't, the debt collection company would be foolish to not take a settlement. They can wait around forever and sue you, add penalties and fees, but if you cannot pay, you cannot pay. I am going to guess because you are dealing with a debt collector, they are less vested in collecting the full amount. So get that settlement offer in writing. And don't be too much of a hard core negotiator. The power is all on their side. You will likely have to appeal to the greed of the collection company to succeed. Hope they would rather have $.50 today than $1.25 tomorrow." }, { "docid": "515815", "title": "", "text": "As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans." }, { "docid": "298424", "title": "", "text": "\"robinhood is a member of finra, just like any other broker. as such, they can't legally \"\"lose\"\" your assets. even if they file bankruptcy, you will get your money back. obviously, any broker can steal your assets, but i doubt robinhood is any more likely to steal from you, even if you are rich. here is a quote from an article on thestreet.com: So, despite the name, the Robinhood philosophy isn't about stealing from rich, but rather taking perks often reserved for top-tier investors and giving them to the everyman trader\"" }, { "docid": "23955", "title": "", "text": "If you have both consumer debt and IRS debt, you can file Chapter 7 bankruptcy to get rid of all of it. The trick is your taxes have to be at least 3 years old from the due date in order to be considered for bankruptcy. So newer taxes, like 2010 and on, can't be discharged yet (and earlier ones may not be yet, there are rules which toll the time) You'll definitely want to talk to a bankruptcy attorney in your area who focusing on discharge in tax debts. You may be able to kill two birds with one stone. My other concern is are you current? Typically people routinely run up a new debt when trying to settle up on 9old debt. So the OIC route may be a waste of your time. Also, $6000 isn't a lot of money, so there's not a lot of room to negotiate down. It's all how you fill out the 656-OIC. I've seen way to many people not fill it out incorrectly. The IRS has a limited amount of time to collect on a debt, so if there are old taxes, you may be better off getting into CNC status, which it seems like you would qualify for and let the debt expire on your own. That may be another viable solution. Unfortunately, this is really complicated to get the best result. And good tax debt attorneys fees start at the amount of taxes you owe! So that's not really cost effective to hire one." }, { "docid": "441836", "title": "", "text": "You should also look outside the box. There are non profit credit relief organizations that will give you free credit counseling. Don't pay for it though. There are some organizations that are shady in offering counseling but they wreck your credit by asking you to stop making your payments. Some of the legitimate organizations out there have ties to credit unions and banks that can offer you some loans to consolidate your debt at rates lower than those you mentioned in your questions. You should probably also approach a credit union directly and discuss debt consolidation loan options. Even if you can only knock out the debts with the highest interest rate, that's a good first step." }, { "docid": "112167", "title": "", "text": "The state has been running a deficit for at least 15 years. Many want to blame Rauner (he didn't pass any bills to help, but arguably brought the issue to the forefront.) But at this point it's basically systemic and baked into the structure of the state. There needs to be major changes but no politician (or not enough) want to pursue long term solutions. It's all about immediate political power. There are rumblings of Illinois being the first state to file for bankruptcy." }, { "docid": "220861", "title": "", "text": "Eh, a corporation owned in part by the person who directed the corporation to file for bankrupcy after the corporation lost a legal challenge, doesn't really mean much. Corporations exist to protect shareholders for exactly this reason. Sounds like this Bill Zanker person got hurt by the bankruptcy filing the most not Kiyosaki." }, { "docid": "26581", "title": "", "text": "\"The only thing I'd be concerned about is whether or not the credit report site offers a loan consolidation option right next to the statement that \"\"too many installment loans are lowering your score.\"\" If it is, then the site stands to get a kickback for referring you, and you might question whether or not the advice is correct. But if not, then take that statement at face value and look to consolidate. Just run the numbers to see what it will cost (or save) you.\"" }, { "docid": "166490", "title": "", "text": "&gt; this tech boom is different I remember hearing that so often last time, lol. There is a lot of consolidation among the big 4 or 5. Amazon for example doesn't turn a profit, or give dividends. so you buy it for growth. after amazon eats the grocery sector few options are left. the remaining consumer sectors are smaller and either already being consumed by very entrenched rivals (media) or already being eaten by amazon(consumer goods). I don't see an easy next move for them. real estate? health care? other countries?" }, { "docid": "565698", "title": "", "text": "It is possible to consolidate mortgages with Nationwide, in some circumstances. Quote from their website: It is possible to consolidate different mortgages and other debts such as personal loans and credit cards. However it does depend on your individual circumstances, including the exact type of loans you want to consolidate and whether you are still in a special deal period I, personally, would be amazed if you couldn't get them all in one mortgage without changing provider. But... I wouldn't be at all surprised if they forced you to have this one mortgage as a new mortgage, rather than adding balances to an existing one. My reasoning is as follows: Coming at it from a different angle: whatever there was that required your further borrowing to be in new mortgages, rather than added to your existing mortgage, will also preclude your multiple mortgages being added to one of your existing mortgages." }, { "docid": "11263", "title": "", "text": "The actual financial statements should always be referenced first before opening or closing a position. For US companies, they are freely available on EDGAR. Annual reports are called 10-Ks, and quarterly reports are called 10-Qs. YHOO and GOOG do a great job of posting financials that are quickly available, but money.msn has the best. These should be starting point, quick references. As you can see, they may all have the same strange accounting. Sometimes, it's difficult to find the information one seeks in the consolidated financial statements as in this case, so searching through the filing is necessary. The notes can be helpful, but Ctrl-F seems to do everything I need when I want something in a report. In AAPL's case, the Interest expense can be found in Note 3." }, { "docid": "495980", "title": "", "text": "\"ASSUMING a person knows how to use and invest their money wisely, would it still be a bad idea to entirely disregard a 401k plan? Yes. A 401k, like an IRA, is a \"\"qualified plan\"\" and as such enjoys certain legal protections. For a Roth 401k, the taxes are paid now and the interest accumulates tax free, and withdrawals will be tax-free. Doing it on your own means that your own savings will have interest taxed as you earn it. For a traditional 401k, current savings are deducted from current earnings, and the withdrawals will be taxed. Doing it on your own loses the deferral of tax at this time. Generally, 401ks and IRAs are highly resistant to judgements in civil lawsuits. If you file for bankruptcy protection at any time in your working career, the assets in these accounts are immune (in most states) from being used to pay off your creditors. If you do it on your own, that savings account will be emptied to pay off creditors in bankruptcy and also will be assets that can be taken from you in civil judgements (for example, you get in a car accident and they sue you). You might never be sued, nor file bankruptcy in your entire life, but you are unnecessarily exposing yourself to risks: anything might happen in the next 50 years. What you will lose in such circumstances far outweighs any perceived benefits you could possibly earn by rolling your own. If you are the sort of person who can max out your 401k and IRA contributions each year, and still have a significant sum to set aside for savings, you should contact an investment advisor and attorney to see about protecting your assets.\"" }, { "docid": "350555", "title": "", "text": "Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis." }, { "docid": "303489", "title": "", "text": "You should double-check what it means to be in [Chapter 11](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code) Yes, by filing for bankruptcy, the company gets some protection from creditors and some of their investment dries up, but it's the owners who take it on the nose first. Also, individuals can file for Chapter 11, too. It's not just corporations." }, { "docid": "418639", "title": "", "text": "Thanks for your thorough reply. Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it. So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model. That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares. I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS?" }, { "docid": "376419", "title": "", "text": "Even better, the company he owns filed for bankruptcy. He gets to keep all of the cash, the company folds, and he'll just start up a different company with all the money and none of the obligations. That's exactly what his book says he'll do. Why is anyone surprised that he does this?" }, { "docid": "371758", "title": "", "text": "There are a few loan programs that grant exceptions to bankruptcy requirements in the event of extenuating circumstances that can be proven to be outside of your control (i.e. massive medical bills that you used bankruptcy to settle, etc.) however, in order to make the case for this exemption, you would need to make a strong case for your solvency, shown the ability to re-establish your credit reputation since the discharge of your bankruptcy, and would almost certainly have to go through a bank that offers manual underwriting. Additionally, if you are Native American, the HUD-184 program is a great option for your situation as it allows for a wide latitude in terms of underwriter discretion and is always manually underwritten as there is no automated underwriting system developed for the loan program. There are several great lenders that offer nationwide financing (as long as you're in a HUD-184 eligible area) and would be a great potential solution if you meet the qualifying parameter of being Native American." }, { "docid": "3778", "title": "", "text": "Why is the US still working with paper checks when Europe went digital about a decade ago? Tax filing is just another area in which the US is lagging. Modernizing it costs money, and the US is quite close to bankruptcy (as seen by the repeated government shutdowns). Also, the US tax code is quite complicated. For instance, I doubt there's anyone who has a full and complete list of all allowed deductions. Some comments wonder about multiple incomes. This doesn't require tax filing either. My local tax authority just sends me a combined statement with data from 2 employers and 2 banks, and asks me to confirm the resulting payment. This is possible because tax number usage is strictly regulated. SSN abuse in the US presumably makes this problematic." } ]

[ { "docid": "399409", "title": "", "text": "We run into this all the time with our EU clients. As far as I can tell, the only requirements when it comes to invoicing have to do with sales tax, which is determined at the state level, and only in the case that items are taxable. It seems that the service provided to you is not taxable and so there is no obligation under Californian law to provide you with the invoice you need. That said, it would be nice to provide this information to you as a courtesy. We don't provide the information typically required by EU tax authorities on our receipts either, but whenever one of our EU clients requests a more formal invoice we gladly send them one." } ]

[ { "docid": "228083", "title": "", "text": "There does not appear to be a way to export the customers and invoices nor a way to import them into another data file if you could export them. However, as said in the comments to your question, your question seems predicated upon the notion that it is 'best practice' to create a new data file each year. This is not considered necessary It should be noted that GnuCash reports should be able to provide accurate year-end data for accounting purposes without zeroing transactions, so book-closing may not be necessary. Leaving books unclosed does mean that account balances in the Chart of Accounts will not show Year-To-Date amounts. - Closing Books GnuCash Wiki The above linked wiki page has several methods to 'close the books' if that is what you want to do - but it is not necessary. There is even a description on how to create a new file for the new year which only talks about setting up the new accounts and transactions - nothing about customers, invoices etc. Note that you can 'close the books' without creating a new data file. In summary: you cannot do it; but you don't need to create a new file for the new year so you don't need to do it." }, { "docid": "183612", "title": "", "text": "Assuming you buy the services and products beforehand and then provide them to your clients. Should the cost of these products and services be deducted from my declared income or do I include them and then claim them as allowable expenses? You arrive at your final income after accounting for your incomings and outgoings ? regularly buys products and services on behalf of clients These are your expenses. invoice them for these costs after These are your earnings. These are not exactly allowable expenses, but more as the cost of doing your business, so it will be deducted from your earnings. There will be other business expenses which you need to deduct from your earnings and then you arrive at your income/profit. So before you arrive at your income all allowable expenses have been deducted. include on my invoices to clients VAT if you charge VAT. Any charges you require them to pay i.e. credit card charges etc. You don't need to inform clients about any costs you incur for doing your business unless required by law. If you are unsure about something browse the gov.uk website or obtain the services of an accountant. Accounting issues might be costly on your pocket if mistakes are committed." }, { "docid": "476582", "title": "", "text": "Lost checks happen occasionally, and there are procedures in place (banking & business) to handle the situation. First and foremost you need to: Note: The money is legally yours, so the company is obligated to work with you here. If they refuse to cancel or reissue the check, at a minimum you'll want to contact the state government and let them know about the company's actions, if small claims court is not an option. Businesses aren't permitted to keep 'forfeited funds' in most states, instead they are required to turn them over to the government who would then return them to you when you ask for it. It's rather scummy of the government bureaucrats, because it puts them in the sole position to benefit from forgotten money, but that's the system we've given ourselves. Since you've moved overseas since the last time you worked with this company, you might need to exercise a little patience and be willing to jump through some hoops to get this resolved. Be prepared to provide them proof of who you are, and be ready to pay for extra security such as certified mail / FedEx so that you're both sure that the new check is delivered to you and only you. Last of all, learn from your mistake this time and be a little more cautious / proactive in keeping track of checks and depositing them in the future." }, { "docid": "562632", "title": "", "text": "Yes, I am in the USA and almost 90% of our sales (orders) come via EDI, and thus 90% of outbound invoices. But to setup EDI for an inbound EDI invoices with one supplier for 2 invoices per month is ridiculous." }, { "docid": "213061", "title": "", "text": "Southwest Patrol Inc. is the leading security guard and patrol security company that covers all of Southern California with the best services for all of your security needs. Southwest Patrol Inc. offers an exceptional services at a very competitive prices. Click here at http://www.southwestpatrol.com/security-services/ for executive security guard patrol services in Southern California." }, { "docid": "200611", "title": "", "text": "A California, USA based Import &amp; Export company required Letter of Credit MT700 as a payment term to Import tyres from a Chinese supplier. Bronze Wing Trading's Trade Finance Solution resolved their issue by providing Letter of Credit from a reputed bank in Europe. They made a handsome profit." }, { "docid": "55440", "title": "", "text": "This is pretty normal. I am in the UK and currently doing the exact same thing. As some answers state there is additional tax law called IR35. But thats all it is, an additional tax law that may be applicable to your situation (it very well may not). It is all perfectly legal and common (all my university friends now do it). You will be the director of a company, and invoice the recruiters company. This has benefits and disadvantages. Personally I love it, but each to their own. Don't do it if you don't want to." }, { "docid": "26307", "title": "", "text": "\"I have an answer and a few comments. Back to the basics: Insurance is purchased to provide protection in case of a loss. It sounds as though you are doing well, from a financial perspective. If you have $0 of financial obligations (loans, mortgages, credit cards, etc.) and you are comfortable with the amount that would be passed on to your heirs, then you DO NOT NEED LIFE INSURANCE. Life insurance is PROTECTION for your heirs so that they can pay off debts and pay for necessities, if you are the \"\"bread-winner\"\" and your assets won't be enough. That's all. Life insurance should never be viewed as an investment vehicle. Some policies allow you to invest in funds of your choosing, but the fees charged by the insurance company are usually high. Higher than you might find elsewhere. To answer your other question: I think NY Life is a great life insurance company. They are a mutual company, which is better in my opinion than a stock company because they are okay with holding extra capital. This means they are more likely to have the money to pay all of their claims in a specific period, which shows in their ratings: http://www.newyorklife.com/about/what-rating-agencies-say Whereas public companies will yield a lower return to their stock holders if they are just sitting on additional capital and not paying it back to their stock holders.\"" }, { "docid": "49422", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.ocregister.com/2017/08/28/what-business-exodus-california-tops-in-u-s-for-company-creation/) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Even the headquarters of Jamba Juice and Carl&amp;#039;s Jr. So with much talk about companies supposedly fleeing California en masse - purportedly due to unfriendly conditions for business - would you be surprised if I told you the state had the nation&amp;#039;s largest increase in the number of companies between 2014 and this year? &gt; Even if you rank states on percentage growth, California still looks pretty good in this period: It ranked 10th best for small business creation; No. 17 for mid-size; 23rd for giant companies and 13th in overall growth. &gt; Yes, several indexes of relative business attractiveness by state give California low grades. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6x1wk6/what_business_exodus_california_tops_in_us_for/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~201450 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **California**^#1 **company**^#2 **state**^#3 **business**^#4 **growth**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "16197", "title": "", "text": "Aside from the fact that you could now get spam calls and mailings, nothing negative at all. With your account number, anyone can send you money (which you probably wouldn't mind), but otherwise, no access is possible. In Germany, every company and many people publish their account number, so they can receive payment. Every invoice contains address, phone number, and account numbers of the company that bills you, so you are able to send them money to pay the invoice. Nobody can access the money or details of your account with only the name and number; it needs your online login user id and password, or your (government issued) ID to do so. You don't need to worry at all." }, { "docid": "521144", "title": "", "text": "The hospital likely has a contract with your insurance company which makes them obligated to bill the insurance before billing you! I had a similar occurrence that was thrown out when my insurance company provided a copy of a contract with the hospital to the judge. So if there is an agreement they must file with the insurance in timely manner." }, { "docid": "402686", "title": "", "text": "You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence)." }, { "docid": "433817", "title": "", "text": "\"If all of the money needs to be liquid, T-Bills from a broker are the way to go. Treasury Direct is a little onerous -- I'm not sure that you could actually get money out of there in a week. If you can sacrifice some liquidity, I'd recommend a mix of treasury, brokered CDs, agency and municipal securities. The government has implicitly guaranteed that \"\"too big to fail\"\" entities are going to be backed by the faith & credit of the United States, so investments in general obligation bonds from big states like New York, California and Florida and cities like New York City will yield you better returns, come with significant tax benefits, and represent only marginal additional short-term risk.\"" }, { "docid": "310136", "title": "", "text": "California is very aggressive about enforcing LLC franchise taxes. The only correction I'd make to Kekito's answer is that the fee is $800 minimum or some percentage of the LLC's total business volume in the state. What's killer about it is that the tax is dependent not on what your LLC's profit is, but what its revenues are! Here's a good link explaining how the tax is calculated: California LLC Franchise Tax Rates Be very careful about making sure you comply with every dot in the California codes or else you really won't like what happens. It's one of the reasons so many companies avoid locating operations in California if at all possible. I hope this helps. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "468741", "title": "", "text": "If you want to subcontract some of your excess work to somebody else, you better be in business!  While some kinds of employees (e.g. commissioned salespeople) are permitted to deduct some expenses on their income tax, generally only a real business can deduct wages for additional employees, or the cost of services provided by subcontractors. Do you invoice your clients and charge HST (GST)? Or do you tell your clients each pay period how many hours you worked and they compensate you through their payroll system like everybody else that walks through the door? If you're not invoicing and charging HST (GST) (assuming you exceed the threshold, and if you have too much work, you probably do!), then perhaps your clients are treating you as an employee – by default – and withholding taxes, CPP, and EI so they don't get in trouble? After all, Canada Revenue Agency is likely to consider any person providing a service to a company to be an employee unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, and when there isn't enough evidence, it's the company paying for the services that would be on the hook for unpaid taxes, CPP, and EI. Carefully consider what form of business you are operating, or were intending to operate. It's essential for your business to be structured appropriately if you want to hire or subcontract. You ought to be either self-employed as a sole proprietor, or perhaps incorporated if it makes more sense to your situation. Next, act accordingly. For instance, it's likely that your business should be taking care of the source deductions, CPP, and EI. In fact, self-employed individuals shouldn't even be paying into EI – an independent contractor wouldn't qualify to make an EI claim if they lost a contract. As an independent, one doesn't have a job, one has a business, and EI doesn't cover the business itself, only the employees that the business deals with at arm's length. As a business owner, you would be considered non-arms-length, and exempt from EI. Growing your business in the way that you are suggesting is an important enough a step that you should seek professional advice in advance. Find a good accountant that deals with self-employed individuals & small businesses and run all this by him. He should be able to guide you accordingly. Find a lawyer, too. A lawyer can guide you on how to properly subcontract others while protecting you and your business. Finally, be mindful of what it is you agreed to in your contract with your client: Do they expect all services to be performed by you, personally? Even if it wasn't written down who exactly would be performing the services, there may be an assumption it's you. Some negotiation may be in order if you want to use subcontractors." }, { "docid": "280435", "title": "", "text": "\"To the best of my knowledge, in California there's no such thing as registering a place as a business. There's zoning (residential/commercial/mixed/etc), and there's \"\"a business registered at a place\"\". But there's no \"\"place registered as a business\"\". So you better clarify what it is that you think your landlord did. It may be that the place is used for short term rentals, in which case the landlord may have to have registered a business of short term rentals there, depending on the local municipal or county rules. Specifically regarding the deposit, however, there's a very clear treatment in the California law. The landlord must provide itemized receipt for the amounts out of the deposit that were used, and the prices should be reasonable and based on the actual charges by the actual vendors. If you didn't get such a receipt, or the amounts are bogus and unsubstantiated - you have protection under the CA law.\"" }, { "docid": "291698", "title": "", "text": "All your needs related to pool fencing will get fulfilled at this company. An expert installer will provide you with an obligation-free measure and quote. You will get toughened glass that is 6mm thicker and four times stronger than standard float glass." }, { "docid": "260726", "title": "", "text": "To quote their disclaimer: Data is provided by financial exchanges and may be delayed as specified by financial exchanges or our data providers. Google does not verify any data and disclaims any obligation to do so. That means that they buy it from a reseller such as IDC. It probably differs in source between the different exchanges depending on price and availability factors. They do specify in some cases which reseller they use and one of those happens to be Interactive Data (IDC) who are also the data provider used in my day job!" }, { "docid": "250564", "title": "", "text": "First, they don't have an obligation to provide a service for a non-customer. In theory, the could even refuse this service to account holders if that was their business model, although in practice that would almost surely be too large of a turn-off to be commercially feasible. Non-account holders aren't paying fees or providing capital to the bank, so the bank really has no incentive or obligation to tie up tellers serving them. Maybe as importantly, they have a legitimate business reason in this case as stated. The fact that the bill passed whatever test the teller did does not, of course, ensure that the bill is real. They may (or may not) subject it to additional tests later that might be more conclusive. Making you have an account helps ensure that, in the event they do test it and it fails, that (a) they know who you are in case the Secret Service wants to find you, and (b) they can recover their losses by debiting your account by the $100. This isn't foolproof since any number of bad things could still happen (identity theft, closing account before they do additional tests, bill passing later tests, etc.), but it does give them some measure of protection." } ]

[ { "docid": "491553", "title": "", "text": "How can I get quarterly information about private companies? Ask the owner(s). Unelss you have a relationship and they're interested in helping you, they will likely tell you no as there's no compelling reason for them to do so. It's a huge benefit of not taking a company public." } ]

[ { "docid": "471138", "title": "", "text": "An Indonesian company was in need of Letter of Credit to Import Iron Ore in bulk from an Indian Supplier after being rejected by their Bank. They contacted Bronze Wing Trading &amp; obtained their required LC (MT700) and successfully completed their Iron Ore imports." }, { "docid": "466712", "title": "", "text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Title Loans in San Jacinto CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Title Loans San Jacinto CA 22415 Alessandro Ave N, San Jacinto, CA 92583 (951) 474-0011 sjtitleloans3@gmail.com http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-san-jacinto-ca/" }, { "docid": "226980", "title": "", "text": "\"It is not a \"\"riskless\"\" transaction, as you put it. Whenever you own shares in a company that is acquiring or being acquired, you should read the details behind the deal. Don't make assumptions just based on what the press has written or what the talking heads are saying. There are always conditions on a deal, and there's always the possibility (however remote) that something could happen to torpedo it. I found the details of the tender offer you're referring to. Quote: Terms of the Transaction [...] The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the valid tender of sufficient shares, which, when added to shares owned by Men’s Wearhouse and its affiliates, constitute a majority of the total number of common shares outstanding on a fully-diluted basis. Any shares not tendered in the offer will be acquired in a second step merger at the same cash price as in the tender offer. [...] Financing and Approvals [...] The transaction, which is expected to close by the third quarter of 2014, is subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Act. Both Men’s Wearhouse and Jos. A. Bank are working cooperatively with the Federal Trade Commission to obtain approval of the transaction as soon as possible. [...] Essentially, there remains a small chance that one of these \"\"subject to...\"\" conditions fails and the merger is off. The chance of failure is likely perceived as small because the market price is trading close to the deal price. When the deal vs. market price gap is wider, the market would be less sure about the deal taking place. Note that when you tender your shares, you have not directly sold them when they are taken out of your account. Rather, your shares are being set aside, deposited elsewhere so you can no longer trade them, and later, should the conditions be satisfied, then you will be paid for your shares the deal price. But, should the deal fall apart, you are likely to get your shares deposited back into your account, and by that time their market value may have dropped because the price had been supported by the high likelihood of the transaction being completed. I speculated once on what I thought was a \"\"sure deal\"\": a large and popular Canadian company that was going to be taken private in a leveraged buyout by some large institutional investors with the support of major banks. Then the Global Financial Crisis happened and the banks were let off the hook by a solvency opinion. Read the details here, and here. What looked like a sure thing wasn't. The shares fell considerably when the deal fell apart, and took about four years to get back to the deal price.\"" }, { "docid": "540968", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; The best teachers make hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, in private educational institutions. 1. I am sure some teachers do, and that these teachers are far better than average. But teacher pay correlates with a lot of other things, like seniority. 2. \"\"Education\"\" is not just one thing, and it is sometimes closer to a private good and sometimes closer to a [public good](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good). Education-as-status is a private good (which is why private schools can afford to pay prestige-bringing teachers a lot of money). Education-as-human-capital is in some cases also a private good (e.g., most of the benefits for graduate business education accrues to the student, so externalities are negligible); but in other cases it is probably not (e.g., it's better for everyone if everyone else is literate and numerate, so there are externalities involved in basic education). And civic education is an almost public good (the benefits of voting thoughtfully only exist if many people do it, and they are spread largely evenly throughout society). Right now the government has a hand in funding all of these. This may or may not be a good idea (whether from the standpoint of pure efficiency or from the taxation-is-theft). But in your opinion, which of the above educations could plausibly be funded adequately without taxation? Edit: fixed link\"" }, { "docid": "305982", "title": "", "text": "&gt; If a company is making little to no profit, how about they quit blaming their minimum wage workers and find a better business model. Then put your money where your mouth is and get out there and create some jobs. From the SBA &gt;Page 1 Frequently Asked Questions about Small Business September 2012 Small businesses comprise what share of the U.S. economy? Small businesses make up: 99.7 percent of U.S. employer firms, 64 percent of net new private-sector jobs, 49.2 percent of private-sector employment, 42.9 percent of private-sector payroll, 46 percent of private-sector output, 43 percent of high-tech employment, 98 percent of firms exporting goods, and 33 percent of exporting value." }, { "docid": "172241", "title": "", "text": "Public infrastructure poisons people. Nestle never sold a bottle of water tainted with lead. People are buying solar panels privately to get away from public utilities. Privatized roads are safer and less congested. Private companies are leading the charge on renewable energy and infrastructure. We became the fattest country in the world by privatizing our food supply, not nationalizing it. When you provide something with public funds, you get less of it and pay a higher price. Give the consumers choice in how their money is spent, don't force it on them like a fucking racket. Abolish all taxes." }, { "docid": "460317", "title": "", "text": "This would literally have changed nothing about the shikreli situation. That was a manufacturer, Amazon has obtained licences to be a middle man (buy from mfgr at mfgrs price and sell to pharmacies and potentially direct to consumer though they need additional licences for that.)" }, { "docid": "471549", "title": "", "text": "Just for another opinion, radio host Clark Howard would suggest killing the private student loans as quickly as possible. The only reason is the industry around private student loans has fewer rules as to how they interact with you, and they have historically been very unpleasant if you have to deal with them in bad financial times. As a safety net, get rid of the private student loans as your main focus while you have the money and rates are low. Not for financial reasons per se, but for peace of mind. The other advice in this question are great, but nobody mentioned the potential dark side of private student loans." }, { "docid": "230459", "title": "", "text": "I don't think you thought this through. What ownership and profit motive will you assign to clean air/water, lead free paint/water/gasoline? What will privatizing and creating profit motive in such public goods look like? If private roads are so great, why didn't private institutions come up with the national highway system? If all roads become private, at what point does the supposed benefit of privatization get overtaken by decrease in network effect that public roads provided? Will you trust private security to enforce our laws? How will you privatize the justice system? In your view, what are the benefits of the profit motive behind private prisons?" }, { "docid": "483400", "title": "", "text": "Sure did. For starters, it's important to note that many things that people label as public goods are not public goods. Roads and security services are not. Now if you're talking about the air that we breathe and bodies of water, then that is an issue for the legal system. A man could own a section of a river that runs through his property and - assuming that it was a clean river when he took ownership of it - he would have homesteaded the right to have that river be clean. He can only pollute it to the extent that it doesn't hurt others downstream, and he has a legal claim against any who would pollute it from upstream. &gt; If private roads are so great, why didn't private institutions come up with the national highway system? If state management of roads is so great, why did they have to steal land from private individuals to create a national highway system? If the benefits were so great, they should have been able to articulate that to the people along said highway and not taken their land by force. To directly answer your question: because the private sector doesn't come up with just anything and everything. It comes up with things that are mutually beneficial. &gt; Will you trust private security to enforce our laws? How will you privatize the justice system? It's not a matter of trust since I advocate a system of polycentric law, but I *would* prefer a market based system of law because it would provide more flexibility for consumer preferences and reduce conflict. There are videos that explain [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pcb4xyCic) and [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o). &gt; In your view, what are the benefits of the profit motive behind private prisons? I actually don't think that a private system of law would have a prison system like we have today. I personally see little use for one at all, but [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzYJYSm-MfI) is one theory on the market for a market based system of prisons." }, { "docid": "295738", "title": "", "text": "\"Financial statements provide a large amount of specialized, complex, information about the company. If you know how to process the statements, and can place the info they provide in context with other significant information you have about the market, then you will likely be able to make better decisions about the company. If you don't know how to process them, you're much more likely to obtain incomplete or misleading information, and end up making worse decisions than you would have before you started reading. You might, for example, figure out that the company is gaining significant debt, but might be missing significant information about new regulations which caused a one time larger than normal tax payment for all companies in the industry you're investing in, matching the debt increase. Or you might see a large litigation related spending, without knowing that it's lower than usual for the industry. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - if you know how to process them, and how to use the information, then you already have the answer to your question. I'd say, the more important question to ask is: \"\"Do I have the time and resources necessary to learn enough about how businesses run, and about the market I'm investing in, so that financial statements become useful to me?\"\" If you do have the time, and resources, do it, it's worth the trouble. I'd advise in starting at the industry/business end of things, though, and only switching to obtaining information from the financial statements once you already have a good idea what you'll be using it for.\"" }, { "docid": "163016", "title": "", "text": "This can be a case of someone trying to use your identity to obtain credit. I would put a fraud alert on my credit immediately. I went through something similar... got denial letters for credit I didn't apply to. A few months later I get hit with a credit ding from a pay day loan company that apparently allowed the thief to get a loan who obviously didn't pay it back. I had no contact with this company before they put the lates on my credit and it took over a year to get this cleaned up. Apparently this loan was obtained about a week after I got the first denial letter so if I put a fraud alert on immediately it would have most likely stopped this fraudulent pay day loan before it happened." }, { "docid": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" }, { "docid": "368484", "title": "", "text": "\"It appears that you already know this, but FICO credit scores (as controlled by Fair Isaac Corporation) are the real official credit scores, and FICO takes a cut on their production no matter which of the 3 major credit bureaus calculates the official score (all using slightly different methods). Be careful when obtaining a score for making a big decision that it is a FICO score, because relatively few lenders will lend based on a non-FICO score. That said, some non-FICO scores are easy to obtain and can be roughly translated to an approximation of your score. Barclays US/ Juniper Bank credit cards offer a free Transunion \"\"TransRisk\"\"(TM) score. The TransRisk score is a 900 point scale, while the FICO score is an 850 point scale. This is a simple ratio and you can calculate your approximate FICO score by the formula:\"" }, { "docid": "463575", "title": "", "text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans Torrance CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans Torrance CA 1148 W Clarion Dr, Torrance, CA 90502 Phone : 424-306-1531 Email : atltorrance@gmail.com http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-torrance-ca" }, { "docid": "502628", "title": "", "text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans West Covina CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans West Covina CA 1203 W Francisquito Ave # 1207, West Covina, CA 91790 626-653-4292 atlwestcovina@gmail.com http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-covina-ca/" }, { "docid": "489277", "title": "", "text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Title Loans in Barstow CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Title Loans Barstow CA 501 E Virginia Way # 1-A Barstow, CA 92311 (760) 957-4105 barstowtitle1@gmail.com http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-barstow-ca/" }, { "docid": "123595", "title": "", "text": "It depends on the timing of the events. Sometimes the buying company announces their intention but the other company doesn't like the deal. It can go back and forth several times, before the deal is finalized. The specifics of the deal determine what happens to the stock: The deal will specify when the cutoff is. Some people want the cash, others want the shares. Some will speculate once the initial offer is announced where the final offer (if there is one) will end up. This can cause a spike in volume, and the price could go up or down. Regarding this particular deal I did find the following: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/expedia-to-acquire-orbitz-worldwide-for-12-per-share-in-cash-300035187.html Additional Information and Where to Find It Orbitz intends to file with the SEC a proxy statement as well as other relevant documents in connection with the proposed transaction with Expedia. The definitive proxy statement will be sent or given to the stockholders of Orbitz and will contain important information about the proposed transaction and related matters. SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT CAREFULLY WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The proxy statement and other relevant materials (when they become available), and any other documents filed by Expedia or Orbitz with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website, at www.sec.gov. In addition, security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the proxy statement from Orbitz by contacting Investor Relations by mail at ATTN: Corporate Secretary, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 1000, Chicago, Illinois 60661." }, { "docid": "462312", "title": "", "text": "At the current rates, stated in the question, I would push additional funds towards your Stafford loans as their higher interest rates will incur interest charges almost 3 times faster than your private loans. With my loans I have not seen much information regarding private loans jumping the interest rate close to the 6.8% any time in the coming years (if others have insight to this I look forward to the comments). Due to the private loans being variable there is an element of risk to their rates increasing. Another way to look at it may be to prorate your amount of extra payments according to their interest rate. $1,000 x 0.068 /(0.068 + 0.025) = $731.18 Toward your Stafford Loans $1,000 x 0.025 /(0.068 + 0.025) = $268.82 Toward your Private Loans" } ]

[ { "docid": "437877", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no simple rule like \"\"you can/can't spend more/less than $X per person.\"\" Instead there is a reasonableness test. There is such a thing as an audit of just your travel and entertainment expenses - I know because I've had one for my Ontario corporation. I've deducted company Christmas parties, and going-away dinners for departing employees, without incident. (You know, I presume, about only deducting half of certain expenses?) If the reason for the entertainment is to acquire or keep either employees or clients, there shouldn't be a problem. Things are slightly trickier with very small companies. Microsoft can send an entire team to Hawaii, with their families, as a reward at the end of a tough project, and deduct it. You probably can't send yourself as a similar reward. If your party is strictly for your neighbours, personal friends, and close family, with no clients, potential clients, employees, potential employees, suppliers, or potential suppliers in attendance, then no, don't deduct it. If you imagine yourself telling an auditor why you threw the party and why the business funded it, you'll know whether it's ok to do it or not.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "126949", "title": "", "text": "I think you are a little confused. If you have 10.000€ in cash for a car, but you decide instead to invest that money and take out a loan for the car at 2,75% interest, you would have to withdraw/sell 178€ each month from your investment to make your loan payment. If you made exactly 2,75% on your investment, you would be left with 0€ in your investment when the loan was paid off. If your investment did better than 2,75%, you would come out ahead, and if your investment did worse than 2,75%, you would have lost money on your decision. Having said all that, I don't recommend borrowing money to buy a car, especially if you have that amount of cash set aside for the car. Here are some of the reasons: Sometimes people feel better about spending large amounts of money if they can pay it off over time, rather than spending it all at once. They tell themselves that they will come out ahead with their investments, or they will be earning more later, or some other story to make themselves feel better about overspending. If getting the loan is allowing you to spend more money on a car than you would spend if you were paying cash, then you will not come out ahead by investing; you would be better off to spend a smaller amount of money now. I don't know where you are in the world, but where I come from, you cannot get a guaranteed investment that pays 2,75%. So there will be risk involved; if the next year is a bad one for your investment, then your investment losses combined with your withdrawals for your car payments could empty your investment before the car is paid off. Conversely, by skipping the 2,75% loan and paying cash for your car, you have essentially made a guaranteed 2,75% on this money, comparatively speaking. I don't know what the going rate is for car loans where you are, but often car dealers will give you a low loan rate in exchange for a higher sales price. As a result, you might think that you can easily invest and beat the loan rate, but it is a false comparison because you overpaid for the car." }, { "docid": "589398", "title": "", "text": "I'll just re-post my comment as an answer as i disagree with Michael Pryor. According to this article (and few others) you may save money by incorporating. These factors don’t change the general payroll tax advantage of an S corporation, however: A S corporation can often save business owners substantial amounts of payroll tax if the business profit greatly exceeds what the business needs to pay owners for their work." }, { "docid": "181792", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, this relates to how you interpret something's value. We can use that magazine and restaurant as an example. For you the extra $10-$30 more on a decent meal or wine is worth it while $5 for a magazine entertainment on a train ride might not be. This is how all markets work, people make decisions about how they value something and hence choose to spend or not. If you're asking \"\"should I value certain things the way I do?\"\" well that's a different story e.g. should I keep that picture frame for years in the attic to sell it for $3 on eBay later. (probably not worth it) But again you are making that decision based on how YOU choose to value it. So to answer your question: How can I possibly care about this when my stock portfolio is losing (or gaining) $1000 a day? and is it normal? Yes it is normal and we all care. Everyone makes these decisions throughout each day, people will vary as to what they value something to be, but all in all everyone does just what you explained. Here is something that you may find interesting it is about how we value money: What color is your money? if the pdf doesn't work for you then try this link: What color is your money alt link\"" }, { "docid": "14317", "title": "", "text": "There is no common sense in Michigan and money does reveal character. Take a Michigan based business for example of more outrageous behavior that our State reps overlook. Frankenmuth Insurance company located in Frankenmuth Michigan purports in its commitment statement to policyholders to: Frankenmuth Insurance built a solid foundation adhering to its fundamental principles of honesty, integrity, unsurpassed customer service and conservative business practices. With much emphasis on Corporate Governance and common sense, this company located in Frankenmuth Michigan regularly violates its own commitment to policyholders by engaging in egregious conflicts of interest with board members that not only lack integrity, but are of blatant poor judgment for personal gain and detrimental to policyholders. The only policyholders invited to their annual policyholder meetings are employees and retirees of the company so that no one will vote against or challenge their elections. The board members are taken on annual trips with their spouses the week of the annual board meeting wherein on the last day, they (the board) are asked to vote on executive pay and bonuses. After a week of being wined and dined at exclusive resorts such as the One and Only Palmilla in Cabo and the Winn in Vegas the Frankenmuth executives know that the board will give them exorbitant raises and bonuses which is information they again refuse to disclose because of the public outrage their behavior would cause, adversely impacting their business. Getting what they want from the board afforded CEO Stanton a 12,000 sq foot retirement home newly constructed on a 1 million dollar plot of land at Bay Harbor overlooking Lake Michigan. One trip that Frankenmuth executives took 90 people on (those people were executives and spouses and agents and spouses) cost 5 million dollars for one week. That translates to about $53K per person. Bill Schutte pretends to care about the taxpayers dollars and how they are spent yet he thus far has refused to require Frankenmuth to disclose it's egregious spending of lavish trips and entertainment and or investigate the clear conflicts of interest with its board that are costing the taxpayers of Michigan huge dollars in increased premiums. On top of all of this, Frankenmuth admittedly has a computer system that does not track its employees use of policyholder information meaning the public is not safe from potential identity theft nor is the company safe from internal theft. Frankenmuth uses credit reports to jack prices of policyholders up - someones credit has no bearing on their ability to drive and the executives are laughing all the way to the bank with the board in their pocket from canned elections." }, { "docid": "104448", "title": "", "text": "Since I got downvoted for poking fun at &gt; I've come to realize I don't really enjoy the engineering aspects of my job nor the industry, but I enjoy corporate culture. Here's some info for those actually interested: https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/corporate-strategy-vs-corporate-development https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-finance-jobs/ https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/day-in-life-corporate-finance-analyst/ https://www.quora.com/Strategic-Management-What-is-the-typical-day-in-the-life-of-a-corporate-strategy-consultant https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-development-on-the-job/ Corporate finance (Controllers, FP&amp;A, Treasury) is a catch-all for jobs that quantify and manage a company's money. This includes figuring out how much money the business is making, budgeting, and gaining access to money for future plans. They spend most of their day on excel, browsing reddit, and complaining that other departments don't take them seriously. There is work-life balance, unless your company is at risk of bankruptcy, but pay will likely be the least of this group. Corporate strategy/development is about finding ways to achieve the vision/goals of the C-suite. Corporate development usually are ex-IB people and focused on finding companies to acquire, integrate, and achieve the goals of the acquisition (synergies, returns on investment, technology/product acquisition). Corporate strategy is usually broader and could be focused on improving the brand, figuring out new uses for a product, finding new partners, or generally looking for good ideas to improve the company. Business development usually is about growing the company through finding new customers, markets, or partnerships. Instead of selling specific products or services, you're selling your company's abilities and brand. I'd say, with your engineering background, if you can swing a corporate strategy gig, you'd have the greatest opps for any VP you decide. I'd say if you want to sell or are good at selling, then business development may be compelling. If I were you, corporate finance would be the least appealing unless you are truly interested in finance." }, { "docid": "259625", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're going to be a day trader, you really need to know your stuff. It's risky, to say the least. One of the most important elements to being successful is having access to very fast data streams so that you can make moves quickly as trends stat to develop in the markets. If you're planning on doing this using consumer-grade sites like eTrade, that's not a good idea. The web systems of many of the retail brokerage firms are not good enough to give you data fast enough for you to make good, timely decisions or to be able to execute trades way that day traders do in order to make their money. Many of those guys are living on very thin margins, sometimes just a few cents of movement one way or the other, so they make up for it with a large volume of trades. One of the reasons you were told you need a big chunk of money to day trade is that some firms will rent you out a \"\"desk\"\" and computer access to day trade through their systems if you're really serious about it. They will require you to put up at least a minimum amount of money for this privilege, and $25k may not be too far out of the ballpark. If you've never done day trading before, be careful. It doesn't take much to get caught looking the wrong way on a trade that you can't get out of without losing your shirt unless you're willing to hold on to the stock, which could be longer than a day. Day trading sounds very simple and easy, but it isn't. You need to learn about how it works (a good book to read to understand this market is \"\"Flash Boys\"\" by Michael Lewis, besides being very entertaining), because it is a space filled with very sophisticated, well-funded firms and individuals who spend huge sums of money to gain miniscule advantages in the markets. Be careful, whatever you do. And don't play in day trading with your retirement money or any other money you can't afford to walk away from. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "18850", "title": "", "text": "The IRS Guidance pertaining to the subject. In general the best I can say is your business expense may be deductible. But it depends on the circumstances and what it is you want to deduct. Travel Taxpayers who travel away from home on business may deduct related expenses, including the cost of reaching their destination, the cost of lodging and meals and other ordinary and necessary expenses. Taxpayers are considered “traveling away from home” if their duties require them to be away from home substantially longer than an ordinary day’s work and they need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of their work. The actual cost of meals and incidental expenses may be deducted or the taxpayer may use a standard meal allowance and reduced record keeping requirements. Regardless of the method used, meal deductions are generally limited to 50 percent as stated earlier. Only actual costs for lodging may be claimed as an expense and receipts must be kept for documentation. Expenses must be reasonable and appropriate; deductions for extravagant expenses are not allowable. More information is available in Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses. Entertainment Expenses for entertaining clients, customers or employees may be deducted if they are both ordinary and necessary and meet one of the following tests: Directly-related test: The main purpose of the entertainment activity is the conduct of business, business was actually conducted during the activity and the taxpayer had more than a general expectation of getting income or some other specific business benefit at some future time. Associated test: The entertainment was associated with the active conduct of the taxpayer’s trade or business and occurred directly before or after a substantial business discussion. Publication 463 provides more extensive explanation of these tests as well as other limitations and requirements for deducting entertainment expenses. Gifts Taxpayers may deduct some or all of the cost of gifts given in the course of their trade or business. In general, the deduction is limited to $25 for gifts given directly or indirectly to any one person during the tax year. More discussion of the rules and limitations can be found in Publication 463. If your LLC reimburses you for expenses outside of this guidance it should be treated as Income for tax purposes. Edit for Meal Expenses: Amount of standard meal allowance. The standard meal allowance is the federal M&IE rate. For travel in 2010, the rate for most small localities in the United States is $46 a day. Source IRS P463 Alternately you could reimburse at a per diem rate" }, { "docid": "345296", "title": "", "text": "With your windfall, you've been given a second chance. You've become debt free again, and get to start over. Here is what I would recommend from this point on: Decide that you want to remain debt free. It sounds like you've already done this, since you are asking this question. Commit to never borrowing money again. It sounds overly simplistic, but if you stop using your credit cards to spend money you don't have and you don't take out any loans, you won't be in debt. Learn to budget. Here is what is going to make being debt free possible. At the beginning of each month, you are going to write down your income for the month. Then write down your expenses for the month. Make sure you include everything. You'll have fixed monthly expenses, like rent, and variable monthly expenses, like electricity and phone. You'll also have ongoing expenses, like food, transportation, and entertainment. You'll have some expenses, like tuition, which doesn't come up every month, but is predictable and needs to be paid. (For these, you'll can set aside part of the money for the expense each month, and when the bill comes, you'll have the funds to pay it ready to go.) Using budgeting software, such as YNAB (which I recommend) will make this whole process much easier. You are allowed to change your plan if you need to at any time, but do not allow yourself to spend any money that is not in the plan. Take action to address any issues that become apparent from your budget. As you do your budget, you will probably struggle, at first. You will find that you don't have enough income to cover your expenses. Fortunately, you are now armed with data to be able to tackle this problem. There are two causes: either your expenses are too high, or your income is too low. Cut your expenses, if necessary. Before you had a written budget, it was hard to know where your money went each month. Now that you have a budget, it might be apparent that you are spending too much on food, or that you are spending too much on entertainment, or even that a roommate is stealing money. Do what you need to do to cut back the expenses that need cutting. Increase your income, if necessary. You might find from your budget that your expenses aren't out of line. You live in as cheap a place as possible, you eat inexpensively, you don't go out to eat, etc. In this case, the problem isn't your spending, it is your income. In order to stay out of debt, you'll need to increase your income (get a job). I know that you said that this will slow your studies, but because you are now budgeting, you have an advantage you didn't have before: you now know how short you are each month. You can take a part time job that will earn you just enough income to remain debt free while maximizing your study time. Build up a small emergency fund. Emergencies that you didn't plan for in your budget happen. To remain debt free, you should have some money set aside to cover something like this, so you don't have to borrow when it comes up. The general rule of thumb is 3 to 6 months of expenses, but as a college kid with low expenses and no family to take care of, you won't need a huge fund. $500 to $1000 extra in the bank to cover an unexpected emergency expense could be all it takes to keep you debt free." }, { "docid": "454084", "title": "", "text": "If you are not open to changing the amount of money you are willing to spend, your options are limited. Why change your amounts and proportions? Your situation changed. You got married, divorced, purchased a new car, the company added free disability coverage. If the amount spent per year can't change, then you are asking how to review if your proportions are correct. The first thing is to look at what must you spend it on. If you have a mortgage or car loan, the bank will tell you the minimum amount. If you own a car the state will tell you the minimum amount for auto coverage. If there is any money left look at life, and disability. These can wreck the life of your dependents. When you have meet those needs, then increase auto and home to cover additional liability." }, { "docid": "84963", "title": "", "text": "\"Your corporation would file a corporate income tax return on an annual basis. One single month of no revenue doesn't mean much in that annual scheme of things. Total annual revenue and total annual expenses are what impact the results. In other words, yes, your corporation can book revenues in (say) 11 of 12 months of the year but still incur expenses in all months. Many seasonal businesses operate this way and it is perfectly normal. You could even just have, say, one super-awesome month and spend money the rest of the year. Heck, you could even have zero revenue but still incur expenses—startups often work like that at first. (You'd need investment funding, personal credit, a loan, or retained earnings from earlier profitable periods to do that, of course.) As long as your corporation has a reasonable expectation of a profit and the expenses your corporation incurs are valid business expenses, then yes, you ought to be able to deduct those expenses from your revenue when figuring taxes owed, regardless of whether the expenses were incurred at the same approximate time as revenue was booked—as long as the expense wasn't the acquisition of a depreciable asset. Some things your company would buy—such as the computer in your example—would not be fully deductible in the year the expense is incurred. Depreciable property expenses are deducted over time according to a schedule for the kind of property. The amount of depreciation expense you can claim for such property each year is known as Capital Cost Allowance. A qualified professional accountant can help you understand this. One last thing: You wrote \"\"write off\"\". That is not the same as \"\"deduct\"\". However, you are forgiven, because many people say \"\"write off\"\" when they actually mean \"\"deduct\"\" (for tax purposes). \"\"Write off\"\", rather, is a different accounting term, meaning where you mark down the value of an asset (e.g. a bad loan that will never be repaid) to zero; in effect, you are recognizing it is now a worthless asset. There can be a tax benefit to a write-off, but what you are asking about are clearly expense deductions and not write-offs. They are not the same thing, and the next time you hear somebody using \"\"write off\"\" when they mean \"\"deduction\"\", please correct them.\"" }, { "docid": "383686", "title": "", "text": "Whenever you choose to exercise the special events with privileges in West Palm Beach Escape Rooms, our corporate membership, multiple rooms. With a good reception in escape rooms. Now, you should choose the best escape rooms for your private event with your girlfriends, you are also contributing to the preservation of this entertaining activity with escape room WPB. It is the fine adventure area to spend the time together with your family or girlfriends. It’s an awesome occasion and give you things to do west palm beach, that’ll now not best deliver out their wholesome aggressive nature with notable diversion and higher amusement." }, { "docid": "248594", "title": "", "text": "&gt;corporate profits are down [That's not true.](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html) &gt;my problem with that statement is that if companies just pay their employees more it will 'create' demand People having more money won't spend that money? Especially people who are currently living paycheck to paycheck? How do you reach this conclusion? &gt;If companies pay their employees more for the same amount of output it will just drive up the cost of goods leaving us with the same shitty demand. Also, how do you figure this?" }, { "docid": "221169", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, just for the sake of clarity, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually \"\"print\"\" money - that's the job of the BEP. What they do is they buy US Treasury bonds - i.e., loan money to the US government. The money they do it with are created \"\"from thin air\"\" - just by adding some numbers in certain accounts, thus it is described as \"\"printing money\"\". The US government then spends the money however it wishes to. The idea is that this money is injected into the economy - since the only way the US government can use the money from these loans is to spend them on buying something or give it to some people that would spend them. As it is a loan, sometime in the future the US government would pay these loans back, and in this moment the Fed would decide - if they want to \"\"contract\"\" the supply of money back, they just \"\"destroy\"\" the money they've got, by erasing the numbers they created before. They could also do it by selling the bonds they hold on the open market and then again \"\"destroy\"\" the money they got as proceeds, thus lowering the amount of money existing in the economy. This way the Fed can control how much money is out there and thus supposedly influence inflation and economic activity. The Fed could also inject money in the economy by buying any assets after creating the money - for example, right now they own about a trillion dollars worth of various mortgage-based securities. But since buying specific security would probably give unfair advantage to the issuers and owners of this security, usually US treasury bonds if what they buy. The side effect of increased supply of money denominated in dollars would be, as you noted, devaluation of dollars compared to other currencies.\"" }, { "docid": "66267", "title": "", "text": "\"When I look at debt I try to think of myself as a corporation. In life, you have a series of projects that you can undertake which may yield a positive net present value (for simplicity, let's define positive net present value as a project that yields more benefit than its cost). Let's say that one of the projects that you have is to build a factory to make clothing. The factory will cost 1 million dollars and will generate revenue of 1.5 million dollars over the next year, afterwhich it wears out. Although you have the knowledge to build this wonderful factory, you don't have a million bucks laying around, so instead, you go borrow it from the bank. The bank charges you 10% interest on the loan, which means that at the end of the year, the project has yielded a return of 400k. This is an extremely simplified example of what you call \"\"good\"\" debt. It is good if you are taking the debt and purchasing something with a positive value. In reality, this should be how people should approach all purchases, even if they are with cash. Everything that you buy is an investment in yourself - even entertainment and luxury items all could be seen as an investment in your happiness and relaxation. If more people approached their finances in this way, people would have much more money to spend, William\"" }, { "docid": "104492", "title": "", "text": "\"First thing is that your English is pretty damn good. You should be proud. There are certainly adult native speakers, here in the US, that cannot write as well. I like your ambition, that you are looking to save money and improve yourself. I like that you want to move your funds into a more stable currency. What is really tough with your plan and situation is your salary. Here in the US banks will typically have minimum deposits that are high for you. I imagine the same is true in the EU. You may have to save up before you can deposit into an EU bank. To answer your question: Yes it is very wise to save money in different containers. My wife and I have one household savings account. Yet that is broken down by different categories (using a spreadsheet). A certain amount might be dedicated to vacation, emergency fund, or the purchase of a luxury item. We also have business and accounts and personal accounts. It goes even further. For spending we use the \"\"envelope system\"\". After our pay check is deposited, one of us goes to the bank and withdraws cash. Some goes into the grocery envelope, some in the entertainment envelope, and so on. So yes I think you have a good plan and I would really like to see a plan on how you can increase your income.\"" }, { "docid": "540428", "title": "", "text": "I use to think there was something wrong with me because I always hated spending money. This hatred of spending resulted in me always saving quite a bit of my income. Since I don't enjoy spending it, why am I making and saving it (besides for an emergency fund)? I've come to the realization that I enjoy my free time more than I enjoy making lots of money. So I go to work for something to do - and pay the bills - but I am no longer trying to advance my career, or be the best at my profession, or climb some corporate ladder, or be some superstar. In fact, I'm considering a career change where I would make half of what I'm making now. What's my point? If having a lot of savings depresses you and you don't enjoy spending it then consider reducing your income." }, { "docid": "198328", "title": "", "text": "Your first problem is looking at these as monthly expenses rather than looking longer-term at how to remove the expenses. You have a $600/month loan, but what is the interest rate? If you paid that loan more aggressively it would free up 10% of your income, but you can't pay the loan aggressively if you don't have an emergency fund. You need enough cash-flow to take care of emergencies so you don't incur more debt on less advantageous terms. The way you describe the problem, it appears that you don't know where all of the money is going, so the first step is to track all of your expenses and formulate a budget. The budget is a plan on how to spend the money for next month. At least 10% should be money you are saving for a short-term emergency fund. Another 10% should be money you are saving for retirement. Until you have 6 months of expenses saved for your emergency fund, you need to skip luxuries like taxi rides and maybe you need to reduce the amount you send home. 22% is a large amount and unless your parents are using that money to become independent (so that they won't rely on your contributions forever) it will only prevent you from becoming wealthy enough to really help them later. Only you can determine what can be cut from your monthly expenses--but if you want to save--spending less is required." }, { "docid": "380786", "title": "", "text": "\"There's a lot of personal preference and personal circumstance that goes into these decisions. I think that for a person starting out, what's below is a good system. People with greater needs probably aren't reading this question looking for an answer. How many bank accounts should I have and what kinds, and how much (percentage-wise) of my income should I put into each one? You should probably have one checking account and one savings / money market account. If you're total savings are too low to avoid fees on two accounts, then just the checking account at the beginning. Keep the checking account balance high enough to cover your actual debits plus a little buffer. Put the rest in savings. Multiple bank accounts beyond the basics or using multiple banks can be appropriate for some people in some circumstances. Those people, for the most part, will have a specific reason for needing them and maybe enough experience at that point to know how many and where to get them. (Else they ask specific questions in the context of their situation.) I did see a comment about partners - If you're married / in long-term relationship, you might replicate the above for each side of the marriage / partnership. That's a personal decision between you and your partner that's more about your philosophy in the relationship then about finance specifically. Then from there, how do I portion them out into budgets and savings? I personally don't believe that there is any generic answer for this question. Others may post answers with their own rules of thumb. You need to budget based on a realistic assessment of your own income and necessary costs. Then if you have money some savings. Include a minimal level of entertainment in \"\"necessary costs\"\" because most people cannot work constantly. Beyond that minimal level, additional entertainment comes after necessary costs and basic savings. Savings should be tied to your long term goals in addition to you current constraints. Should I use credit cards for spending to reap benefits? No. Use credit cards for the convenience of them, if you want, but pay the full balance each month and don't overdo it. If you lack discipline on your spending, then you might consider avoiding credit cards completely.\"" }, { "docid": "544765", "title": "", "text": "\"The whole point of the \"\"envelope system\"\" as I understand it is that it makes it easy to see that you are staying within your budget: If the envelope still has cash in it, then you still have money to spend on that budget category. If you did this with a bunch of debit cards, you would have to have a way to quickly and easily see the balance on that card for it to work. There is no physical envelope to look in. If your bank lets you check your balance with a cell-phone app I guess that would work. But at that point, why do you need separate debit cards? Just create a spreadsheet and update the numbers as you spend. The balance the bank shows is always going to be a little bit behind, because it takes time for transactions to make it through the system. I've seen on my credit cards that sometimes transactions show up the same day, but other times they can take several days or even a week or more. So keeping a spreadsheet would be more accurate, or at least, more timely. But all that said, I can check my bank balance and my credit card balances on web sites. I've never had a desire to check from a cell phone but at least some banks have such apps -- my daughter tells me she regularly checks her credit card balance from her cell phone. So I don't see why you couldn't do it with off-the-shelf technology. Side not, not really related to your question: I don't really see the point of the envelope system. Personally, I keep my checkbook electronically, using a little accounting app that I wrote myself so it's customized to my needs. I enter fixed bills, like insurance premiums and the mortgage payment, about a month in advance, so I can see that that money is already spoken for and just when it is going out. Besides that, what's the advantage of saying that you allot, say, $50 per month for clothes and $100 for gas for the car and $60 for snacks, and if you use up all your gas money this month than you can't drive anywhere even though you have money left in the clothes and snack envelopes? I mean, it makes good sense to say, \"\"The mortgage payment is due next week so I can't spend that money on entertainment, I have to keep it to pay the mortgage.\"\" But I don't see the point in saying, \"\"I can't buy new shoes because the shoe envelope is empty. I've accumulated $5000 in the shampoo account since I went bald and don't use shampoo any more, but that money is off limits for shoes because it's allocated to shampoo.\"\"\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "562957", "title": "", "text": "If you qualify for the safe harbor, you are not required to pay additional quarterly taxes. Of course, you're still welcome to do so if you're sure you'll owe them; however, you will not be penalized. If your income is over $150k (joint) or $75k (single), your safe harbor is: Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty. Generally, if you're under that level, the following reasons suggest you will not owe the tax (from the IRS publication 505): The total of your withholding and timely estimated tax payments was at least as much as your 2013 tax. (See Special rules for certain individuals for higher income taxpayers and farmers and fishermen.) The tax balance due on your 2014 return is no more than 10% of your total 2014 tax, and you paid all required estimated tax payments on time. Your total tax for 2014 (defined later) minus your withholding is less than $1,000. You did not have a tax liability for 2013. You did not have any withholding taxes and your current year tax (less any household employment taxes) is less than $1,000. If you paid one-fourth of your last year's taxes (or of 110% of your last-year's taxes) in estimated taxes for each quarter prior to this one, you should be fine as far as penalties go, and can simply add the excess you know you will owe to the next check." } ]

[ { "docid": "191965", "title": "", "text": "You're interpreting this correctly. Furthermore, if your total tax liability is less than $1000, you can not pay estimates at all, just pay at the tax day. See this safe harbor rule in the IRS publication 17: General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months." }, { "docid": "577578", "title": "", "text": "\"The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less. The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea. Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall. You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds. After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive. Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls. So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government). Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point. If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (\"\"convenience yield\"\"). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia.\"" }, { "docid": "569645", "title": "", "text": "I agree with your strategy of using a conservative estimate to overpay taxes and get a refund next year. As a self-employed individual you are responsible for paying self-employment tax (which means paying Social Security and Medicare tax for yourself as both: employee and an employer.) Current Social Security Rate is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45%, so your Self-employment tax is 15.3% (7.65%X2) Assuming you are single, your effective tax rate will be over 10% (portion of your income under $ 9,075), but less than 15% ($9,075-$36,900), so to adopt a conservative approach, let's use the 15% number. Given Self-employment and Federal Income tax rate estimates, very conservative approach, your estimated tax can be 30% (Self-employment tax plus income tax) Should you expect much higher compensation, you might move to the 25% tax bracket and adjust this amount to 40%." }, { "docid": "549870", "title": "", "text": "\"You are on the right track, for tax purposes its all ordinary income at the end of 2016. If the free lance \"\"employer\"\" will withhold fed,state and local tax, then that takes care of your estimated tax. If they can't or won't, you will need to make those estimates and make payments quarterly for the fed and state tax at your projected tax liability. Or, you can bump up withholding by your day job employer and cover your expected tax liability at year end without making estimated tax payments.\"" }, { "docid": "134494", "title": "", "text": "\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \"\"Percentage Method\"\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \"\"base amount\"\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \"\"base amount\"\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \"\"effective\"\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \"\"wage base\"\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \"\"marriage advantage\"\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \"\"pre-tax deduction\"\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\"" }, { "docid": "16895", "title": "", "text": "\"The translation scheme is detailed in IRS Publication 15, \"\"Employer's Tax Guide\"\". For the 2010 version, the information is in Section 16 on Page 37. There are two ways that employers can calculate the withheld tax amount: wage bracket and percentage. Alternatively, they can also use one of the methods defined in IRS Publication 15-A. I'll assume the person making $60k/yr with 10 allowances is paid monthly ($5000/period) and married. Using the wage bracket method, the amount withheld for federal taxes would be $83 per pay period. Using the percentage method, it would be $81.23 per pay period. I don't recommend that you use this information to determine how to fill out your W-4. The IRS provides a special online calculator for that purpose, which I have always found quite accurate. Note: \"\"allowances\"\" are not the same as \"\"dependents\"\"; \"\"allowances\"\" are a more realistic estimation of your tax deductions, taking into consideration much more than just your dependents.\"" }, { "docid": "589123", "title": "", "text": "\"As you said, in the US LLC is (usually, unless you elect otherwise) not a separate tax entity. As such, the question \"\"Does a US LLC owned by a non-resident alien have to pay US taxes\"\" has no meaning. A US LLC, regardless of who owns it, doesn't pay US income taxes. States are different. Some States do tax LLCs (for example, California), so if you intend to operate in such a State - you need to verify that the extra tax the LLC would pay on top of your personal tax is worth it for you. As I mentioned in the comment, you need to check your decision making very carefully. LLC you create in the US may or may not be recognized as a separate legal/tax entity in your home country. So while you neither gain nor lose anything in the US (since the LLC is transparent tax wise), you may get hit by extra taxes at home if they see the LLC as a non-transparent corporate entity. Also, keep in mind that the liability protection by the LLC usually doesn't cover your own misdeeds. So if you sell products of your own work, the LLC may end up being completely worthless and will only add complexity to your business. I suggest you check all these with a reputable attorney. Not one whose business is to set up LLCs, these are going to tell you anything you want to hear as long as you hire them to do their thing. Talk to one who will not benefit from your decision either way and can provide an unbiased advice.\"" }, { "docid": "533808", "title": "", "text": "\"There are way too many details missing to be able to give you an accurate answer, and it would be too localized in terms of time & location anyway -- the rules change every year, and your local taxes make the answer useless to other people. Instead, here's how to figure out the answer for yourself. Use a tax estimate calculator to get a ballpark figure. (And keep in mind that these only provide estimates, because there are still a lot of variables that are only considered when you're actually filling out your real tax return.) There are a number of calculators if you search for something like \"\"tax estimator calculator\"\", some are more sophisticated than others. (Fair warning: I used several of these and they told me a range of $2k - $25k worth of taxes owed for a situation like yours.) Here's an estimator from TurboTax -- it's handy because it lets you enter business income. When I plug in $140K ($70 * 40 hours * 50 weeks) for business income in 2010, married filing jointly, no spouse income, and 4 dependents, I get $30K owed in federal taxes. (That doesn't include local taxes, any itemized deductions you might be eligible for, IRA deductions, etc. You may also be able to claim some expenses as business deductions that will reduce your taxable business income.) So you'd net $110K after taxes, or about $55/hour ($110k / 50 / 40). Of course, you could get an answer from the calculator, and Congress could change the rules midway through the year -- you might come out better or worse, depending on the nature of the rule changes... that's why I stress that it's an estimate. If you take the job, don't forget to make estimated tax payments! Edit: (some additional info) If you plan on doing this on an ongoing basis (i.e. you are going into business as a contractor for this line of work), there are some tax shelters that you can take advantage of. Most of these won't be worth doing if you are only going to be doing contract work for a short period of time (1-2 years). These may or may not all be applicable to you. And do your research into these areas before diving in, I'm just scratching the surface in the notes below.\"" }, { "docid": "444899", "title": "", "text": "With a $40,000 payment there is a 100% chance that the owner will be claiming this as a business expense on their taxes. The IRS and the state will definitely know about it, and the risk of interest and penalties if it is not claimed as income make the best course of action to see a tax adviser. Because taxes will not be taken out by the property owner, the tax payer should also make sure that the estimated $10,000 in federal taxes, if they are in the 25% tax bracket, doesn't trigger other tax issues that could result in penalties, or the need to file quarterly taxes next year. This kind of extra income could also result in a change or an elimination of a health care subsidy. A unexpected mid-year change could trigger the need to refund the subsidy received this year via the tax form next April." }, { "docid": "105264", "title": "", "text": "\"Actually, the other answer isn't strictly correct. It's an estimate, giving a lower bound that gets less accurate as income increases. Consider: U.S. income tax is based on a progressive tax system where there are income bracket levels with increasing tax rates. Example: Given U.S. 2009 federal tax rates for an individual filing as \"\"single\"\": Imagine somebody making $100000. Assuming no other credits, deductions, or taxes, then income tax based on the above brackets & rates would be calculated as follows: Meaning the average tax rate for the single individual earning $100,000 is 21.72%. However, a pre-tax deduction from that income actually comes off at the top marginal tax rate. Consider the same calculation but with taxable income reduced to $99,000 instead (i.e. simulating a pre-tax $1000 deduction): That's a difference of $280, which is more than the $217.20 savings that would have been estimated if just using the average tax rate method. Consequently, when trying to determine how much money would be saved by a tax deduction, it makes better sense to estimate using the marginal tax rate, which in this case was 28%. It gets a little trickier if the deduction crosses a bracket boundary. (Left as an exercise to the reader :-) Finally, in the case of the deduction being discussed, it also looks like payroll FICA taxes paid by the employee (Social Security's 6.2%, and Medicare's 1.45%) would be avoided as well; so add that to the marginal tax rate savings. The surest way to know how much would be saved, though, would be to do one's income tax return calculation without the deduction, and then with, and compare the numbers. Tax software can make this very easy to do.\"" }, { "docid": "547574", "title": "", "text": "Welcome to the real world. BTW, you have far too rosy a view of this if you think you're only paying 28.5% of your income in taxes. Remember that your employer theoretically pays half your FICA tax. But as far as they're concerned, that's part of the cost of having you as an employee. If FICA was abolished, supply and demand would quickly push salaries up by an amount equal to the FICA tax. So add another 7.65% to your taxes. Plus your employer has to pay unemployment tax (federal unemployment tax is $420 per employee per year, states vary) and workman's compensation tax (no idea how much that is) for the privilege of having you as an employee. You likely pay sales taxes on most everything you buy. I believe sales tax in Massachusetts is 6.25%. Assuming you pay that on only half of what you buy, add another 3% or so. Do you work for a corporation? Between when they sell the fruits of your labor and when they pay you, they have to pay corporate income tax. There are a lot of deductions so that gets complicated, but figure another few percent. Do you drive a car? You're paying gas tax -- 41.9 cents per gallon in MA. Do you smoke or drink alcohol? Extra taxes on those. Travel by plane or stay in a hotel? More special taxes. When you get around to buying a house, you'll pay property taxes on it every year, year after year. For me in Michigan that's another 3% of my income. I understand it's a lot more in Massachusetts. Etc, many other smaller taxes that add up." }, { "docid": "436960", "title": "", "text": "They are four quarterly estimated tax payments. The IRS requires that you pay your taxes throughout the year (withholding in a W-2 job). You'll need to estimate how much taxes you think you might be owing and then pay roughly 1/4 at each of the 4 deadlines. From the IRS: How To Figure Estimated Tax To figure your estimated tax, you must figure your expected AGI, taxable income, taxes, deductions, and credits for the year. When figuring your 2011 estimated tax, it may be helpful to use your income, deductions, and credits for 2010 as a starting point. Use your 2010 federal tax return as a guide. You can use Form 1040-ES to figure your estimated tax. Nonresident aliens use Form 1040-ES (NR) to figure estimated tax. You must make adjustments both for changes in your own situation and for recent changes in the tax law. For 2011, there are several changes in the law. Some of these changes are discussed under What's New for 2011 beginning on page 2. For information about these and other changes in the law, visit the IRS website at IRS.gov. The instructions for Form 1040-ES include a worksheet to help you figure your estimated tax. Keep the worksheet for your records. You may find some value from hiring a CPA to help you setup your estimated tax payments and amounts." }, { "docid": "406623", "title": "", "text": "Here's an answer copied from https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-quarter-of-estimated-quarterly-taxes-only-two-months Estimated taxes used to be paid based on a calendar quarter, but in the 60's the Oct due date was moved back to Sept to pull the third quarter cash receipts into the previous federal budget year which begins on Oct 1 every year, allowing the federal government to begin the year with a current influx of cash. That left an extra month that had to be accounted for in the schedule somewhere. Since individuals and most businesses report taxes on a calendar year, the fourth quarter needed to continue to end on Dec 31 which meant the Jan 15 due date could not be changed, that left April and July 15 dues dates that could change. April 15 was already widely known as the tax deadline, so the logical choice was the second quarter which had its due date changed from July 15 to June 15." }, { "docid": "577475", "title": "", "text": "In short, I suggest you take a look at your W-4 form and adjust it properly. And yes you can claim your self as a dependent, unless someone else is claiming you. But here is a more detailed explanation of how it works. How Income Tax Works. While most people tend to only think about the tax system and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as the month of April approaches, it's actually a never-ending process. For our purposes, a good way to explain how the system works is to give an example of one American income earner, we will call him Joe. The tax process begins when Joe starts his new job. He and his employer agree on his compensation, which will be figured into his gross income at the end of the year. One of the first things he has to do when he's hired is fill out all of his tax forms, including a W-4 form. The W-4 form lists all of Joe's withholding allowance information, such as his number of dependents and child care expenses. The information on this form tells your employer just how much money it needs to withhold from your paycheck for federal income tax. The IRS says that you should check this form each year, as your tax situation may change from year to year. Once Joe is hired and given a salary, he can estimate how much he will pay in taxes for the year. Here's the formula: At the end of each pay period, Joe's company takes the withheld money, along with all of withheld tax money from all of its employees, and deposits the money in a Federal Reserve Bank. This is how the government maintains a steady stream of income while also drawing interest on your tax dollars. Toward the end of the tax year, Joe's company has to send him a W-2 form in the mail. This happens by January 31. This form details how much money Joe made during the last year and how much federal tax was withheld from his income. This information can also be found on Joe's last paycheck of the year, but he'll need to send the W-2 to the IRS for processing purposes. At some point between the time Joe receives his W-2 and April 15, Joe will have to fill out and return his taxes to one of the IRS service and processing centers. Once the IRS receives Joe's tax returns, an IRS employee keys in every piece of information on Joe's tax forms. This information is then stored in large magnetic tape machines. If Joe is due a tax refund, he is sent a check in the mail in the next few weeks. If Joe uses e-File or TeleFile, his refund can be direct-deposited into his bank account." }, { "docid": "585562", "title": "", "text": "\"New York State is one of a few states that will go after telecommuter taxes (such that some people may end up paying double tax even if they don't live in NY). There are a few ways that you can avoid this. If you NEVER come to NY for work, and your employer can stipulate that your position is only available to be filled remotely, you will likely be covered. But there are a myriad of factors relating to this such as whether the employer reimburses you for your home office and whether you keep \"\"business records\"\" at your office. Provided you can easily document the the factors in TSB-M-06(5)I, you shouldn't have to pay NYS taxes. (source: I've worked with a NYS tax attorney as an employer to deal with this exact scenario).\"" }, { "docid": "505692", "title": "", "text": "Assuming you are Resident Indian. As per Indian Income Tax As per section 208 every person whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000, shall pay his tax in advance in the form of “advance tax”. Thus, any taxpayer whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000 has to pay his tax in advance by the due dates prescribed in this regard. However, as per section 207, a resident senior citizen (i.e., an individual of the age of 60 years or above) not having any income from business or profession is not liable to pay advance tax. In other words, if a person satisfies the following conditions, he will not be liable to pay advance tax: Hence only self assessment tax need to be paid without any interest. Refer the full guideline on Income tax website" }, { "docid": "442146", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you can send in a 2012 1040-ES form with a check to cover your tax liability. However, you will likely have to pay penalties for not paying tax in timely fashion as well as interest on the late payment. You can have the IRS figure the penalty and bill you for it, or you can complete Form 2210 (on which these matters are figured out) yourself and file it with your Form 1040. The long version of Form 2210 often results in the smallest extra amount due but is considerably more time-consuming to complete correctly. Alternatively, if you or your wife have one or more paychecks coming before the end of 2012, it might be possible to file a new W-4 form with the HR Department with a request to withhold additional amounts as Federal income tax. I say might because if the last paycheck of the year will be issued in just a few days' time, it might already have been sent for processing, and HR might tell you it is too late. But, depending on the take-home pay, it might be possible to have the entire $2000 withheld as additional income tax instead of sending in a 1040-ES. The advantage of doing it through withholding is that you are allowed to treat the entire withholding for 2012 as satisfying the timely filing requirements. So, no penalty for late payment even though you had a much bigger chunk withheld in December, and no interest due either. If you do use this approach, remember that Form W-4 applies until it is replaced with another, and so HR will continue to withhold the extra amount on your January paychecks as well. So, file a new W-4 in January to get back to normal withholding. (Fix the extra exemption too so the problem does not recur in 2013)." }, { "docid": "274937", "title": "", "text": "1040ES uses the smaller number because that's what triggers the penalties. (That is, you are penalized if what you prepay is less than your total 2013 liability and less than 90% of your 2014 liability.) However, estimated taxes are just estimates. If you pay too little, you could face a penalty, but there's no penalty for paying too much -- you'll just get a refund as usual. It seems that your concern stems from the fact that this is the first year you're in this tax situation and so you're unsure if your estimates are accurate. In your comment to Pete Belford's answer, you also indicated you aren't worried about being unable to pay, but only about accidentally underpaying. In this case, you could just err on the side of caution and pay more than 1040ES says you owe. (You don't actually file the 1040ES, the calculations are just for your own use.) For instance, you could prepay based on the higher of your two estimates, if you can afford it; or, if you can't afford that much, hedge the estimate payments up a bit to an amount you can afford that is closer to the higher estimate. At the end of the year if you paid too much you can get a refund as usual. After this year, you will presumably have a better sense of your income and your tax liability, and can make more accurate estimates for next year." }, { "docid": "150219", "title": "", "text": "\"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are \"\"we\"\"? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the policy of our company. For example: \"\"Every two months profits get divided 50/50\"\" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean. Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "460721", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming you are paying into and eligible to collect regular Employment Insurance benefits for the job in question, I don't see how owning a side business would, by itself, affect your ability to participate in the workshare program. Many people own dormant businesses ($0 revenue / $0 income), or businesses with insignificant net income (e.g. a small table at the flea market, or a fledgling web-site with up-front costs and no ad revenue, yet ;-) I think what matters is if your side business generated income substantial enough to put you over a certain threshold. Then you may be required to repay a portion of the EI benefits received through the workshare program. On this issue, I found the following article informative: How to make work-sharing work for you, from the Globe & Mail's Report on Business site. Here's a relevant quote: \"\"[...] If you work elsewhere during the agreement, and earn more than an amount equal to 40% of your weekly benefit rate, that amount shall be deducted from your work sharing benefits payable that week. [...]\"\" The definitive source for information on the workshare program is the Service Canada web site. In particular, see the Work-Sharing Applicant Guide, which discusses eligibility criteria. Section IV confirms the Globe article's statement above: \"\"[...] Earnings received in any week by a Work-Sharing participant, from sources other than Work-Sharing employment, that are in excess of an amount equal to 40% or $75 (whichever is greater) of the participant's weekly benefit rate, shall be deducted from the Work-Sharing benefits payable in that week. [...]\"\" Finally, here's one more interesting article that discusses the workshare program: Canada: Employment Law @ Gowlings - March 30, 2009.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "389985", "title": "", "text": "\"Absolutely terrible idea(s) on many fronts. Firstly, why are you giving away equity at all? usually it's to attract people you otherwise wouldn't be able to hire (like extremely talented coders or business development managers) but normal employees? Bad idea. If you really want to give up equity, then make sure it's only realized (valued) once certain targets are met (i.e. sales/revenue/share price/investment etc). As for the nomenclature, they're not \"\"Co-Founders\"\" - that's typically reserved for the people that foundned the company, not just people who happened to be working for the company it started trading. Call them \"\"founding employee\"\" if you must, but they're certainly not founders. Why does this matter? If the company ever takes iff or you get investment, or you fire one of them or one just gets the idea to sue you, their position name suddenly REALLY matters, and by not being careful, they could win a substantial cut of your company in a lawsuit. there's even stories of employees ganging up on their bosses and they end up owning the company. I know someone that's been involved in high 8 figure suit for 7 years for exactly the same reason. So unless they're putting in startup capital or they're taking a serious hit on their salary in return for compensation in the form of equity, don't give anyone equity.\"" }, { "docid": "111454", "title": "", "text": "You say that one property is 65% of the value of the two properties and the other is 35%. But how much of that do the two of you actually own? If you have co-signed mortgages on both properties, then your equity is going to be lower. If you sold both properties, then your take away would be just half of that equity. And while the 35% property may be less valuable, if you bought it first, it may actually have more equity. It's the equity that matters here, not the value of the property. With a mortgage, the bank is more of an owner than you are until you've paid down most of the loan. You may find that the bank won't agree to a single-owner refinance. A co-signed mortgage is a lot easier for them to collect, as they can hold either of you responsible for the entire loan. If you sell the 65% property, then you can pay off any mortgage on that property and use the equity payout from that to buy out your relative on the 35% property. If you currently have no mortgage, you'd even have cash back. This is your fewest strings option. Let's say that you have no mortgage now. So this mortgage would be the only mortgage on the property. It's not so much, as 15:65 is 3:13 or 18.75% of the value of the property. That's more of a home equity loan than a mortgage. You should be able to get a good rate. It might reduce your short term profit, but it should be survivable if you have other income. If you don't have other income, then seriously consider selling the 65% property and diversifying the payout into something else. E.g. stocks and bonds. Perhaps your relative would be willing to float you the loan. That would save you bank fees and closing costs. Write up a contract and agree to take assignment of the title at payoff. You'll need to pay a lawyer to write up the contract (paying a modest amount now to cover the various future possibilities), but that should still be cheaper. There's a certain amount of trust required on both sides, but this gives you some separation. And of course it takes your relative out of the day-to-day management entirely. Perhaps the steady flow of cash would provide what they need. If your relative is willing to remain that involved, that can work. Note that they may not want to do this, so don't get too attached to the idea. Be prepared for a no. This would be a great option for you, as you pretty much get everything you have now. They get back the time meeting with you to make decisions, but they also give up control over those decisions. Some people would not like that tradeoff. The one time I was involved with a professional managing a property for me, the fee was around 7% of the rent. If that fits your area, you might reasonably charge 5%. That gives a discount for family and not being a professional. There's a relatively easy way to find out what fits your area. Look around and see what companies offer multiple listings. Call until you find a couple that will do management for you. Get quotes for managing your properties. Now you'll know the amounts. The big failing though is that this may not describe the issue that your relative has. If the real problem is that the two of you have different approaches to property management, then making you the only decision maker may be the wrong direction. This is certainly financially feasible, but it still may not be the right solution for your relationship. If you get a no on this, I'd recommend moving on to other solutions immediately. This may simply be too favorable to you." }, { "docid": "166844", "title": "", "text": "The program placed orders in 25-millisecond bursts involving about 500 stocks, according to Nanex, a market data firm. The algorithm never executed a single trade, and it abruptly ended at about 10:30 a.m. ET Friday. So it changed its mind every single time? That's either a bug or it's front running. I think it's front running no matter how you look at it. If I ran the SEC, I'd put in place a rule that says all orders must stand for 2 seconds before they can be cancelled. That's enough time for humans to react in the market. This 25 ms for 500 stocks is nonsense. That's just front running to defraud real investors and make money on very small differences in price millions of times a day. It distorts the markets and does no good for anyone except the brokerage that is running the scam." }, { "docid": "137138", "title": "", "text": "If you arent sure what field you want to be in, then accounting is your best bet by far IMO. It's applicable to investment banking, investment management, and corporate finance and just in general it's incredibly useful to understand accounting rules. Even if you end up in Sales one day, it's useful to know exactly how to read a P&amp;L properly or how revenue recognition and return accruals work, for example. My recco would be for financial accounting if you havent done those courses yet. Cost Accounting can also be very useful, especially for corporate finance jobs. If you do more accounting courses, basically what will happen is you will become a more well-polished Finance candidate. Now, if you are trying to keep more options open and think you might want to have options in more general business fields (i.e. Consulting, Brand Management, etc.) then branch out and take Marketing, Stats, etc. What I would again not recommend though is taking a programming class. There just arent many jobs where knowing a little bit of Java or Python helps that much. Most companies prefer to have business specialists (e.g. people with finance/accounting/marketing knowledge) and IT/software specialists. If you want to be some kind of Product Manager for a tech company or a quant I suppose you could try to go all in on the programming- take 4, 5, 6 courses to really develop a noticeable background. Taking 1 Java class just has a low marginal return because you wont know anything meaningful to participate seriously in engineering/tech discussions and you will have missed an opportunity to become even more useful as a business specialist with deeper finance/accounting/marketing knowledge." }, { "docid": "114327", "title": "", "text": "&gt; corporate strategy vs. corporate finance vs business development? Broadly speaking there are different functional roles (regardless of title) that are involved in: - Financial Planning and Analysis (FPA). Forecasting, variance analysis (demand, supply etc.), pricing strategy, etc. Depending on your skill set, they can be viewed as basic excel work or more complex optimization problems. - Strategic planning, M&amp;A. Build or buy analysis. Market analysis, etc. This area is more on the capital allocation side in terms of whether or not a company should buy a competitor or build their own product line/service in a given area, geography, etc. Investment banking backgrounds are helpful here. - Communication. There is a side of the business involved in presenting the company's business strategy to outside parties whether that be creditors or investors (stock holders). The 'marcom / IR' (marketing communications, investor relations) side of the business involves presenting the company's strategy, forecast and results to outside parties. This could also include the board of directors or senior management. If you have a strong quantitative background at the engineering level, your ability to take differential equations and translate that to forecasting/econometric time series won't be difficult. But for a lot of people that will be overkill and they only want basic Excel skills and understanding of finance/accounting." }, { "docid": "225380", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; Taxing wealth is an easy idea, but I don't think it can ever work. Wealth is too easily hidden, transformed, or revalued. You should Google the effective corporate tax rates. It's much much easier to hide corporate profits or find loopholes than to tax individual income. Also, your allegory about Kleenex makes zero sense whatsoever. These aren't things the \"\"owners\"\" would normally consume, of course not. However, that's a super weird way to define a business. I trust a sole proprietor that stocks vending machines wouldn't \"\"consume\"\" all these beverage products on their own, but a business works that way. A corporation isn't its own entity, it is actively managed by people hired by the shareholders. It doesn't make its own decisions, it isn't a self-perpetuating machine. Why do we tax it as if it does? Tax income for people. Making the argument people will find loopholes is just as ludicrous. Corporations find tax loopholes anyway, but I find it pretty ridiculous to think \"\"we can't make that a law because people will break it\"\". Then make it so people can't break it. As it stands, it's easier to find loopholes and write-offs as a corporation than an individual anyway, and the consequences as a corporation are insignificant to shareholders if they do get caught Taxing individual wealth isn't the easy idea. Double-taxing an arbitrary intermediary is.\"" }, { "docid": "287537", "title": "", "text": "You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using." }, { "docid": "50812", "title": "", "text": "\"A currency devaluation isn't a hard default, please don't confuse the two. Although most times a sizable devaluation does lead to default and usually most successful defaults are accompanied by a devaluation. Here is an [article](http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/how-the-necessary-greek-devaluation-and-default-should-and-hopefully-would-happen/). &gt;There's nothing positive coming from breaking up with the world's monetary system, any positive results that you get could be obtained with much less suffering by doing whatever austerity measures you need in order to honor your debts. I'm sure Greece would love to do that if they could. You really think Greece with a GDP to Debt ratio of 164% (as of 2011) is going to be able to pay back it's debts in a orderly fashion? Come on. Austerity is only going to result in recession/stagnation and at best slower growth and since they are getting loans from the IMF/EU - they are taking on even more debt! So they are being put into a position of no economic growth while expanding their debt burden - yeah that's really sustainable! ;). &gt;AFTER the \"\"evil capitalists\"\" took power and privatized the state corporations the situation started to improve Just because I think the most viable option for Greece is a currency devaluation does not make me a \"\"evil capitalist\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "575509", "title": "", "text": "\"There's actually a lot of smaller questions in your question, so I'll answer just a few here. The standard bond index for high yield corporates is the Barclays Capital High Yield Corporate index, which is the basis for JNK. I am not familiar with the index behind HYG, the \"\"iBoxx $ Liquid High Yield index.\"\" The ETFs are managed quantitatively to try to track the index as closely as possible. AFAIK these ETFs do not attempt to take active positions. New issues are typically purchased with cash which is constantly coming in from interest and principal payments from other bonds. There is rarely a need to sell bonds just to buy new issues. Selling bonds is more common when a fund is experiencing redemptions. These ETFs and the high yield bonds they buy are not derivatives (your question seems to be confused on that point). The US Treasury is not directly involved in any way. They are indirectly involved, as they are indirectly involved in US equities markets or world markets for that matter, although perhaps they have greater influence in the bond world. Moody's has extensive studies of default rates by ratings.\"" }, { "docid": "372464", "title": "", "text": "From watching the hearings and reading the papers, it appears that JPMs London Office entered into a hedge-like position that was meant to hedge against a worldwide economic downturn. As far as I know, JPM corporate found this position on their own (probably alerted by the huge mark-to-market losses) and it was not found by some outside manager. That position itself was a hedge that turned out not to be a very good hedge, and upon this finding it was determined that JPM needed to exit this hedge. Unfortunately, the position had lost a substantial amount even by this point. This, according to Dimon, was because this particular group had been very successful in previous years and was not subject to the same regulations as most other groups. JPM has been very quiet about the details, because they don't need the position getting any more out of control than it already is. I assume some market participants have a good idea on what it is exactly, given its size, but I do not. It is not really like LTCM, which was not hedging and were supposed to be taking arbitrage positions in the market. It is also unlike LTCM is myriad ways (being 1 major position, $8B is not the same to JPM as to LTCM, JPM will almost 100% take the full loss, etc). I would recommend watching [this](http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/306502-102). Dimon clearly thinks the position was very unwise, and they are unwinding it, but details will be in short supply until JPM gets out of the position." }, { "docid": "443601", "title": "", "text": "Reducing the lowest tax bracket to zero from ten, and the next one to twelve from fifteen, is a tax cut for the one percent? As someone on the cusp of one percent, I'd be paying more under Trump's plan. Fortunately I'm getting married and my wife doesn't make as much as me so when we file together we'll still get a break. It's pretty sick how deficit spending only hurts the lower class and helps the one percent when there's a republican on office. It's also pretty sick how the author's hypothetical spending cuts are to welfare, as if there's nowhere else in the budget that could be cut. The article is partisan nonsense. The tax cuts are directly to lower and middle class only. True, there are massive corporate tax cuts, but any individual getting money from a corporation is paying income tax on it. All a corporate tax does is reduce the amount of money the corporation has to invest in itself and its employees." }, { "docid": "441476", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Michael Preiss was happy to escape the corporate grind after being laid off by International Business Machines Corp. in 2001. He became a contractor, earning more than $100,000 a year from steady assignments helping companies figure out how to do things faster and cheaper. &gt; That work eventually dried up. The past decade has been a revolving door of outsourced jobs for shrinking pay, fear that any day at a company could be his last, and reminders that full-time employees live in a different world, even though they often sit at the next desk. Mr. Preiss says one manager reprimanded him because co-workers complained that he laughed too loudly. An experienced tech contractor that does process reengineering who earns less than $50 per hour? Something doesn't add up. Many industries have contractors who are taken advantage of. In tech, contractors are often making 50-100% MORE than employees. It is highly lucrative, a huge portion are contractors by choice (I am yet to work at a firm that didn't try to offer a lowball permanent position)." }, { "docid": "19179", "title": "", "text": "\"Yeah, I guess the entire report is probably false because of that. What you're saying is applicable to the renewable industry too. There's all kinds of other investments made on behalf of renewables that aren't calculated into dollar amounts. Most obviously is the money that never even hits the books by subsidizing through consumer/corporate tax breaks. For example: the company you work for more than likely has a recycling program. It doesn't make money because it's not profitable to recycle anything but aluminum, but if they didn't have the program they would get penalized (not directly necessarily but would lose out on \"\"green\"\" initiative funding). The rest of what you are saying is as intangible as the first thing. If you think solar panels on your roof is going to keep the military out of other countries, you're clinical. And if you can't notice a correlation between the total lack of production coupled with the massive amounts of money being wasted then there's no discussion to be had. By the by, that article has no citations and the link to any additional sourcing is broken.\"" }, { "docid": "279027", "title": "", "text": "\"Reich is trying to highlight the disparity between the market price of a person's labor and the real social value of that labor. But while the former concept has a standard definition in modern economics, the latter does not, and Reich does not offer one. That is why I found the article dissatisfying. It's clear he is lamenting the disparity, but he gives no clue about what the disparity actually amounts to. Case in point: &gt; Does anyone seriously believe hedge-fund mogul Steven A. Cohen is worth the $2.3 billion he raked in last year, despite being slapped with a $1.8 billion fine after his firm pleaded guilty to insider trading? I would wager that whoever paid Cohen the money believes it pretty seriously. By rhetorically asking whether *anyone* so believes, Reich assumes away the existence of whoever pays Cohen. His tone throughout the rest of the article is similar. Yet this is precisely where Reich could have stepped in with a definition of social value, e.g.: &gt; Stephen A. Cohen raked in $2.3 billion last year, despite being slapped with an $1.8-billion fine because of insider trading by his firm. Yet the social value of his work is far lower than $2.3 billion. Here's what I mean by \"\"social value\"\" and a way to approximate it... Here is something Reich does say later on that is probably true and worth emphasizing: &gt; Most financiers, corporate lawyers, lobbyists, and management consultants are competing with other financiers, lawyers, lobbyists, and management consultants in zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. Of course, this is also true of many government officials, athletes, and social activists. But the concept of a socially wasteful zero-sum game--and its implications for welfare--ought to be much more widely understood by the general public. Reich should be praised for calling attention to some examples of it, but it would have been much better if he had dwelt on it a little more instead of just ranting.\"" }, { "docid": "383238", "title": "", "text": "What are the consequences if I ignore the emails? If you ignore the emails they will try harder to collect the money from you until they give up. Unlike what some other people here say, defaulting on a loan is NOT a crime and is NOT the same as stealing. There is a large number of reasons that can make someone unable to pay off a loan. Lenders are aware of the risk associated with default; they will try to collect the debt but at the end of the day if you don't have money/assets there is not much they can do. As far as immigration goes, there is nothing on a DS-160 form that asks you about bankruptcies or unpaid obligations. I doubt the consular officer will know of this situation, but it is possible. It is not grounds for visa ineligibility however, so you will be fine if everything else is fine. The only scenario in which unpaid student loans can come up relevant in immigration to the US is if and when you apply for US Citizenship. One of the requirements for Citizenship is having good moral character. Having a large amount of unpaid debt constitutes evidence of a poor moral character. But it is very unlikely you'd be denied Citizenship on grounds of that alone. I got a social security number when I took up on campus jobs at the school and I do have a credit score. Can they get a hold of this and report to the credit bureaus even though I don't live in America? Yes, they probably already have. How would this affect me if I visit America often? Does this mean I would not ever be able to live in America? No. See above. You will have a hard time borrowing again. Will they know when I come to America and arrest me at the border or can they take away my passport? No. Unpaid debt is no grounds for inadmissibility, so even if the CBP agent knows of it he will not do anything. And again, unpaid debt is not a crime so you will not be arrested." }, { "docid": "484904", "title": "", "text": "\"Let me start with something you might dismiss as trite - Correlation does not mean Causation. A money manager charging say, 1%, isn't likely to take on clients below a minimum level. On the other hand, there's a long debate regarding how, on average, managed funds don't beat the averages. I think that you should look at it this way. People that have money tend to be focused on other things. A brain surgeon making $500K/yr may not have the time, nor the inclination to want to manage her own money. I was always a numbers person. I marveled at the difference between raising 1.1 to the 40th power, getting 45.3 (i.e. Getting 45.3 times your investment after 40 years at 10%) vs 31.4 at 9%. That 1% difference feels like nothing, but after a lifetime, 1/3 of your money has been skimmed off the top. the data show that one can do better by simply putting their money into a mix of S&P index and cash, and beat the average money manager over time, regardless of convoluted 12 asset class allocations. Similarly - There are people who use a 'tax guy.' In quotes because I mean this as an individual whom they go to, year after year, not a storefront. My inlaws used to go to one, and I was curious what they got for their money. Each year he sent them a form. 3 pages they needed to fill in. Every cell made its way into the guy's tax program. The last year, I went with them to pick up the tax return. I asked him if he noticed that they might benefit from small Roth conversions each year, or by making some of their IRA RMD directly to charity. He kindly told me \"\"That's not what we do here\"\" and whisked us away. I planned both questions in advance. The Roth conversion was a strategy that one could agree made sense or dismiss as convoluted for some clients. But. The RMD issue was very different. They didn't have enough Schedule A deductions to itemize. Therefore the $3000 they donated each year wasn't impacting their return. By donating directly from their IRAs, this money would avoid tax. It would have saved them more than the cost of the tax guy, who charged a hefty fee, in my opinion. It seemed to me, this particular strategy should be obvious to one whose business is preparing returns.\"" }, { "docid": "81378", "title": "", "text": "\"I never put race into it, but ok... I hear lots of interesting stories about teaching. The most recent involves an experimental program where the teacher performance isn't graded on student outcomes but how well they're following the narrative defined by the program. Every few years teachers are handed new programs that the district curriculum people bought and told \"\"you're going to teach $subject using this program now!\"\" (sometimes those programs work better for different groups of students - the ones that it was evaluated with do great, the ones in different neighborhoods are failed by the program) The programs are implemented district wide and the teachers are told not to deviate from the programs. Sometimes you get a superintendent into a district who decides that \"\"no child left behind\"\" means \"\"no child can be held back\"\" and so you get children hitting second or third grade without being able to identify the letters in the alphabet, let alone read. A recent [example](http://emergepeoria.blogspot.com/2012/06/this-is-open-letter-to-d150-board-of.html) from the town I grew up in.\"" }, { "docid": "499418", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; Basically, the whole idea of passive/mindless (\"\"set it and forget it\"\") gains from investments being the path to \"\"wealth\"\" has to go bye-bye -- it was never really \"\"real\"\" to begin with (unless you \"\"timed\"\" the market just right), and the vast majority of the gains were nominal anyway. Couldn't have said it much better. &gt; a lucky generation or two got away with it (sheerly by accident in the timing of their birth, something they really had no input into). While I agree a majority was luck to be born at the right time, Boomers are to blame (IMHO) for the loss of \"\"guaranteed retirement.\"\" Pensions were one of the greatest things that came out of the industrialization and unionization of the late 19th-mid 20th century and Boomers allowed government to change regulations that permitted corporations to raid pension funds, monkey around with them, and then cry about them being burdensome after they hollowed them out. The vast majority of people are not smart enough to save sufficiently for their future and pensions were the safeguard for that. Boomers let that go for higher immediate take home and, now, will be reliant on SSI and meager savings. &gt; Instead I think one will ALWAYS need to be \"\"working\"\" in some manner or another -- actively overseeing ones investments and remaining \"\"agile\"\" in response. And of course there is risk involved in that (as if there is really any reason we should expect there NOT to be? Anyone who thinks that way IMO is simply ignorant of the vast scope of human history). For those of us here, that is feasible. However, most people will not have the interest or ability to manage their own investments. Where does this requirement leave them? Still working and, in doing so, keeping those jobs from opening up for new graduates/new people entering the workforce. &gt; The best I think one can do is to TRULY diversify (and that does NOT mean \"\"mutual funds\"\") -- to separate your eggs into various \"\"baskets\"\", holding some major part in solid (as solid as can be) form (even with the possibility of zero return and/or some \"\"loss\"\" -- i.e. owning primary housing clear of debt, some PM's in physical form, etc); having other assets in what are fairly solid \"\"bets\"\" (based on demographic trends, company quality, etc); and then some things (several small bets) that are \"\"long shots\"\" but potentially high-return things (where just one \"\"win\"\" can not only offset a dozen non-performers/losers, but gain you a substantial real profit). I could not agree more. I have done the same thing and used the same argument; even to the point of purchasing a whole life insurance policy. Diversification, in case one or multiple investments tank, is the only way to survive. I have also decided that, for some of my assets, I am just a DCA/DRIP buy and hold guy of 10-20 diversified stocks from different industries. Leave it up to time and compounding over my own ability to time/pick. Anyway, I guess that's the whole answer; there is no right answer. Diversification and continued diligence are key. Good discussing with you. Best of luck.\"" }, { "docid": "353362", "title": "", "text": "Yea I'm super confused about why this is being touted as some revenge fantasy on corporate overlords, or something. She was hired to do a job, got paid to do it, and was no longer required to do the job. I don't still get residual paychecks from my first job out of college, and they don't get to call me up and ask me to do a process analysis- I did my job and now I do another one (for someone else). What obligation does an organization have to an employee beyond a paycheck....?" } ]

[ { "docid": "409230", "title": "", "text": "On the revenue only. This amount of 10$ will be considered as interest and fully taxable. It will not be a capital gain. But why would you decide to declare it as an income? 100$ is insignificant. If you lend small amount to friends it cannot be considered a lending business." } ]

[ { "docid": "159840", "title": "", "text": "In addition to the answer from CQM, let me answer your 'am I missing anything?' question. Then I'll talk about how your approach of simplifying this is making it both harder and easier for you. Last I'll show what my model for this would look like, but if you aren't capable of stacking this up yourself, then you REALLY shouldn't be borrowing 10,000 to try to make money on the margin. Am I missing anything? YES. You're forgetting (1) taxes, specifically income tax, and (2) sales commissions//transaction fees. On the first: You have not considered anything in your financial model for taxes. You should include at least 25% of your expected returns going to taxes, because anything that you buy... and then sell within 12 months... is taxed as income. Not capital gains. On the second: you will incur sales commissions and/or transaction fees depending on the brokerage you are using for your plan. These tend to vary widely, but I would expect to spend at least $25 per sale. So if I were building out this model I would think that your break-even would have to at least cover: monthly interest + monthly principal payment income tax when sold commissions and broker's fees every time you sell holdings On over-simplifying: You have the right idea with thinking about both interest and principal in trying to sketch this out. But as I mentioned above, you're making this both harder and easier for yourself. You are making it harder because you are doing the math wrong. The actual payment for this loan (assuming it is a normal loan) can be found most easily with the PMT function in Excel: =PMT(rate,NPER,PV,FV)... =PMT(.003, 24, -10000, 0). That returns a monthly payment (of principal + interest) of 432.47. So you actually are over-calculating the payment by $14/month with your ballpark approach. However, you didn't actually have all the factors in the model to begin with, so that doesn't matter much. You are making it artificially easier because you have not thought about the impact of repaying principal. What I mean is this--in your question you indicate: I'm guessing the necessary profit is just the total interest on this loan = 0.30%($10000)(24) = $720 USD ? So I'll break even on this loan - if and only if - I make $720 from stocks over 24 months (so the rate of return is 720/(10000 + 720) = 6.716%). This sounds great-- all you need is a 6.716% total return across two years. But, assuming this is a normal loan and not an 'interest-only' loan, you have to get rid of your capital a little bit at a time to pay back the loan. In essence, you will pay back 1/3 of your principal the first year... and then you have to keep making the same Fixed interest + principal payments out of a smaller base of capital. So for the first few months you can cover the interest easily, but by the end you have to be making phenomenal returns to cover it. Here is how I would build a model for it (I actually did... and your breakeven is about 1.019% per month. At that outstanding 12.228% annual return you would be earning a whopping $4.) At least as far as the variables are concerned, you need to be considering: Your current capital balance (because month 1 you may have $10,000 but month 2 you have just 9,619 after paying back some principal). Your rate of return (if you do this in Excel you can play with it some, but you should save the time and just invest somewhere else.) Your actual return that month (rate of return * existing capital balance). Loan payment = 432 for the parameters you gave earlier. Income tax = (Actual Return) * (.25). With this kind of loan, you're not actually making enough to preserve the 10,000 capital and you're selling everything you've gained each month. Commission = ($25 per month) ... assuming that covers your trade fees and broker commissions. I guarantee you that this is not the deal breaker in the model, so don't get excited if you think I'm over-estimating this and you realize that Scottrade or somewhere will let you have trades at $7.95 each. Monthly ending balance == next month's starting capital balance. Stack it all up in Excel for 24 months and see for yourself if you like. The key thing you left out is that you're repaying each month out of capital that you'd like to use to invest with. This makes you need much higher returns. Even if your initial description wasn't clear and this is an interest-only loan, you're still looking at a rate of about 7.6% annually that you need to hit in order to just break even on the costs of holding the loan and transferring your gains into cash." }, { "docid": "405342", "title": "", "text": "\"If you only have to pay 23k federal taxes on 100k, that means you are in the long term capital gains tax rate, which is the lower of the tax rates available. First you get your federal income tax marginal tax rate, and then find the matching long term capital gains tax rate. For example, if your marginal federal income tax rate is 28%, your capital gains tax rate would be 15%. Or rather, if the amount of the gain would put you in the 28% rate, then your long term capital gains tax rate is 15%. You can reduce that by having more losses. If you have anything else invested anywhere that is taking a loss, then you can sell that this year and it will offset the other gains you have realized. The only note is that your losses have to be long term capital losses too. Tax loss harvesting takes this to an extreme where you sell something at a loss to lock in the tax loss, but you didn't really want to get rid of that investment, so then you buy a nearly identical investment. ie. if you owned shares of \"\"Direxion Tech Sector ETF\"\" and it was at a loss, you would sell that and then immediately buy \"\"ProShares Tech Sector ETF\"\", the competing product that does the exact same thing. Then there is charity. This still requires spending money and you not having it any longer. If you feel that a cause can use the money more directly than the US government, you can donate an appreciated asset to the charity - not report a gain and also take a charitable deduction.\"" }, { "docid": "110983", "title": "", "text": "In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK" }, { "docid": "11401", "title": "", "text": "Lets just get to the point...Ordinary income (gains) earned from S-Corp operations (i.e. income earned after all expenses for providing services or selling products) is passed through to the owners/shareholders and taxed at the owner's personal tax rate. Separately, if an S-Corp earns capital gains (i.e. the S-Corp buys and sells stock, earns dividends from investments, etc), those gains are passed through to the owners and taxed at a capital gains rate Capital gains are not the same as ordinary income (gains). Don't get the two confused, they are as different for S-Corp taxation as they are for personal taxation. In some cases an exception occurs, but only when the S-Corp was formally a C-Corp and the C-Corp had non-distributed earnings or losses. This is a separate issue whereas the undistributed C-Corp gains/losses are treated differently than the S-Corp gains/losses. It takes years of college coursework and work experience to grasp the vast arena of tax. It should not be so complex, but it is this complex. It is not within the scope of the non-tax professional to make sense of this stuff. The CPA exams, although very difficult and thorough, only scrape the surface of tax and accounting. I hope this provides some perspective on any questions regarding business tax for S-Corps and any other entity type. Hire a good CPA... if you can find one." }, { "docid": "4830", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you could avoid capital gains tax altogether, however, capital gains are used in determining your tax bracket even though they are not taxed at that rate. This would only work in situations where your total capital gains and ordinary income kept you in the 0% longterm capital gains bracket. You can't realize a million dollars in capital gains and have no tax burden due to lack of ordinary income. You can potentially save some money by realizing capital gains strategically. Giving up income in an attempt to save on taxes rarely makes sense." }, { "docid": "192516", "title": "", "text": "\"I am going to keep things very simple and explain the common-sense reason why the accountant is right: Also, my sister in law owns a small restaurant, where they claim their accountant informed them of the same thing, where a portion of their business purchases had to be counted as taxable personal income. In this case, they said their actual income for the year (through their paychecks) was around 40-50K, but because of this detail, their taxable income came out to be around 180K, causing them to owe a huge amount of tax (30K ish). Consider them and a similarly situated couple that didn't make these purchases. Your sister in law is better off in that she has the benefit of these purchases (increasing the value of her business and her expected future income), but she's worse off because she got less pay. Presumably, she thought this was a fair trade, otherwise she wouldn't have made those purchases. So why should she pay any less in taxes? There's no reason making fair trades should reduce anyone's tax burden. Now, as the items she purchased lose value, that will be a business loss called \"\"depreciation\"\". That will be deductible. But the purchases themselves are not, and the income that generated the money to make those purchases is taxable. Generally speaking, business gains are taxable, regardless of what you do with the money (whether you pay yourself, invest it, leave it in the business, or whatever). Generally speaking, only business losses or expenses are deductible. A purchase is an even exchange of income for valuable property -- even exchanges are not deductions because the gain of the thing purchased already fairly compensates you for the cost. You don't specify the exact tax status of the business, but there are really only two types of possibilities. It can be separately taxed as a corporation or it can be treated essentially as if it didn't exist. In the former case, corporate income tax would be due on the revenue that was used to pay for the purchases. There would be no personal income tax due. But it's very unlikely this situation applies as it means all profits taken out of the business are taxed twice and so small businesses are rarely organized this way. In the latter case, which is almost certainly the one that applies, business income is treated as self-employment income. In this case, the income that paid for the purchases is taxable, self-employment income. Since a purchase is not a deductible expense, there is no deduction to offset this income. So, again, the key points are: How much she paid herself doesn't matter. Business income is taxable regardless of what you do with it. When a business pays an expense, it has a loss that is deductible against profits. But when a business makes a purchase, it has neither a gain nor a loss. If a restaurant buys a new stove, it trades some money for a stove, presumably a fair trade. It has had no profit and no loss, so this transaction has no immediate effect on the taxes. (There are some exceptions, but presumably the accountant determined that those don't apply.) When the property of a business loses value, that is usually a deductible loss. So over time, a newly-purchased stove will lose value. That is a loss that is deductible. The important thing to understand is that as far as the IRS is concerned, whether you pay yourself the money or not doesn't matter, business income is taxable and only business losses or expenses are deductible. Investments or purchases of capital assets are neither losses nor expenses. There are ways you can opt to have the business taxed separately so only what you pay yourself shows up on your personal taxes. But unless the business is losing money or needs to hold large profits against future expenses, this is generally a worse deal because money you take out of the business is taxed twice -- once as business income and again as personal income. Update: Does the business eventually, over the course of the depreciation schedule, end up getting all of the original $2,000 tax burden back? Possibly. Ultimately, the entire cost of the item is deductible. That won't necessarily translate into getting the taxes back. But that's really not the right way to think about it. The tax burden was on the income earned. Upon immediate replacement, hypothetically with the exact same model, same cost, same 'value', isn't it correct that the \"\"value\"\" of the business only went up by the amount the original item had depreciated? Yes. If you dispose of or sell a capital asset, you will have a gain or loss based on the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and whatever you got for the asset. Wouldn't the tax burden then only be $400? Approximately, yes. The disposal of the original asset would cause a loss of the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and what you got for it (which might be zero). The new asset would then begin depreciating. You are making things a bit more difficult to understand though by focusing on the amount of taxes due rather than the amount of taxable gain or loss you have. They don't always correlate directly (because tax rates can vary).\"" }, { "docid": "403608", "title": "", "text": "\"Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% this year, so the most you stand to save is $150. I wouldn't sell anything at a loss just to offset that, unless you planned on selling anyways. A few reasons: The Long term capital gains rate will go up to 20% next year, so your losses will be \"\"worth more\"\" next year than this year. Short term capital gains rates will go up next year as well, so again, better off saving your losses for next year. You must use capital losses to offset capital gains if you have them, but if you don't have any capital gains, you can use capital losses to offset ordinary income (up to a limit - $3,000 a year IIRC). So, if you just bite the bullet and pay the 15% on your gains this year, you could use your losses to offset your (likely higher rate) ordinary income next year. FYI, complete chart for capital gains tax rates is here. I also posted another answer about capital gains to this question a while back that might be useful.\"" }, { "docid": "88575", "title": "", "text": "\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"" }, { "docid": "461933", "title": "", "text": "\"So you are paying taxes on your contributions regardless, the timing is just different. I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that. What am I missing? You are failing to consider the time value of money. Getting $1 now is more valuable to you than a promise to get $1 in a year, even though the nominal amount is the same. With a certain amount of principal now, you can invest it and it will (likely) grow into a bigger amount of money (principal + earnings) at a later time, and we can consider the two to have approximately equivalent value (the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later). With pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, the principal + earnings are taxed once at the time of withdrawal. Assuming the same flat rate of tax at contribution and withdrawal, this is equivalent to Roth IRA, where the principal is taxed at the time of contribution, because the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later, so the same rate of tax on the two have the same value of tax, even though when you look at nominal amounts, it might seem you are paying a lot less tax with Roth IRA (since the earnings are never \"\"taxed\"\"). With actual numbers, if we take a $1000 pre-tax contribution to Traditional IRA, it grows at 5% for 10 years, and a 25% flat rate tax, we are left with $1000 * 1.05^10 * 0.75 = $1221.67. With the same $1000 pre-tax contribution (so after 25% tax it's a $750 after-tax contribution) to a Roth IRA, growing at the same 5% for 10 years, and no tax at withdrawal, we are left with $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67. You can see they are equivalent even though the nominal amount of tax is different (the lower amount of tax paid now is equivalent to the bigger amount of tax later). With a taxable investment which you will not buy and sell until you take it out, you contribute with after-tax money, and when you take it out, the \"\"earnings\"\" portion is subject to capital-gains tax. But remember that the principal + earnings later is equivalent to the principal now, which is already all taxed once, and if we tax the \"\"earnings\"\" portion later, that is effectively taxing a portion of the money again. Another way to look at it is the contribution is just like the Roth IRA, but the withdrawal is worse because you have to pay capital-gains tax instead of no tax. You can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $1221.67 - $750 = $471.67 is \"\"earnings\"\" and is taxed again at, say, a 15% capital-gains rate, so you lose another $70.75 in tax and are left with $1150.92. You would need a capital-gains tax rate of 0% to match the advantage of the pre-tax Traditional IRA or Roth IRA. After-tax money in Traditional IRA has a similar problem -- the contribution is after tax, but after it grows into principal + earnings, the \"\"earnings\"\" part is taxed again, except it is worse than the capital-gains case because it is taxed as regular income. Like above, you can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $471.67 \"\"earnings\"\" is taxed again at 25%, so you lose another $117.92 in tax and are left with $1103.75. So although the nominal amount of tax paid is the same as for pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, it ends up being a lot worse. (Everything I said above about pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, after-tax money in Traditional IRA, and Roth IRA, also applies to pre-tax money in Traditional 401(k), after-tax money in Traditional 401(k), and Roth 401(k), respectively.) Regarding the question you raise in the title of your question, why someone would get contribute to a Traditional IRA if they already have a 401(k), the answer is, mostly, they wouldn't. First, note that if you merely have a 401(k) account but neither you nor your employer contributes to it during the year, then that doesn't prevent you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions for that year, so basically you can contribute to one or the other; so if you only want to contribute below the IRA contribution limit, and don't need the bigger 401(k) contribution limit, and the IRA's investment options are more attractive to you than your 401(k)'s, then it might make sense for you to contribute to only Traditional IRA. If you or your employer is already contributing to your 401(k) during the year, then you cannot deduct your Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is very low, and if your income is really that low, you are in such a low tax bracket that Roth IRA may be more advantageous for you. If you make a Traditional IRA contribution but cannot deduct it, it is a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution, i.e. it becomes after-tax money in a Traditional IRA, which as I showed in the section above has much worse tax situation in the long run because its earnings are pre-tax and thus taxed again. However, there is one good use for non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions, and that is as one step in a \"\"backdoor Roth IRA contribution\"\". Basically, there is an income limit for being able to make Roth IRA contributions, but there is no income limit for being able to make Traditional IRA contributions or for being able to convert money from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA. So what you can do is make a (non-deductible) Traditional IRA contribution, and then immediately convert it to Roth IRA, and if you did not previously have any pre-tax money in Traditional IRAs, this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution, with the same tax treatment, but you can do it at any income level.\"" }, { "docid": "159952", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have stated, CEO's often make more than 200K, and when they do, they're compensated with stock options and other lucrative bonuses and deals that allow them to build wealth above and beyond the face value of their salary. However, remember that having wealth makes it easier to build further wealth. As Victor pointed out, having wealth allows you to increase your wealth in different kinds of investments. Also, it gives you access to more human capital, e.g. wealth management services at firms like Northern Trust, a greater ability to diversify into investments like hedge funds, more abilities to invest abroad through foreign trusts, etc. Also, you have to realize that wealthier people often pay a lower percentage in taxes than people who earn a salary. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than income, so wealthy individuals who earn much of their money from long-term investments won't pay nearly as high a rate. In my case, my current salary places me at the top of the 25% tax bracket (in the US), but if I earned all of my income through long-term capital gains instead of salary, I would only pay around 15-20% in taxes. Plus, I could afford numerous tax accounting firms to help me find ways to pay fewer taxes. It's not altruism that causes CEOs like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg to take a $1 salary. This isn't directly related to CEOs, and I'm not leveling accusations of corruption against high net worth individuals, but I remember spending a few months in a small town in a country known for its corruption. The mayor had recently purchased a home worth the equivalent of several million dollars, on his annual civil servant salary of approximately $20K. One of the students asked him how he managed to afford such a sizable property, and he replied \"\"I live very frugally.\"\" This is probably a relatively rare case (I'm sure it depends on the country), but nevertheless, it illustrates another way that some people build wealth.\"" }, { "docid": "553253", "title": "", "text": "E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower." }, { "docid": "66858", "title": "", "text": "\"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \"\"Net Investment Tax\"\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\"" }, { "docid": "93205", "title": "", "text": "For some reason this can result in either the flow through income being UNTAXED or the flow through income being taxed as a capital gains. Either way this allows a lower tax rate for LLC profits. I'm not sure that correct. I know it has something to do with capital accounts. This is incorrect. As to capital accounts - these are accounts representing the members/partners' capital in the enterprise, and have nothing to do with the tax treatment of the earnings. Undistributed earnings add to the capital accounts, but they're still taxed. Also, is it true that if the LLC loses money, that loss can be offset against other taxable income resulting in a lower total taxation? It can offset taxable income of the same kind, just like any other losses on your tax return. Generally, flow-through taxation of partnerships means that the income is taxed to the partner with the original attributes. If it is capital gains - it is taxed as capital gains. If it is earned income - it is taxed as earned income. Going through LLC/partnership doesn't re-characterize the income (going through corporation - does, in many cases)." }, { "docid": "371717", "title": "", "text": "\"Document how you came to have the stuff in the first place. First to defend against potential government inquiry; and second to establish that you held the asset more than one year, so you qualify for long-term capital gains rate. I wouldn't sell it privately all at once, if you can avoid it. If you can prove you held it more than a year, you should pay the long-term capital gains tax rate, which is fairly low. You'll keep most of it. A huge windfall often goes very badly. People don't change their financial habits, burn through their winnings shockingly fast, overspend it, and wind up deep in debt. At the end of the crazy train, their lives end up worse. That wasn't your question, but you'll do better if you're on guard for that, with good planning and a desire to invest it in things which give you deferred income in the future. That's the cooler thing, when your investments mean you don't have to go to work! I don't mean donate ALL of it to charity. But feel free. If you hold a security more than one year, and donate it to charity, you get a tax deduction for the appreciated value (even though the security didn't actually cost you that). (link) Do not convert the BTC to cash then donate the cash. Donate it as BTC. Your tax deduction works against your highest tax bracket. If you are paying in a 28% tax bracket (your next $100 of income has $28 tax), then for every $100 of charitable donation, you get $28 back on Federal. It does the same to state tax, and you also avoid the 10-15% capital gains tax because you didn't sell the securities. Do your 1040 both ways and note the difference.***** Your charitable deduction of appreciated securities is capped at 30% of AGI. Any excess will carryover and becomes a tax deduction for the next year, and it can carryover for several years. ** Use a donor-advised fund. If you have are donating more than $5000, you don't need to search for a charity that will take Bitcoin, and you also don't need to pick a charity now. Instead, open a special type of giving account called a Donor-Advised Fund. The DAF, itself, is a charity. It specializes in accepting complex donations and liquidating them into cash. The cash credits to your giving account. You take the tax deduction in the year you give to the DAF. Then, when you want to give to a charity, you tell the DAF to donate on your behalf***. You can tell them to give on your behalf anonymously, or merely conceal your address so you don't get the endless charity junk mail. The DAF lets you hold the money in index funds, so your \"\"charity nest egg\"\" can grow with the market. Mine has more than doubled thanks to the market. This money is no longer yours at this point; you can't give it back to yourself, only to licensed charities. The Fidelity Donor Advised Fund makes a big thing of taking Bitcoin, and I really like them. **** I love my DAF, and it has been a charitable-giving workhorse. It turns you into a philanthropist, and that changes you life in ways I cannot describe. Certainly makes me more level-headed about money. Lottery winner syndrome is just not a risk for me (partly because I'm now on the board of charities, and oversee an endowment.) Donating generally will reduce suspicion (criminals don't do that), but donating to a DAF even moreso. Since the DAF would have to return ill-gotten gains, they're involved. Their lawyers will back you up. The prosecutor is up against a billion dollar corporation instead of just you. With Fidelity particularly, Bitcoin is a crusade for them, and their lawyers know how to defend Bitcoin. A Fidelity DAF is a good play for that reason alone IMO. ** The gory details: Presumably you are donating to regular charities or a Donor Advised Fund, and these are \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". Since it's capital gains, you have a 30% limit. If your donation is more than 30% of AGI, or if you have carryover from last year, you use Worksheet 2 in Publication 526. You plug your donations into line 4, then the worksheet grinds through all the math and shows what part you deduct this year and what part you carryover to the next year. *** I specifically asked managers at two DAFs whether they were OK with someone donating a complex asset to the DAF, and immediately giving the entire cash amount to a charity. The DAF doesn't get any fees if you do that. They said not only are they OK with it, most of their donors do exactly that and most DAF accounts are empty. They make it on the 0.6% a year custodial fee on the other accounts, and charitable giving to them. Mind you, you can only donate to 501C3 type charities, what IRS calls \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". This actually protects you from donating to organizations who lie about their status. **** I'm not with Fidelity, but I am a satisfied DAF customer. The DAF funds its overhead by deducting 0.6% per year from your giving account. If you invest the funds in a mutual fund within the DAF, that investment pays the 0.08% to 1.5% expense ratio of the fund. I can live with that. ***** I just Excel'd the value of donating $100 of appreciated security instead of taking it as capital gains income. 28% Fed tax, 15% Fed cap gains, 8% state tax on both. Take the $100 as income, pay $23 in cap gains tax. Donate $100 in securities, the $23 tax goes away since you didn't sell it. Really. The $100 charitable deduction offsets $100 in income, also saving you $36 in regular income tax. Net tax savings $59. However you lost the $100! So you are net $41 poorer. It costs you $41 to donate $100 to charity. This gets better in higher brackets.\"" }, { "docid": "101578", "title": "", "text": "First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house." }, { "docid": "118878", "title": "", "text": "\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"" }, { "docid": "554293", "title": "", "text": "\"You should contact the company and the broker about the ownership. Do you remember ever selling your position? When you look back at your tax returns/1099-B forms - can you identify the sale? It should have been reported to you, and you should have reported it to the IRS. If not - then you're probably still the owner. As to K-1 - the income reported doesn't have to be distributed to you. Partnership is a pass-through entity, and cannot \"\"accumulate\"\" earnings for tax purposes, everything is deemed distributed. If, however, it is not actually distributed - you're still taxed on the income, but it is added to your basis in the partnership and you get the tax \"\"back\"\" when you sell your position. However, you pay income tax on the income based on the kind of the income, and on the sale - at capital gains rates. So the amounts added to your position will reduce your capital gains tax, but may be taxed at ordinary rates. Get a professional advice on the issue and what to do next, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in New York.\"" }, { "docid": "123053", "title": "", "text": "How much Federal Capital Gains, NYS Income tax and local tax should I expect to pay? You're going to net about 2.4 millions of dollars. Federal long term capital gains tax is 20% (plus 3.8% medicare), NYS is 8.82%. Does it make sense to investigate the tax benefits of financing the sale for the buyer? Yes. Have your tax adviser check the options for you (financing, instalment, etc), especially if you have no other US-sourced income. Tax treaties are also something your tax adviser should be looking at. Be sure your tax adviser is properly licensed in New York as either EA, CPA or Attorney. Don't do anything without a proper tax advice." }, { "docid": "212394", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \"\"mutual fund has\"\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \"\"realized\"\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \"\"capital gains distributions\"\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \"\"capital gains distributions\"\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "123756", "title": "", "text": "PayPal pays with service tax, where ever you have exported you would have given the invoice, and the statement should be shown. I am also an exporter, I know the rules some times a CA might not be aware of PayPal. Just show your statement from PayPal and the deduction." } ]

[ { "docid": "34164", "title": "", "text": "\"Prop 13's benefit to \"\"the rich\"\" is incidental and, frankly, minimal. Check out these maps that I grabbed from a title records. I searched for data on single family homes that were purchased (ergo assessed value is based on) between 1900 and 1980. Arbitrary, but it'll do for our purposes. I'd speculate that if I were to have picked 1970 or earlier the number of homes that are assessed at far below market value is negligible relative to the tax base as a whole. Here's Coronado Island: http://imgur.com/572yTZI The peninsula in Newport Beach: http://imgur.com/dFMcrZ1 The San Francisco Bay Area: http://imgur.com/a/NMZz0 And a zoomed in area of the Bay: http://imgur.com/a/NMZz0 If a parcel is outlined in green, it's assessed based on a purchase date prior to 1980. Outlined in white means after 1980. In my eyes, the big takeaway is that the number of homes which were purchased prior to 1980 is minimal. Even in the Bay Area, where the zoomed out view suggests that there's a lot of those homes, when you zoom in and realize how densely populated the area is, not very many homes are assessed on outdated values. (For example, on the Coronado map, the number of homes purchased pre-1980 was 47. Pre-1990 was 179. The search shows a total of 2,859 single family residences in the map area.) You can argue that it's a dumb tax policy, but as social policy, I don't have an issue with it and I'd still contend it's largely negligible. It's a battle that doesn't matter. A skirmish when compared to 1031 Exchanges, basis step ups, the massive decline in personal income taxes for the upper brackets, etc. Our tax policy as a whole is skewed and becoming more regressive (or, to the GOP, fair) all the time. Not entirely unrelated, but I did some research and played with some numbers about income taxes because it's something that interests me. Using this link: https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/ you can see that $10,000 income in 1950 (which is about $100,000 in 2016 dollars) was taxed (I'm using married filing separately throughout): 20% on the first $2,000 22% from $2,000 to $4,000 26% from $4,000 to $6,000 30% from $6,000 to $8,000 34% from $8,000 to $10,000 The highest marginal tax rate was 91%, which applied to all income over $200,000 (just over $2,000,000 in 2016 dollars). Median household income in 1950 was $3,216. So the median american paid a maximum marginal tax of $22%. If you do the math, our median household pays 20.8% of its income in taxes versus 26.4% for the $10,000 income household. Fast forward to 1970, where our $10,000 CPI adjusts to $15,975 and median household income is now $6,186: 14% on first $500 15% from $500 to $1,000 16% from $1,000 to $1,500 17% from $1,500 to $2,000 19% from $2,000 to $4,000 22% from $4,000 to $6,000 25% from $6,000 to $8,000 The highest marginal tax rate has dropped 23% to 70% from 91% and our median American is paying a maximum marginal tax rate of 25%. Skip forward to 2010, where our $10,000 CPI adjusts to $91,504 and median household income is now $49,445. 10% on the first $8,375 15% from $8,375 to $34,000 24% from $34,000 to $82,400 28% from $82,400 to $171,850 33% from $171,850 to $373,650 35% above that The highest marginal tax rate has dropped another 50% from 70% to 35% and a total of 62% from the 1950 rate. Of course, this is all skewed because the more income you make the better able you are to shelter income from taxes. A family making median income is unlikely to be able to take significant advantage of tax shelters.\"" }, { "docid": "291614", "title": "", "text": "how much taxes would I pay on my income from the rent they would pay me? The same as on any other income. California doesn't have any special taxes for rental/passive income. Bothe CA and the Federal tax laws do have special treatment, but it is for losses from rental. Income is considered unearned regular income and is taxed at regular brackets. Would I be able to deduct the cost of the mortgage from the rental income? The cost of mortgage, yes. I.e.: the interest you pay. Similarly you can deduct any other expense needed to maintain the property. This is assuming you're renting it out at FMV. If not, would I pay the ordinary income tax on that income? In particular, would I pay CA income tax on it, even though the property would be in WA? Yes. Don't know how WA taxes rental income, but since you are a California tax resident - you will definitely be taxed by California on this, as part of your worldwide income." }, { "docid": "594252", "title": "", "text": "\"I haven't seen anything specifically about how PayPal operates, but my guess is that they maintain relationships with banks in many countries via affiliates, and they settle the money transfers internally within the PayPal system. You basically have two types of bank transfers (there are others as well that I'm not getting into): I think PayPal is a hybrid -- they send and receive money using drafts to keep costs down, and manage the international stuff by operating a proprietary network. So if you send money from Indonesia to the US, you pay \"\"PayPal Indonesia\"\", who then tells \"\"PayPal USA\"\" to issue funds to your recipient. So they are cheaper than a wire, faster than a check, but limited in terms of transaction size and some other factors.\"" }, { "docid": "413791", "title": "", "text": "\"In theory, the trust admin (the trustee/custodian) should have filed the 1041 each year. The trust should have either (a) paid tax on any gains or (b) distributed the gains to her along with a nice Schedule K-1, showing that she had income from the trust and was responsible for the tax on that income. In effect, the trust took that distribution to her as a deduction against its own income, thus negating the need to pay tax at the trust rate. Yes, if under $600, it could retain the income and still pay no tax. Now, when she gets this money, and it seems it's all being distributed by your choice of \"\"the money\"\" not \"\"some money\"\", it's not taxable, or at least shouldn't be. The corpus of a trust is already post tax money (unless of course, it's somehow pretax IRA or 401(k) money), which is not so common.\"" }, { "docid": "233877", "title": "", "text": "Yes, PayPal allows you to add a donate button to your website. You're responsible for any tax record-keeping related to income from the donate button." }, { "docid": "252843", "title": "", "text": "FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do." }, { "docid": "440019", "title": "", "text": "Chances are high your friend isn't in it for the money, but the community or some vague dream of having a future income-generating side business because he can't get a loan for a 7-11 franchise. I run a few successful online businesses and had an import/export so naturally I run into these guys looking for advice on selling their MLM wares easier. I always point out they can make a lot of money cutting out the middle man MLM distributor and buy the same products from eBay or the same local supplier the MLM uses for a fraction of costs...then collect all the profit sans kickbacks to their host MLM goon/sponsor/father. I've never had anyone that bailed on the MLM, but I could see their eyes gloss over after they realized their own middle man is holding them back from making a lot of money (assuming they could offload that stuff). People actually in it for the money tend to bail (better sales job exist, MLM dreams don't pay rent, etc.) so you'll probably just need to isolate your friend from these losers somehow. You could investigate his sponsor and find out how much money he's actually making....if he tells your friend he's rich, but you find out he lives in the slums with his mom, your friend might bail on friendship/association with the group out of sheer disgust. It's the friends, not the logic you need to attack. His MLM friends would consider it a betrayal if he left them so you need to show him it's the MLM group that's betrayed his friendship. Point out all the long-term members driving junky cars to events who brag about their $$$. Laugh at the piss poor finance credentials of the local group leaders....ask where the investor perks are and suggest the sponsor/leaders are just hording them. Point out that he's a success and the fellow team members are just milking him to prop up their failing investments/sales/recruitment numbers. Nobody wants to let a team down....but the team isn't good enough for him. Deep down he knows the logic is questionable or at least risky/improbable, but his faith in the good intentions of his MLM cohorts is high.....crush that faith and all he's left with is bad finance tips or cheap protein shakes." }, { "docid": "189887", "title": "", "text": "\"You're a partnership. You should ask the money to be paid to the partnership. You'll have to fill partnership income tax return (form 1065) and each of you will get a K-1 schedule with your own personal portion of the income. For example, you're Adam, Ben and Clara. You work together on a project and are being paid. You get a check for $300 issued to \"\"Adam, Ben and Clara, DBA ABC Partnership\"\". You don't have to have a DBA, it just makes it easier to show you as a single entity. You then deposit the check to an account you set up for your partnership, and from that account you transfer $100 to each of you. Year end, you file form 1065, showing $300 income, and attach K-1 for each of the partners showing $100 income. That $100 income will flow to your individual tax returns. The overhead here is setting up a partnership account, potentially making a DBA, and filing the extra tax return. That's the proper way to do it, especially if it is something you're going to do regularly. For a one-time thing, one of you can get paid, report it as income on his/her Schedule C, and issue 1099 to the rest of you for your parts, and deduct the amount as his/her expense. Here, the overhead is Schedule C for each of you (instead of Schedule E if handling it as a partnership), extra 1099 forms (instead of 1065 and K-1s), and a risk of one partner defrauding the others (depends on how much you trust each other). With proper documentation, each of these is equally legal, and tax-wise the costs are the same (i.e.: either way you pay the same taxes). With partnership the overhead is a bit more expensive (DBA+1065 extra cost), but in the long term it will make your life easier if you do this kind of thing regularly. You may want to consider setting up your partnership as a LLC/LLP (depending on what your State allows), but that would require State paperwork and potentially more fees.\"" }, { "docid": "592780", "title": "", "text": "How realistic is it that I will be able to get a home within the 250,000 range in the next year or so? Very unlikely in the next year. The debt/income ratio isn't good enough, and your credit score needs to show at least a year of regular payments without late or default issues before you can start asking for mortgages in this range. You don't mention how long you've been employed at these incomes, this can also count against you if you haven't both been employed for a full year at these incomes. They will look even more unfavorably on the employment situation if they aren't both full time jobs, although if you have a full year's worth of paychecks showing the income is regular then that might mitigate the full time/part time issue. next year or so? If you pay down your high interest debt (car, credit cards), and maintain employment (keep your check stubs and tax returns, the loan officer will want copies), then there's a slight chance. And, from this quick snap shot of our finances, does it look like we would be able to qualify for a USDA loan? Probably not. Mostly for the same reasons - the only time a USDA loan helps is when you would be able to get a regular loan if you had the down payment. Even with an available down payment of 50k, you wouldn't be able to get a regular loan, therefore it's unlikely that you'd qualify for a USDA loan. If you are anxious to get into a house, choose something much smaller, in the 100k-150k range. It would improve your debt/loan ratio enough that you might then qualify for a USDA loan. However, I think you'd still have issues if you haven't both been employed at this rate of income for at least a year, and have made regular payments on all your debts for at least a year. I'll echo what others have suggested, though, strengthen your credit, eliminate as much of your high interest debt as you can (car, credit cards), and keep your jobs for a year or two. Start a savings plan so you can contribute a small down payment - at least 3-5% of the desired home price - when you are in a better position to buy. During this time keep track of your paycheck stubs, you may need them to prove income over the time period your loan officer will request. Note that even with a USDA loan you still have to pay closing costs, and those can run several thousand dollars, so don't expect to be able to come to the table with no cash. Lastly, there's good reason to be very conservative regarding house cost and size. If you can, consider buying the house as if you only had the 46k per year. Move the debt to the person making the lower income, and if you buy the house in the name of the person only making 46k per year, then the debt/loan ratio looks very positive. Further it may be that the credit history of that person is better, and the employment history is better. If one of you has better history in these ways, then you might have a better chance if only one of you buys the house. Banks can't tell you about this, but it does work. Keep in mind, though, that if you two part ways it could be very unhappy since one would be left with all the debt and the house would be in the other's name. Not a great situation to be in, so make sure that you both carefully consider the risks associated with the decisions made." }, { "docid": "267789", "title": "", "text": "\"That article is over a year old and at the tail end of the largest recession in 50 years. It is based on Census data, but since they don't say which data it is not clear where they got their information. Do you have anything from this past moth or so? Looking at the Census website, [here is the Census page with data](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/), and if you open the top link titled \"\"Table H-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent •All Races [XLS - 45k]\"\" you'll see that there is a slight blip in income level but as of 2010 almost every quintile is wthin $1000/yr of an all time high. Feel free to browse and analyze their datasets, but it does not look bad. So let's find more recent data: BLS tracks such items, such as the [National Compensation Survey](http://www.bls.gov/ncs/tables.htm) , the [Labor Force Statistics](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswktabs.htm) and the [CUrrent Population Survey](http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#weekearn), among others. I am too tired to dig through this. I already posted the Census data, and it is old and shows signs on increase, and plenty from BLS that I have dug up in other posts shows that real income most definitley has not declined for *decades*. At worst people have incomes similar to 2005, and it seems most quintiles are back to an all time high for real compensation.\"" }, { "docid": "435405", "title": "", "text": "\"(Insert the usual disclaimer that I'm not any sort of tax professional; I'm just a random guy on the Internet who occasionally looks through IRS instructions for fun. Then again, what you're doing here is asking random people on the Internet for help, so here goes.) The gigantic book of \"\"How to File Your Income Taxes\"\" from the IRS is called Publication 17. That's generally where I start to figure out where to report what. The section on Royalties has this to say: Royalties from copyrights, patents, and oil, gas, and mineral properties are taxable as ordinary income. In most cases, you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you hold an operating oil, gas, or mineral interest or are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040). It sounds like you are receiving royalties from a copyright, and not as a self-employed writer. That means that you would report the income on Schedule E, Part I. I've not used Schedule E before, but looking at the instructions for it, you enter this as \"\"Royalty Property\"\". For royalty property, enter code “6” on line 1b and leave lines 1a and 2 blank for that property. So, in Line 1b, part A, enter code 6. (It looks like you'll only use section A here as you only have one royalty property.) Then in column A, Line 4, enter the royalties you have received. The instructions confirm that this should be the amount that you received listed on the 1099-MISC. Report on line 4 royalties from oil, gas, or mineral properties (not including operating interests); copyrights; and patents. Use a separate column (A, B, or C) for each royalty property. If you received $10 or more in royalties during 2016, the payer should send you a Form 1099-MISC or similar statement by January 31, 2017, showing the amount you received. Report this amount on line 4. I don't think that there's any relevant Expenses deductions you could take on the subsequent lines (though like I said, I've not used this form before), but if you had some specific expenses involved in producing this income it might be worth looking into further. On Line 21 you'd subtract the 0 expenses (or subtract any expenses you do manage to list) and put the total. It looks like there are more totals to accumulate on lines 23 and 24, which presumably would be equally easy as you only have the one property. Put the total again on line 26, which says to enter it on the main Form 1040 on line 17 and it thus gets included in your income.\"" }, { "docid": "365456", "title": "", "text": "There are quite a few questions as to how you are recording your income and expenses. If you are running the bakery as a Sole Proprietor, with all the income and expense in a business account; then things are easy. You just have to pay tax on the profit [as per the standard tax bracket]. If you running it as individual, you are still only liable to pay tax on profit and not turnover, however you need to keep a proper book of accounts showing income and expense. Get a Accountant to do this for you there are some thing your can claim as expense, some you can't." }, { "docid": "176054", "title": "", "text": "Firstly if your Partnership makes less than $20,000 in revenue (before expenses are applied), then you cannot claim any net losses from the Partnership against your other income. However, you still need to include the Partnership details in your Tax Return showing your portion on the net loss, and you will also be required to submit a separate Tax Return for the Partnership showing the net losses. Any net losses from the Partnership will be carried forward to future tax years and can be used as a deduction against your Partnership Income when and if it does start to make a profit." }, { "docid": "457276", "title": "", "text": "\"Your math is correct. If you take the same amount of pre-tax wages (assuming that that amount can be fully contributed in both Traditional and Roth cases), and assuming the same flat tax rate when contributing and withdrawing, then the two are the same. However, we don't have a flat tax, and due to the way our tax brackets work, there is often a slight advantage to Traditional accounts. Recall that not every dollar of your income is taxed at the same rate; the tax bracket only describes the rate that the last dollar of your income is taxed at. But some of your income will be taxed at lower brackets. No matter what your income is, your first $x of income will be taxed at 10%, then $y at 15%, etc. So what is the tax rate of the dollars of income that you used to contribute to a retirement account? Is it the first dollars of income? The last dollars of income? or what? Since we are comparing an after-tax contribution (Roth) versus a pre-tax contribution (Traditional) whose income doesn't show up in taxable income, and all other income is equal, the dollars contributed is considered to come from the top in the Roth case. Similarly, when you withdraw in the Traditional case, the withdrawal counts as income; is it the first dollar of income or the last dollar of income? Again, since we are comparing the situation where the withdrawal counts as income (Traditional) with the one where it doesn't (Roth), all other income being equal, the taxable income is considered to be added to the top. The difference is that when you contribute to a retirement account, you contribute a very small percentage of your income every year, probably no more than 5-10%. If we count down from the top, this small percentage of your income probably falls wholly within a bracket (in other words, the taxable income in Traditional and Roth cases are likely in the same bracket), so the entire contribution is at the same rate -- your marginal rate, the rate you cite as your tax bracket. However, when you withdraw in retirement, it is likely that every year, the retirement account withdrawals account for a large percentage of your income, maybe even half or more. If we count down from the top, this large percentage of your income probably crosses into lower brackets (in other words, the taxable income in Traditional and Roth cases are likely to be in different brackets), so the withdrawal is partly taxed at one rate, partly taxed at another. So if your tax bracket is 15% in the Traditional case, it's likely that your withdrawal is taxed partly at 15% and partly at 10%. So in this case, the average tax rate on the withdrawal is lower than your \"\"bracket\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "19229", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.nber.org/papers/w18586) reduced by 67%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; NBER Working Paper No. 18586Issued in December 2012NBER Program(s): ED LS PE. We show that the vast majority of very high-achieving students who are low-income do not apply to any selective college or university. &gt; We separate the low-income, high-achieving students into those whose application behavior is similar to that of their high-income counterparts and those whose apply to no selective institutions. &gt; In contrast to the achievement-typical students, the income-typical students come from districts too small to support selective public high schools, are not in a critical mass of fellow high achievers, and are unlikely to encounter a teacher or schoolmate from an older cohort who attended a selective college. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ocl9d/the_missing_oneoffs_the_hidden_supply_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~170965 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **students**^#1 **college**^#2 **selective**^#3 **apply**^#4 **low-income**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "44256", "title": "", "text": "Yes, Paypal has such a button you can use, but to be clear, the money you receive is taxable income. Your website is providing 'value' to the readers, and while they may feel they are making a gift to you, it's earned income as far as the IRS is concerned. (This assumes you are in the US, you may wish to add a tag to indicate your country)" }, { "docid": "109754", "title": "", "text": "Expensing a transfer of funds is incorrect. That will affect the Profit/Loss (Income) statement when you transfer it out and back in, which you do not want, at least for the principle. The interest should be recorded as a interest income. The general way to account for transferring money is to credit the originating account, and debit the destination account. This will only affect the balance sheet accounts. For example: Transferring (buying) 10,000 worth of fix term bank deposits Interest is paid: The bank deposit reaches maturity, so the principle is returned, with the final interest payment. The accounts Checking account and Fixed term bank deposit are asset accounts, which show up on the balance sheet. The Interest income is an income account, which will show up in the income statement. This is how a fixed term/CD is usually recorded. In certain cases, where the business must follow an accounting standard, this may very well be insufficient, but this situation will be unlikely if it's a small private sports club. Having said that, double check to make sure what you've stated is indeed correct, and look back into the past entries to see how it was dealt with before, especially since you said this bookkeeping job is temporary. I would strongly advise against changing non-recent entries, even if they are incorrect. For the insurance payments, that would depend on how the damaged assets were accounted for. It's a little hard to say without more detail-- the extent of the damage, how the diminished value was accounted for in the books, the cost of repair materials, etc." }, { "docid": "256669", "title": "", "text": "\"A budget that you both agree on is a great goal. X% to charity, y% to savings, $z a month to a reserve for house repairs, and so on. Your SO is likely to agree with this, especially if you say it like this: I know you're concerned that I might want to give too much to charity. Why don't we go through the numbers and work out a cap on what I can give away each year? Like, x% of our gross income or y% of our disposable income? Work out x and y in advance so you say real percentages in this \"\"meeting request\"\", but be prepared to actually end up at a different x and y later. Perhaps even suggest an x and y that are a little lower than you would really wish for. If your SO thinks you earn half what you really do, then mental math if you say 5% will lead to half what you want to donate, but don't worry about that at the moment. That could even work in your favour if you've already said you want to give $5000 (or $50,000) a year and mental math with the percentage leads your SO to $2500 (or $25,000), (s)he might think \"\"yes, if we have this meeting I can rein in that crazy generosity.\"\" Make sure your budget is complete. You don't want your SO worrying that if the furnace wears out or the roof needs to be replaced, the money won't be there because you gave it away. Show how these contingencies, and your retirement, will all be taken care of. Show how much you are setting aside to spend on vacations, and so on. That will make it clear that there is room to give to those who are not as fortunate as you. If your SO's motivations are only worry that there won't be money when it's needed, you will not only get permission to donate, you'll get a happier SO. (For those who don't know how this can happen, I knew a woman just like this. The only income she believed they had was her husband's pension. He had several overseas companies and significant royalty income, but she never accounted for that when talking of what they could afford. Her mental image of their income was perhaps a quarter of what it really was, leading to more than one fight about whether they could take a trip, or give a gift, that she thought was too extravagant. For her own happiness I wish he had gone through the budget with her in detail.)\"" }, { "docid": "371094", "title": "", "text": "This is a common occurrence, I know people who moved and then only remember the next spring during tax season that they never filed a new state version of a W-4. Which means for 3 or 4 months in the new year money is sent to the wrong state capital, and way too much was sent the previous year. In the spring of 2016 you should have filed a non-resident tax form with Michigan. On that form you would specify your total income numbers, your Michigan income numbers, and your other-state income numbers; with Michigan + other equal to total. That should have resulted in getting all the state taxes that were sent to Michigan returned. It is possible that the online software is unable to complete the non-resident tax form. Not all forms and situations can be addressed by the software. So you may need to fill out paper forms. You should be able to find what you need on the state of Michigan website for 2015 Taxes. A quick read shows that you will probably need the Michigan 1040, schedule 1 and Schedule NR You may run into an issue if your license, car registration, voter registration, and other documentation point to you being a resident for the part of the year you earned that income. That means you will have to submit Form 3799 Statement to Determine State of Domicile You want to do this soon because there are deadlines that limit how far back you can files taxes. The state may also get tax information from the IRS and could decide that all your income from 2015 should have applied to them, so they will be sending you a tax bill plus penalties for failure to file." } ]

[ { "docid": "87113", "title": "", "text": "It's the same result either way. Say the bills are $600, and you are reimbursed $400. You'd be able to write off $400 as part of the utilities that are common expenses, but then claim the $400 as income. I'd stick with that, and have contemporaneous records supporting all cash flow. You also can take 2/3 of any other maintenance costs that most homeowners can't. Like snow removal, lawn care, etc." } ]

[ { "docid": "544381", "title": "", "text": "\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \"\"claimable\"\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\"" }, { "docid": "371133", "title": "", "text": "\"The title is misleading (shocker, right?). The exact wording in the cited study is \"\"in order to afford a modest two-bedroom rental home at the Fair Market Rent without spending more than 30% income on rent\"\". HUD says: &gt; The Fair Market Rent is HUD’s best estimate of what a household seeking a modest rental home in a short amount of time can expect to pay for rent and utilities in the current market. So that's not the minimum available 2BR unit available. It's more like 50th percentile rent per zip code. Check rent.com for 2BR prices in Tennessee and Arkansas. They start in the lower $500s. Also worth noting that if you work 40hr/week all year at minimum wage and claim 1 dependent then you don't owe a dime of Federal income tax.\"" }, { "docid": "536849", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"" }, { "docid": "353369", "title": "", "text": "Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc." }, { "docid": "325564", "title": "", "text": "\"Real estate ownership doesn't work the same way in China as it does in the West. Some significant difference I see: * China doesn't have property tax, so empty apartments are treated as assets by individuals, no tax liability. * A lot of people buy 2nd/3rd home and not rent them out. Their purpose feels more like buying preferred stock - ownership with expectation of neighborhood (~company) would prosper, but no direct contribution to the neighborhood (~no voting in the company) * Local governments raise funds by developing landing into real estate. * Local government would collectivize old real estate for redevelopment, usually at some reasonable rate (tho less equitable in some \"\"corrupt\"\" areas) * Ownership is not permanent. It is on paper 50-70 years depending on the place. Not saying there aren't problems with this system, just that signals that would cause US real estate to collapse might not do the same for China. I do want to see someone run some social behavioral model about how those differences would play out. Source: my family owns 2 apartments in a 2nd-tier Chinese city.\"" }, { "docid": "34308", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, you can't just pick a favorable number and rent for that amount. If you want to rent out your house, you must rent it for a value that a renter would agree to. For example there is a house on my street that has been looking for renters for 3 years. They want $2,500 a month. This covers their mortgage, and a little bit more for taxes and repairs. It has never been rented once. Other homes in my neighborhood rent for around $1,000 a month. There is no value to a renter in renting a house that is $1,500 more then a similar house 2 doors down. Now what you can look at is cost mitigation. So I am using data from my area. Houses in my part of Florida must have A/C running in the wet months to keep the moisture from ruining the house. This can easily be $100 a month (usually more). The city requires you to have water service, even when not occupied, though the cost is very small. Same with waste, which is a flat fee: $20 a month. Yard watering is a must during the dry months (if you want to keep grass). Let's say that comes out to $50 a month, year round. Pest control is a must, especially if your house has wooden parts (like floors or a roof). Even modest pest control is $25 a month. Property taxes around $240 a month. Let's say your mortgage is around $1,000 a month. That means to sit empty your house would cost $1,435. Now if you were to rent the house, a lot of those costs could \"\"go away\"\" by becoming the tenants' responsibility. Your cost of the house sitting full would be $1,240. Let's pad that with 10% for repairs and go with $1,364. Now let's assume you can rent for $1,000 a month. Keep in mind all these rates are about right for my area but will change based on size and amenities. Your choices are let the house sit empty for $1,435 a month or fill it and only \"\"lose\"\" $240 a month. Keep in mind that in both cases you will be gaining equity. So what a lot of people do around here is rent out their houses and pay the $240 as an investment. For every $240 they pay, they get $1,000 in equity (well, interest and fees aside, but you get the point). It's not a money maker for them right now, but as they get older two things happen. That $240 a month \"\"payment\"\" pays off their mortgage, so they end up owning the house outright. Then that $240 a month payment turns to extra income. And at some point, their rental can be sold for (let's guess) $400,000. SO they paid $86,400 and got back $400,000. All the while they are building equity in their rental and in the home they are living in. The important take away from this, is that it's not a source of income for the landlord as much as it is an investment. You will likely not be able to rent a house for more then a mortgage + costs + taxes, but it does make a good investment vehicle.\"" }, { "docid": "317945", "title": "", "text": "\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\"" }, { "docid": "372884", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to get the current tax software, the 2013 filing software is out already, even though it needs to update itself before filing, as the final forms aren't ready yet. Then you will look carefully at Schedule E to understand what gets written off. I see you are looking at the $2200 rent vs your own rent of $2100, but of course, the tax form doesn't care about your rent. You offset the expenses of that house against the income. The expenses are the usual suspects, mortgage interest, property tax, repairs, etc. But there's one big thing new landlords are prone to forgetting. Depreciation. It's not optional. Say the house cost you $400K. This is your basis. You need to separate the value of land which is not depreciated. For a condo with no land it can be as little as 10%, when we bought our house, for insurance purposes, the land was nearly 40% of the full value. Say you do the research and decide 30% (for land), then 70% = $280K. Depreciation is taken each year over a 27.5 year period, or just over $10,000 per year. (Note, the forms will help you get your year 1 number, as you didn't have a full year.) This depreciation helps with your cash flow during the year (as you should do the math, and if you keep the house, adjust your W4 withholdings for 2014, that lump sum you'll get in April won't pay the bills each month) but is 'recaptured' on sale. At some point in the future, you may save enough to buy a house where you wish to live, but need to sell the rental. Consider a 1031 Exchange. It's a way to sell a rental and buy a new one without triggering a taxable event. What I don't know is how long the new house must be a rental before the IRS would then allow you to move in. The same way you turned your home into a rental, a rental can be turned back to a primary residence. I just doubt you can do it right after the purchase. As fellow member @littleadv would advise, \"\"get professional advice.\"\" And he's right. I've just offered what you might consider. The first year tax return with that Schedule E is the toughest as it's brand new. The next year is simple in comparison. The question of selling immediately is tough. Only you can decide whether the risk of keeping it is too great. You're saying you don't have the money to cover two month's vacancy. That scares me. I'd focus on beefing up the emergency account. And securing a credit line. You mentioned the tax savings. My opinion is that for any investment,the tax tail should never wag the investing dog. Buy or sell a stock based on the stock, not the potential tax bill for the sale. In your situation, the rent and expenses will cancel each other, and the depreciation is a short term loan, from a tax perspective. If you sold today, what do you net? If you analyzed the numbers now, what is your true income from the property each year? Is that return worth it? A good property will provide cash flow, principal reduction each year, and normal increase in value. This takes a bit of careful looking at the numbers. You might feel you're just breaking even, but if the principal is $12K less after a year, that's something you shouldn't ignore. On the other hand, an exact 'break-even' with little equity at stake offered you a leveraged property where any gains are a magnified percentage of what you have at risk. Last - welcome to Money.SE - consider adding some more details to your profile.\"" }, { "docid": "160464", "title": "", "text": "\"You have a large number of possible choices to make, and a lot of it does depend upon what interests you when you are older. The first thing to note is the difference between ISAs and pension-contribution schemes tax wise, which is of course the taxation point. When you contribute to your pensions scheme, it is done before taxation, which is why when you draw from your pension scheme you have to pay income tax. Conversely, your ISA is something you contribute to after you have already paid income tax - so besides the 10% tax on dividends if you hold any assets which may them, it is tax free when you draw on it regardless of how much you have accrued over the years. Now, when it comes to the question \"\"what is the best way to save\"\", the answer is almost certainly going to be filling your pension to the point where you're going to retire just on the edge of the limit, and then putting the rest into ISAs. This way you will not be paying the higher rates of tax associated with breaking the lifetime limit, but also get maximum contributions into your various schemes. There is an exception to this of course, which is the return on investment. If you do not have access to a SIPP (Self Invested Personal Pension), you may be able to receive a far higher return on investment when using a Stocks & Shares ISA, in which case the fact that you have to pay taxes prior to funding it may not make a significant difference. The other issue you have, as others have mentioned is rent. While now you may be enjoying London, it is in my opinion quite likely that will change when you get older, London has a very high-cost of living, even compared to the home counties, and many of its benefits are not relevant to someone who is retired. When you retire, it is quite possible that you will see it fit to take a large sum out of your various savings, and purchase a house, which means that regardless of how much you are drawing out you will be able to have somewhere to live. Renting is fine when you are working, but when you have a certain amount of (admittedly growing) funds that have to last you indefinitely, who knows if it will last you.\"" }, { "docid": "260075", "title": "", "text": "Take some of the commentary on home buying forums with a grain of salt. I too have read some of the commentary on these forums such as myFICO, Trulia, or Zillow and rarely is the right advice given or proper followup done. Typical 401k withdrawals for home purchase would not be considered a hardship. However, most employer 401k plans will allow you to take a loan for 401k as long as you provide suitable documentation: HUD-1 statement, Real Estate Contract, Good Faith Estimate, or some other form of suitable documentation as described by the plan administrator. For instance, I just took a 401k loan to pay for closing costs and I had to provide only the real estate contract. Could I not follow through with the contract? Sure, but what if I am found out for fraud? Then the plan administrator would probably end up turning the distribution into a taxable distribution. I wouldn't go to jail in this hypothetical situation - I am only stealing from myself. But the law states that certain loan situations are not liable for tax as long as that situation still exists. In the home loan situation, my employer allows for a low interest, 10 year loan. My employer also allows for a pre-approved loan for any purpose. This would be a low interest, 5 year loan. There is also the option to not do a loan at all. But normally that is only allowed after you have exhausted all your loan options and the government makes it intentionally harsh (30% penalty at least) to discourage people from dumping their tax free haven 401k accounts. That all being said, many plans offer no prepayment penalty. So like my employer has for us, I can pay it all back in full whenever I want or make micropayments every month. Otherwise, it comes out of my pay stub biweekly. So if it were to fall through, I could just put it all back like it never happened. Though with my plan, there is a cooling off period of 7 days before I can take another loan. Keep in mind that if you leave your employer then the full amount becomes a taxable distribution unless you pay it back within a certain period of time after leaving the employer. Whether this fits your financial situation is up to you, but a loan is definitely preferred over a partial or full withdrawal since you are paying yourself back for your rightly earned retirement which is just as important." }, { "docid": "324386", "title": "", "text": "\"Living in one unit of a multi-family while renting out the others, although not without its risks, can be a viable (if gradual) way to build wealth. It's been rebranded recently as \"\"house hacking\"\", but the underlying mechanics have been around for many years (many cities in the Northeast in particular remain chock full of neighborhoods of 3-family homes built and used for exactly that purpose for decades, though now frequently sub-divided into condos). It's true you'd need to borrow money, but there are a number of reasons why it's certainly at least worth exploring (which is what you seem to be asking -- should you bother doing the homework -- tl;dr: yes): And yes, you would be relying on tenants to meet your monthly expenses, including a mortgage bill that will arrive whether the other units are vacant or not. But in most markets, rental prices are far less volatile than home prices (from the San Francisco Federal Reserve): The main result from this decomposition is that the behavior of the price-rent ratio for housing mirrors that of the price-dividend ratio for stocks. The majority of the movement of the price-rent ratio comes from future returns, not rental growth rates. (Emphasis added) It's also important to remember that rental income must do more than just cover your mortgage -- there's lots of other expenses associated with a rental property, including insurance, taxes, maintenance, vacancy (an allowance for the periods when the property will be empty in between tenants), reserves for capital improvements, and more. As with any investment, it's all about whether the numbers work. (You mentioned not being interested in the \"\"upkeep work\"\", so that's another 8-10% off the top to pay for a property manager.) If you can find a property at an attractive price, secure financing on attractive terms, and can be reasonably confident that it will rent in the ballpark of 1.5-2% of the purchase price, then it might be a fine choice for you, assuming you are willing and able to handle the work of being a landlord -- something worth at least as much of your research time as the investment itself. It sounds like you're still a ways away from having enough for even an FHA down payment, which gives you a great opportunity to find and talk with some local folks who already manage rental properties in your area (for example, you might look for a local chapter of the national Real Estate Investment Association), to get a sense of what's really involved.\"" }, { "docid": "451849", "title": "", "text": "\"The general answer is: \"\"it depends on how long you want to live there\"\". Here is a good calculator to figure it out: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html Basically, if you plan to move in a few years, then renting makes more sense. It is a lot easier to move from an apartment when your lease is up versus selling a house, which can be subject to fluctuations in the real-estate market. As an example, during the real estate bubble, a lot of \"\"young professional\"\" types bought condos and town homes instead of renting. Now these people are married with kids, need to move somewhere bigger, but they can't get rid of their old place because they can't sell it for what they still owe. If these people had rented for a few years, they would be in a better position financially. (Many people fell for the mantra \"\"If you are renting, you are throwing your money away\"\", without looking at the long-term implications.) However, your question is a little unique, because you mentioned renting for the rest of your life, and putting the savings into an investment, which is a cool idea. (Thinking outside the box, I like it.) I'm going to assume you mean \"\"rent the same place for many years\"\" versus \"\"moving around the country every few years\"\". If you are staying in one place for a long time, I am going to say that buying a house is probably a better option. Here's why: So what about investing? Let's look at some numbers: So, based on the above, I say that buying a house is the way to go (as long as you plan to live in the same place for several years). However, if you could find a better investment than the Dow, or if mortgage interest rates change drastically, things could tip in another direction. Addendum: CrimsonX brought up a good point about the costs of owning a house (upkeep and property taxes), which I didn't mention above. However, I don't think they change my answer. If you rent, you are still paying those costs. They are just hidden from you. Your landlord pays the contractor or the tax man, and then you pay the landlord as part of your rent.\"" }, { "docid": "111048", "title": "", "text": "The car has value, but it is still a depreciating asset. You're paying far more to rent a space to park the car than you are to own and drive it if you look beyond the initial term of your loan. You could buy a space to keep the car, but at $225,000 for a permanent spot, renting is a much better deal. Would you travel home as frequently if you didn't have the fixed cost of a parking space rental giving you incentive to make the most of the car since you're paying for it either way? My additional question is whether the freedom to travel home on a whim is worth more than the financial freedom you would gain by investing the money for the long term. I don't think it's irresponsible if the short term freedom contributes significantly to your sense of well-being, but even if it isn't entirely sunk cost, the majority of it is. The only way you can really know whether it's worth it to you would be to park the car at home for a month or two to see if you can live without it. Fortunately you don't lose much money in this experiment, since you're only paying 1.9% interest." }, { "docid": "540539", "title": "", "text": "\"Sure, it's irresponsible for an executor to take actions which endanger the estate. But what about passivity or inaction? Put it another way. Is it the obligation of the executor to avoid making revenue for the estate? Think about it - what a silly idea! Consider a 12-unit apartment building full of rent paying tenants. A tenant gives notice and leaves. So do 4 more. With only 7/12 tenants, the building stops being a revenue center and becomes a massive money pit. Is that acceptable? Heck no! Realistically this will be managed by a property management company, and of course they'll seek new tenants, not stopping merely because the owner died. This situation is not different; the same fiscal logic applies. The counter-argument is usually along the lines of \"\"stuff might happen if you rent it out\"\"... true. But the stuff that happens to abandoned houses is much worse, and much more likely: squatters, teen \"\"urban explorers\"\", pot growers, copper thieves, winter pipe freeze flooding and wrecking interiors, etc. Don't take my word on it -- ask your insurer for the cost of insuring an abandoned house vs. a rented one. Renting brings a chunk of cash that comes in from tenants - $12,000/year on a $1000/mo. rental. And that will barely pay the bills if you have a young mortgage on a freshly purchased house at recent market rates. But on an old mortgage, renting is like printing money. That money propagates first to the estate (presumably it is holding back a \"\"fix the roof\"\" emergency fund), and then to the beneficiaries. It means getting annual checks from the estate, instead of constantly being dunned for another repair. But I don't care about making revenue (outside of putting back a kitty to replace the roof). Even if it was net zero, it means the maintenance is being done. This being the point. It is keeping the house in good repair, occupied, insured, and professionally managed -- fit and ready for the bequest's purpose: occupancy of an aunt. What's the alternative? Move an aunt into a house that's been 10 years abandoned? Realistically the heirs are going to get tired/bored of maintaining the place at a total cash loss, maintenance will slip, and you'll be moving them into a neglected house with some serious issues. That betrays the bequest, and it's not fair to the aunts. Rental is a very responsible thing to do. The executor shouldn't fail to do it merely out of passivity. If you decide not to do it, there needs to be a viable alternative to funding the home's decent upkeep. (I don't think there is one). Excluding a revenue-producing asset from the economy is an expensive thing to do.\"" }, { "docid": "187590", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question isn't great, but I will attempt to answer this piece as it seems really the root of your personal finance question: I want to convince my wife to make this move because it will save us at least 800 month, but she fails to see how buying a second home is financially sound because we have to lose our savings and we have to pay interest on our second home. And... Her logic is it will take almost 5 years to get back our down payment and we have to pay interest as well. So how can this move help our family financially in the long run? ... Is she right? She is mostly wrong. First, consider that there is no \"\"ROI\"\" really on your down payment. Assuming you are paying what your home would sell for the next day, then your \"\"RIO\"\" is already yours (minus realtor fees). She is talking about cash on hand, not ROI. I will use an example without taking into account risk of home markets going down or other risks to ownership. Example: Let's say you pay $2800 a month in mortgage interest+principle at 5.5% apr and $200 a month in taxes+insurance on a $360k loan ($400k house). In this example let's say the same house if you were to rent it is $3800 a month. Understand the Opportunity Cost of renting (the marginal amount it costs you to NOT buy). So far, your opportunity cost is $800 a month. The principle of your house will be increasing with each payment. In our example, it's about $400 for the first payment, and will increase with each payment made while decreasing the interest payment (Suggest you look at an amortization table for your specific mortgage example). So, you're real number is now $1200 a month opportunity cost. Consider also the fact that the $400 a month is sitting in a savings account of sorts. While most savings accounts give you less than 1% in returns and then charge taxes on that gain, your home may (or may not be) much higher than that and won't charge you taxes on the gains when you sell it (If you live in it for a period of time as defined by the IRS.) Let's assume a conservative long term appreciation rate of 3%. That's $12k a year on a $400k house. So, now you're at $2200 a month opportunity cost. In this example I didn't touch on your tax savings of ownership. I also didn't touch on the maintenance cost of ownership or the maintenance cost of renting (your deposit + other fees) which all should be considered. You may have other costs involved in renting. For instance: The cost of not being able to fully utilize your rental as your own house. This may be an even simpler and more convincing way to explain it: On the $2800 mortgage example, you will be paying around $19k in interest and $2400 on taxes, insurance = $23k per year (number could be way different in your example). That is basically throw away money you're never getting back. On the rental, 100% of your rent at $3800 a month is throw away money you're never getting back. That's $45,600 a year.\"" }, { "docid": "414892", "title": "", "text": "\"Do you want to split expenses of the new apartment, or split your income/assets equally too (as for instance with a marriage where no sort of \"\"yours, mine, and ours\"\" are split out)? I'm going to assume you have beliefs similar to me in my answer, in that you desire to split expenses of the new place but don't suddenly want to split all of your assets and income 50/50 too. So here's how I'd approach this. I am somewhat unsure of what you mean by \"\"living expenses\"\" for your flat. Does this mean the cost of ownership per month - what it takes to not get rid of the place - and no portion of this is interest/mortgage? To make the calculations a little simpler, I'll assume that all the money you pay out as expenses is just gone - none of it remains as equity or is dis-proportionally accumulating value in some other such way. So, you move in with your girlfriend. The cost for her place - the place itself, taxes, utilities, whatever - is 7892 per month. So since you are both getting equal use of the place, you would split this into 3946 per month for each of you. That's it. Well, I don't see how that really matters at all, anymore than if you owned a company or stocks and bonds. If you rent it out for less per month than it costs you, I don't see why your girlfriend should take any part of the loss. Conversely if you make more money per month than it costs you, that is your investment profit - the payment you get for owning the apartment and dealing with renting it out. Now if your girlfriend is going to partner with you in handling renting out the apartment you own and you want to look at this as an investment partnership, then you should pay all expenses out of the income first and then you can split the profit if you really want. One question to ask would be, what if you just sold your apartment completely? Would you give your girlfriend have the money from the sale? If not then I don't see why you would split the investment profit from holding on to the place. While this is what I recommend and would feel comfortable with personally and if the situation was reversed (and it was my girlfriend that owned a place and was moving in with me), ultimately this is about your personal values, beliefs, and relationship. You are very wise to seek something that both of you will find fair, and so you should discuss a proposed arrangement with your girlfriend and see if you are on the same page. If you are both fine with the agreement and feel OK with it, then great - none of us have to like or agree with it, because we aren't a part of your relationship. Psychologically and financially this situation seems the most reasonable to me, but YMMV. After some more thought and from comments, I realize that it's probably best to explore a few possibilities numerically. So I'll run a few sets of numbers which may help pick which one is right for your relationship. This is approximately the same as paying her \"\"rent\"\" for getting to live with her. You pay her for sharing her place, splitting the expense: 3946 paid to you. She pays the other 3946 for her place. Financially it's like being room-mates. You can do whatever you want with your place - rent or sell, hold on to it for security, etc. This deal makes your girlfriend financially better off by 3946. The financial advantage to you is wholly dependent on what you do with your place. This option would give you each the most financial independence, which is why I like it - but you might be keen on being more interdependent. Which leads us to the next option. Here you behave as before in splitting her expenses, but you include renting out your place as part of the deal. Let's say you get 10k a month for it. You pay the expenses on that place from the rent, then you have 2108 left as 'profit'. You split the profits monthly 1054 to each of you. There's a bit of problem here, though - what happens when the place is vacant? Do you share the full expense of the rent, so she'd actually be paying you each month while it sits open? What about repairs, taxes (costs and credits), etc? I would recommend instead what you do, if you go this way, to account for the apartment as an investment and don't pay out ANY of the profits right away. All rents stay in their own account, and you pay expenses from that same account. For you both it's like it doesn't exist, accept it is a nice earning asset. When you decide it has accumulated more than enough to pay for itself and has enough money to cover vacancy, repairs, etc, then when you pull out money for the duration you are together you just pay it out to both of you equally. You might also pull this \"\"equity\"\" out and spend it on something for both of you, like a nice vacation, etc - something you both enjoy, so you are still sharing the profits. I don't object to this, and it could be a nice arrangement. I would only note that this makes you have a personal relationship, you live together as roommates, and now you are co-landlords/business partners. That's a lot of types of relationships, and I can tell you from personal experience each type has it's own stresses - and this sort of stress can stack (or if you don't handle it well, multiply). So just make sure you are both clear what sort of responsibility you are really both signing up for up front, and what you'd do if you part. Combine your apartment expenses, which would equal 14753, so that's 7376 cost to each of you a month. If you rent your place then whatever money you get you split, and whatever costs come up (repairs, cleaning, etc) you would also split. So if you get an average of 10000 a month for the apartment you each are paying living expenses of 2376 total. But notice that this isn't exactly equal, either. You will pay 5516 less per month than you are now, and she will pay 4485 less than she was before. There's nothing morally wrong with this or anything - it's a 100% partnership across the board. Yet advantage is still not equal - you actually will see a larger benefit to your budget than she will. But if you seek equal benefit, you will have to pay 515 a month more than she does. This sort of thing is basically the model marriage uses, a pure 50/50 partnership, or \"\"communal property\"\". And note that one of you will either be paying more than the other, will be benefiting more than the other - no matter what you do! It's impossible to balance both costs and benefits, because your income and expenses are not the same going in. If you go this way you'll need to choose what is most important - splitting the expenses/income equally, or benefiting financially equally. So I say again, ultimately you have to choose based upon your individual and shared values, and also on just what sort of relationship and layers of commitment you want to have together. You could start slow with option 1, then progress to sharing more - that's what I'd recommend, because I like the idea of developing things one layer at a time rather than jumping in head-first (like I have personally done in the past, haha!). Once bitten twice shy, I might just be more risk-averse or careful than you desire to be, but that's a personal choice. I personally believe the relationship can be far more valuable than any investment, but at the same time I'll take $1 over a relationship that has turned sour any day of the week. This is why I suggest the more gradual, careful approach - to let your love bloom and grow deeper one layer at a time, without the complexities of fully shared finances or investment partnership. Relationships are hard enough, so this is why I favor trying to protect them aggressively from unnecessary complexity. Some favor the \"\"sink or swim\"\" model of seeking out trials and challenges, while I favor the \"\"relationship as tender, growing sapling\"\" model. I hope seeing these options laid out more is helpful to you, and good luck to you, your relationship, and - lastly - to your investments!\"" }, { "docid": "237907", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't look to Super or Pension, I am working on self funding. My method is work in Sydney and buy a house in Sydney (I bought 6 years ago). Let my property rise on this stupidly insane Sydney growth (my place has risen by 76% in the last 6 years and thats in a \"\"bad\"\" economic climate). Each time the equity hits a certain point get an investment property on an interest only home loan and rent it out. Build this portfolio up as much and as quickly as you can. Repeat over and over until I decide to retire. Sell up investment properties and buy NOT IN SYDNEY where it is much cheaper and move there, keep the main house I always lived in as by this time I will own it outright, rent it out for an income that will more than sustain me in my retirement. Although there is also merit in the idea of sell the one you lived in and use the money to pay of one of the investments, this way you avoid capital gains tax. This idea came to me last night :)\"" }, { "docid": "422331", "title": "", "text": "Buying a property and renting it out can be a good investment if it matches your long term goals. Buying an investment property is a long term investment. A large chunk of your money will be tied up with the property and difficult to access. If you put your money into dividend producing stocks you can always sell the stock and have your money back in a matter of days this is not so with a property. (But you can always do a Home equity line of credit (HELOC)) I would also like to point out landlording is not a passive endeavor as JohnFx stated dealing with a tenant can be a lot of work. This is not work you necessarily have to deal with, it is possible to contract with a property management company that would place tenants and take care of those late night calls. Property management companies often charge 10% of your monthly rent and will eat a large portion of your profits. It could be worth the time and headache of tenant relations. You should build property management into you expenses anyway in case you decide to go that route in the future. There are good things about owning an investment property. It can produce returns in a couple of ways. If you choose this route it can be lucrative but be sure to do your homework. You must know the area you are investing very well. Know the rent, and vacancy rates for Single family homes, look at multifamily homes as a way of mitigating risk(if one unit is vacant the others are still paying)." }, { "docid": "105707", "title": "", "text": "\"I often say \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" I need to change that phrase a bit to \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the mortgage dog.\"\" Getting a tax deduction on a 4% mortgage basically results (assuming you already itemize) in an effective 3% rate mortgage. The best way to avoid tax is save pretax in a 401(k), IRA, or both. You are 57, and been through a tough time. You're helping your daughter through college, which is an expense, and admirable kindness to her. But all this means you won't start saving $10K/yr until age 59. The last thing I'd do is buy a bigger home and take on a mortgage. Unless you told me the house you want has an in-law apartment that will bring in a high rent, or can be used to rent rooms and be a money maker, I'd not do this. No matter how small the mortgage, your property tax bill will go up, and there would be a mortgage to pay. Even a tiny mortgage payment, $400, is nearly half that $10K potential annual savings plan. Your income is now excellent. Can your wife do anything to get hers to a higher level? In your situation, I'd save every cent I can.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "493160", "title": "", "text": "\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "397449", "title": "", "text": "You can keep your Mutual Funds. You have to communicate your new status to fund house. The SIP can continue. Please note you have to convert the savings account to NRO account. Most banks would keep the account number same, else you have to revise SIP debit to new NRO account. From a tax point of view, it would be similar to resident status. Right now short term gains are taxed. There are quite a few other things you may need to do. Although dated, this is a good article. PS: Once you become resident alien in US for tax purposes, you are liable for taxes on global income." }, { "docid": "353926", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you can still file a 1040nr. You are a nonresident alien and were: engaged in a trade or business in the United States Normally, assuming your withholding was correct, you would get a minimal amount back. Income earned in the US is definitely Effectively Connected Income and is taxed at the graduated rates that apply to U.S. citizens and resident aliens. However, there is a tax treaty between US and India, and it suggests that you would be taxed on the entirety of the income by India. This suggests to me that you would get everything that was withheld back." }, { "docid": "120312", "title": "", "text": "Like for example I use transferwise to send $x to my dad's account in India, would it show my name as the depositor ? That would depend from bank to bank, it may or may not show your name. Would it be considered as income for my dad ? Assuming your parents are Indian Residents for tax purposes. No. It would be considered as Gift. Gifts between father and son are tax free in India and there is no limit. Any special care/precaution to take before using such services ? Not really. Just to be safe, keep a copy of the transfer instruction / details of debit to you account etc, so that if there is enquiry you have all the data handy. Edit: Clarifying the comment, if you are Resident Alien in US for tax purposes, you would be liable to Gift Tax [Not your parents as they are Indian Residents and would follow Indian tax rules]. As per IRS the liability of Gift tax is on Donor subject to limit of $14000 per year per Donee. So you and your wife can gift your father and mother $14000 each. i.e. $56000 each year. Anything more will be taxable or can be reduced from the overall estate limit." }, { "docid": "569409", "title": "", "text": "\"Chris, this is an arbitrage question with a twist: you cannot treat the location you want to live objectively. For example, why not SoCal instead of Texas? Yes, SoCal's expensive but what if you account for the weather? This question is very interesting for me personally: something I am going to focus on myself, soon, as well. To the question at hand: it's very hard to get a close estimate of the price from a single source, say, a website. The cost of a house is always negotiable and there's no sticker price, and there begins your problems. However, there are some publicly available information which websites aggregate, see: http://www.city-data.com/ Also, some heuristics might help: Rent is at-least as expensive as the monthly mortgage, (property) taxes, HOA fees, etc. Smart people have told me this, and this also makes sense to me as the landlord is in this business to make some money after all. However, there are also other hidden costs of home ownership that I am not aware of in details (and which I craftily sidestepped in my \"\"etc\"\" above) that could put a rental to be \"\"cheaper\"\". One example that comes to mind is you as a tenant get to complain if the washer-dryer misbehaves and demand the landlord get you a new one (see how you wouldn't make a sound were you to own it however) Such a website to gauge rentals: http://www.rentometer.com/ Houses cost more where the median income is more. Again, you cannot be objective about this because smart people like to live around smart people (and pay for the privilege). Turn again to http://www.city-data.com/ to get this information Better weather is more expensive than not so good weather. In the article you linked, notice the ratio of homes in California. Yes, I know of people who sold off their family ranches in Vancouver and Seattle to buy homes in Orange Country. In short, there is a lot of information you would have to gather from multiple sources, and even then never be sure that you did your best! This also includes arbitrage, as you would like to \"\"come out ahead\"\" and while you are doing your research (and paying your rent), you want to invest your \"\"savings\"\" in instruments where you earn more than what you would have saved in a mortgage, etc. I would very much like to be refuted on every point and my answer be edited and \"\"made better\"\" as I need the same answers as you do :-D Feel free to comment, edit your question etc and I will act on feedback and help both of us (and future readers) out!\"" }, { "docid": "589123", "title": "", "text": "\"As you said, in the US LLC is (usually, unless you elect otherwise) not a separate tax entity. As such, the question \"\"Does a US LLC owned by a non-resident alien have to pay US taxes\"\" has no meaning. A US LLC, regardless of who owns it, doesn't pay US income taxes. States are different. Some States do tax LLCs (for example, California), so if you intend to operate in such a State - you need to verify that the extra tax the LLC would pay on top of your personal tax is worth it for you. As I mentioned in the comment, you need to check your decision making very carefully. LLC you create in the US may or may not be recognized as a separate legal/tax entity in your home country. So while you neither gain nor lose anything in the US (since the LLC is transparent tax wise), you may get hit by extra taxes at home if they see the LLC as a non-transparent corporate entity. Also, keep in mind that the liability protection by the LLC usually doesn't cover your own misdeeds. So if you sell products of your own work, the LLC may end up being completely worthless and will only add complexity to your business. I suggest you check all these with a reputable attorney. Not one whose business is to set up LLCs, these are going to tell you anything you want to hear as long as you hire them to do their thing. Talk to one who will not benefit from your decision either way and can provide an unbiased advice.\"" }, { "docid": "273563", "title": "", "text": "KPMG's website has: For the purposes of taxation, how is an individual defined as a resident of Sweden? An individual is considered a resident in Sweden for tax purposes if one of the following three conditions is met: The individual has his/her real home and dwelling in Sweden. The individual stays in Sweden during a lengthy period of time (a permanent sojourn) and with only occasional interruptions. There is no legal definition of permanent sojourn, but a stay of six months or more will in general constitute residency. So, given your I am presently resident in Sweden and this from the above website: There is no legal definition of permanent sojourn, but a stay of six months or more will in general constitute residency. I believe you are liable for Swedish income tax. I am not an accountant. This is just speculation based on a Google search. Get paid advice! :-)" }, { "docid": "351521", "title": "", "text": "I am not sure where your numbers are coming from but I don't want you to be wrong. I am only giving like as I said previous my (non pro) advice. People are coming at me like i am Warren Buffet. I know what I have done and what I believe. Obviously all my eggs are not in one basket no one ( at least I hope) is that dumb. I strongly believe that Snap Chat and Walmart are a very strong buy for long term. I also think GoPro is a very good company to earn short-middle term income on. The fact you have made 30% returns is fucking awesome and congrats you obviously doing something right. I do although feel Snap is heavily underestimated for what they are doing and what they want to do. I am will admit i am a bit out of the box on all of it but I am willing to take that risk with the amount of money I am willing to dump into to do so. I hope you keep rocking the returns you are! Make your money my friend!" }, { "docid": "42521", "title": "", "text": "\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"" }, { "docid": "64103", "title": "", "text": "\"I took @littleadv 's recommendation that online apps only ask for citizenship due to post-9/11 legislation. I applied to 2 banks in person (one big, one small), and at the dealership. None of my in-person applications ever touched on the issue of citizenship. I even applied in person at the same bank that insta-rejected me online, and told them up front, \"\"I applied online but you rejected me because I'm not a permanent resident.\"\" The banker nodded, said \"\"that shouldn't matter here\"\", and continued processing my application. I did find it very hard to get a loan. I have a credit score in the \"\"excellent\"\" range, but have only 1 open credit card (for 5 years). Apparently, most lenders want to see more open credit before writing an auto loan. The big bank said outright \"\"We want to see 3-5 credit cards open\"\". However, the dealership did find a bank willing to extend me a loan. So: The most reliable way for a non-permanent resident alien to get an auto loan in the US is to avoid online applications. Also, if possible, establish a wide credit history before you try.\"" }, { "docid": "371094", "title": "", "text": "This is a common occurrence, I know people who moved and then only remember the next spring during tax season that they never filed a new state version of a W-4. Which means for 3 or 4 months in the new year money is sent to the wrong state capital, and way too much was sent the previous year. In the spring of 2016 you should have filed a non-resident tax form with Michigan. On that form you would specify your total income numbers, your Michigan income numbers, and your other-state income numbers; with Michigan + other equal to total. That should have resulted in getting all the state taxes that were sent to Michigan returned. It is possible that the online software is unable to complete the non-resident tax form. Not all forms and situations can be addressed by the software. So you may need to fill out paper forms. You should be able to find what you need on the state of Michigan website for 2015 Taxes. A quick read shows that you will probably need the Michigan 1040, schedule 1 and Schedule NR You may run into an issue if your license, car registration, voter registration, and other documentation point to you being a resident for the part of the year you earned that income. That means you will have to submit Form 3799 Statement to Determine State of Domicile You want to do this soon because there are deadlines that limit how far back you can files taxes. The state may also get tax information from the IRS and could decide that all your income from 2015 should have applied to them, so they will be sending you a tax bill plus penalties for failure to file." }, { "docid": "593085", "title": "", "text": "Looks like it is a 20% penalty on the withdrawal (along with income tax). Funds can be withdrawn for any reason, but withdrawals that are not for documented qualified medical expenses are subject to income taxes and a 20% penalty. The 20% tax penalty is waived for persons who have reached the age of 65 or have become disabled at the time of the withdrawal. Then, only income tax is paid on the withdrawal Wikipedia HSA article Even though you are leaving the country, you still earned and contributed to the plan while you were working/living, so it is still subject to the taxes/laws in place. On a somewhat related note, check out this question here, as it may help you out a bit (similar but not really duplicate) - How do I withdraw all money from my HSA account as a non-resident?" }, { "docid": "92670", "title": "", "text": "I am close to retirement and sell cash secured puts and covered calls on a regular basis. I make 15 % plus per year from the puts. Less risky than buying stocks, which I also do. Riskier than bonds, but several times the income. Example: I owned 4,000 shares of XYZ, which I bought last year at 6.50 and was at 7.70 two months ago. I sold 3,000 shares, sold 10 Dec puts @ 7.50 (1,000 shares) for $.90 per share and sold 10 Dec calls at 10.00 for $.20. Now I had cash from the sale of 3,000 shares ($23,100) plus $900 cash from the sale of the puts, plus $200 cash from the sale of the calls. Price is now at 6.25. Had I held the 4,000 shares, I would be down $5,800 from when it was 7.70. Instead, I am down $1,450 from the held 1,000 shares, down $550 on the put and up $200 on the calls. So down $1,800 instead of down $5,800. I began buying XYZ back at 6.25 today." }, { "docid": "30596", "title": "", "text": "Answering for US tax only: The bank account makes absolutely zero difference. If you are not a US national and not resident in the US, but earn income from a US employer/client/customer, generally that income is not subject to US tax (no matter where it is banked). However there are (complicated) exceptions, particularly if you are considered to be operating a 'trade or business' in the US or US real estate is involved. Start at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/nonresident-aliens and proceed through pub 519 if you have time to spend. I do not know (or answer) about Argentinian taxes. Whether you can find a US bank that wants to open and maintain an account for a foreigner (which is extra paperwork and regulation for them) is a different Q, that is already asked and answered: B1/B2 visas do not allow you to work, but that isn't really in scope of money.SX and belongs over on travel.SX (or expatriates.SX for longer stay); https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/25416/work-as-freelancer-while-tourist-in-us-for-an-already-existing-us-client seems to cover it." }, { "docid": "393629", "title": "", "text": "Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't." }, { "docid": "574060", "title": "", "text": "\"Context: My parents overseas (Japan) sent me a little over $100,000 to cover an expensive tuition payment and moderate living expenses in 2014. They are not US residents, Green card holders or citizens. They did not remit the tuition payment directly to the school. I am a resident (for tax). This is enough to answer yes. That's basically the set of requirements for filing: you received >$100K from a non-US person and you yourself are a US person. You have to report it, and unless it is taxable income - it is a gift. Taxable income is reported on the form 1040, gifts are reported on the form 3520. The fact that in Japan it is not considered a gift is irrelevant. Gift tax laws vary between countries, some (many) don't have gift taxes at all. But the reporting requirement is based on the US law and the US definition of \"\"gift\"\". As I said above, if it is not a gift per the US law, then it is taxable income (and then you report all of it regardless of the amount and pay taxes). Had they paid directly to the institution, you wouldn't need to count it as income/gift to you because you didn't actually receive the money (so no income) and it went directly to cover your qualified education expenses (so no gift), but this is not the case in your situation. Whether or not this will be reported by the IRS back to Japan - I don't know, but it was probably already reported to the authorities in Japan by the banks through which the transfers went through. As to whether it will trigger an audit - doesn't really matter. It was, most likely, reported to the IRS already by the receiving banks in the US, so not reporting it on your tax return (either as income or on form 3520) may indeed raise some flags.\"" }, { "docid": "308048", "title": "", "text": "It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this." }, { "docid": "237718", "title": "", "text": "There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants." }, { "docid": "288993", "title": "", "text": "To build a US credit record, you need a Social Security Number (SSN), which is now not available for most non-residents. An alternative is an ITIN number, which is now available to non-residents only if they have US income giving a reason to file a US tax return (do you really want to get into all that...). Assuming you did have a reason to get a ITIN (one reason would be if you sold some ebooks via Amazon US, and need a withholding refund under the tax treaty), then recent reports on Flyertalk give mixed results on whether it's possible to get a credit card with an ITIN, and whether that would build a credit record. It does sound possible in some cases. A credit record in any other country would not help. You would certainly need a US address, and banks are increasingly asking for a physical address, rather than just a mailbox. Regardless, building this history would be of limited benefit to you if you later became a US resident, at that point you would be eligible for a new SSN (different from the ITIN) and have to largely start again. If getting a card is the aim, rather than the credit record, you may find some banks that will offer a secured card (or a debit card), to non-residents, especially in areas with lots of Canadian visitors (border, Florida, Arizona). You'd find it a lot easier with a US address though, and you'd need to shop around a lot of banks in person until you find one with the right rules. Most will simply avoid anyone without an SSN." }, { "docid": "575899", "title": "", "text": "Found a great article (with bibliography) that covers taxation on investment activity by non resident aliens - even covers the special 15% tax on dividends for Canadian residents. It's (dividend tax rate) generally 30% for other NRAs (your 2nd question). And it confirmed my suspicion that there are no capital gains taxes for NRAs. (1st Q) Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-non-us-nat.html" } ]

[ { "docid": "304034", "title": "", "text": "It's always beneficial to have detailed business records. There are any number of reasons where you'd need to prove both the types of services you've rendered and the payment history - you've already noted audits (for IRS taxes). Other possibilities: Whether these records need to be original or electronic might be the topic for another question." } ]

[ { "docid": "162501", "title": "", "text": "I love the flat rate VAT scheme. It's where you pay a percentage based on your industry. An example might be Computer repair services, where you'll pay 10.5% of your total revenue to the HMRC. But you'll be invoicing for VAT at 20% still. Would definitely recommend registering for it since you're expecting to cross the threshold anyway. And like DumbCoder said, you also get a first year discount of 1%, so in the example above, you'd end up paying 9.5% VAT on your turnover. I personally found it a pain to invoice without VAT (my clients expected it), so registering made sense regardless of the fact I was over threshold. The tricky bit is keeping under the £150k turnover so you stay eligible for the flat rate. It does get more complex otherwise." }, { "docid": "367754", "title": "", "text": "I feel the need to separate my freelance accounts from my personal accounts. Yes, you should. Should I start another savings account or a current account? Do you need the money for daily spending? Do you need to re-invest in your business? Use a current account. If you don't need the money for business expenses, put it away in your savings account or even consider term deposits. Don't rule out a hybrid approach either (some in savings account, some in current account). What criteria should I keep in mind while choosing a bank? (I thought of SBI since it has a lot of branches and ATMs). If you are involved in online banking and that is sufficient for most of your needs, bank and ATM locations shouldn't matter all that much. If you are saving a good chunk of money, you want to at least have that keep up with inflation. Research bank term deposit interest rates. The tend to be higher than just having your money sit in a savings account. Again, it depends on how and when you expect to need the money. What do I keep in mind while paying myself? Paying yourself could have tax implications. This depends on how are set up to freelance. Are you a business entity or are you an individual? You should look in to the following in India: The other thing to consider is rewarding yourself for the good work done. Pay yourself a reasonable amount. If you decide to expand and hire people going forward, you will have a better sense of business expenses involved when paying salaries. Tips on managing money in the business account. This is a very generic question. I can only provide a generic response. Know how much you are earning and how much your are putting back in to the business. Be reasonable in how much you pay yourself and do the proper research and paperwork from a taxation point of view." }, { "docid": "425888", "title": "", "text": "How you should record the mortgage payments depends on if you are trying to achieve correct accounting, according to the standards, or if you are just tracking everything for you and your friends. If you're just keeping track for personal reasons, I'd suggest that you set up your check (or journal entry, your preference) how you'd like it to be recorded. Then, memorize that transaction. This allows you to use it as many times as you need to, without having to set it up each time. (Also note: there is no way to record a transaction that decreases cash and increases equity.) If you're trying to keep track of everything according to accounting standards, which it should be if you've set up an official business, then you have a lot more tracking to do with each payment. Mortgage payments technically do not affect the equity accounts of the owners. Each mortgage payment should decrease the bank balance, increase interest expense and decrease the mortgage balance, not to mention tracking any escrow account you may have. The equity accounts would be affected if the owners are contributing funds to the bank account, but equity would increase at the time the funds are deposited, not when the mortgage payments are made. Hope this helps!" }, { "docid": "576384", "title": "", "text": "I am a freelancer based in Europe and I want to tell you: - if you are a freelancer, then you INVOICE your Swizzerland based client The word salary is improper. - So your client will DEDUCE the invoice from its taxes, and NOT pay income tax on top of that invoice. Because invoice = expense. So, ONLY YOU pay income tax in India. Your client pays no tax at all, not in India, not in Swizzerland. As you are a freelancer and not employee, the company has no obligation to pay employer taxes for you. A company has financial benefits from working with a freelancer." }, { "docid": "118615", "title": "", "text": "Every bill you write counts as income (if the bill doesn't get paid, you would count that as an expense). In cases where you don't write bills, I think the payment you receive would count as income, but you might check that on the HMRC website. So to record your income, you can basically record the payments that you receive. Anything you pay out for your business is an expense. You keep a receipt for every expense - if you don't have a receipt, you can't count it as an expense, so keeping all the receipts is very, very important. An exception are investments, for example buying a computer that should last multiple years; there you can count a percentage of the investment as expense every year. All income, minus all expenses, is your profit. You pay tax and National Insurance contributions according to your profit. You can do whatever you like with the profit. Notice that I didn't mention any salary. Self employed means you have no salary, you have profits and do with them whatever you like. On the other hand, you pay taxes on these profits almost exactly as if they were income. If you have this blog but are also employed, you'll add the profits to your normal income statement." }, { "docid": "576362", "title": "", "text": "Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much." }, { "docid": "390368", "title": "", "text": "As a sole proprietor, the tax liability of your business is calculated based on combining your business income with your personal income together. It is good advice to keep all personal and business financial matters separate. This makes it easier to prove to the IRS that all your business expenses are actually business related. In this case however, the two items [tax payment for personal income vs tax payment for business income] are inseparable. What you can do, however, for your own personal records, is calculate how much of your tax payment relates to your business. I wouldn't get complicated about this; I would simply take the net income of your business as a % of your taxable income, and multiply that against your tax payment. ie: if your business net income is $10,000, and your total taxable income is $50,000, and you paid $6,000 in taxes, I would record that 20% of the $6k was related to business income. If you have a separate bank account for your sole proprietorship, you could make a transfer to your personal account of $1,200, and then make the $6k payment from your personal account. Remember that tax payments for either your sole proprietorship and your personal income will be treated the same: federal tax payments are not tax deductible, and state tax payments are tax deductible, whether they were paid for your sole proprietorship or the rest of your personal income. So even though this method is simplistic [for example, it doesn't factor in that different investment income types earned personally will have a lower rate than your sole proprietorship income], any difference wouldn't have an impact on any future tax liability. This would only be for your own personal record keeping." }, { "docid": "316074", "title": "", "text": "\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"" }, { "docid": "252843", "title": "", "text": "FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do." }, { "docid": "527776", "title": "", "text": "For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy." }, { "docid": "347723", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't see why you would need an \"\"international tax specialist\"\". You need a tax specialist to give you a consultation and training on your situation, but it doesn't seem too complicated to me. You invoice your client and get paid - you're a 1099 contractor. They should issue you a 1099 at the end of the year on everything they paid you. Once you become full-time employee - you become a W2 employee and will get a W2 at the end of the year on the amounts paid as such. From your perspective there's nothing international here, regular business. You have to pay your own taxes on the 1099 income (including SE taxes), they have to withhold taxes from your W2 income (including FICA). Since they're foreign employers, they might not do that latter part, and you'll have to deal with that on your tax return, any decent EA/CPA will be able to accommodate you with that. For the employer there's an issue of international taxation. They might have to register as a foreign business in your state, they might be liable for some payroll taxes and State taxes, etc etc. They might not be aware of all that. They might also be liable (or exempt) for Federal taxes, depending on the treaty provisions. But that's their problem. Your only concern is whether they're going to issue you a proper W2 and do all the withholdings or not when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "530119", "title": "", "text": "I'm no tax expert by any means. I do know that a disreagarded entity is considered a sole proprietor for federal tax purposes. My understanding is that this means your personal tax year and your business tax year must be one and the same. Nevertheless, it is technically possible to have a non-calendar fiscal year as an individual. This is so rare that I'm unable to find a an IRS reference to this. The best reference I could find was this article written by two CPAs. If you really want to persue this, you basically need to talk with an accountant, since this is complicated, and required keeping propper accounting records for your personal life, in addition to your business. A ledger creqated after-the-fact by an accountant has been ruled insufficent. You really need to live by the fiscal year you choose." }, { "docid": "64556", "title": "", "text": "If you're a sole proprietor there's no reason to have a separate business account, as long as you keep adequate records, as you are one and the same for tax purposes. My husband and I already have 5 accounts and a mortgage with one bank. I don't see the need to open up yet another account. As a contracted accountant, I don't need to write business checks, and my expenses are minimal. As long as I have an present my assumed business name certificate and ID, there's no reason for a bank not to deposit into my personal account." }, { "docid": "484761", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll chime in as someone who started a business after my first year in college. That business kept me going for a couple decades and allowed me to retire young. First thought - \"\"you don't just start a business\"\" with no idea what you're going to do. When you have a true passion, you'll know it. Once you discover something that you love to do, you will find that you dedicate your time to it and it won't feel like work. You'll spend countless hours on it becoming 'great' at it. It will be obvious that you should pursue it. If you don't feel like this, then you'll very likely give up when you need to double down. Or, if it's really a good business idea, you won't be competitive. Starting and running a business may be the hardest thing you'll ever do. When your friends are out partying, you'll be coding, or stocking shelves or writing ad copy or paying bills or cleaning toilets. When the business has a bad month, you'll forgo your income so you can pay your employees or other bills. But you'll love it and believe in what you're doing, so you'll keep going. It seems trite but so much will just come down to persistence and hard work. Over time, you'll become one of the best at what you do. But that will take years. Years before you'll likely make enough money to survive. So for most people, you'll have to get a conventional job to pay the bills. As you try to sell yourself or your product, you have to keep asking yourself \"\"would I spend my money on this?\"\" If you wouldn't, why would anyone else? Always remember that. The positive thing is, if you find your calling, you'll keep thinking \"\"I have the best job in the world!\"\" and it won't feel like work. It will just be what you do.\"" }, { "docid": "172855", "title": "", "text": "No, they cannot refuse to provide you with the current balance or a balance history. The other answers point you to resources that are available to help you put pressure on the dealership. The bottom line is that you now know that you have the right to the details and to audit their recording of the transactions. You should now use that information and demand a better response in writing. If they have to give you a response in writing, they can't deny the answer they gave in a court of law later on. They understand this, and they will take you more seriously if you send a letter. Make sure to keep copies of the letter and send it with certified delivery." }, { "docid": "297241", "title": "", "text": "\"In the normal course of events, you should receive a separate check for the amount of the purchase, and that amount should not be included in your wages as shown on your W-2 statement. If the amount is included on your paycheck, it should still be listed separately as a non-taxable item, not as part of wages paid. In other words, the IRS should not even be aware that this money was paid to you, there is no need to list the amount anywhere on your income tax return, and if you are paranoid about the matter, staple the stub attached to the reimbursement to a copy of your bank statement showing that you deposited the money into your account and save it in your file of tax papers for the year, just in case the IRS audits you and requires you to document every deposit in your checking account. The amount is a business expense that is deductible on your employer's tax return, and your employer is also required to keep documentation that the employee expense reimbursement plan is running as per IRS rules (i.e., the employer is not slipping money to you \"\"under the table\"\" as a reimbursement instead of paying you wages and thus avoiding the employer's share of FICA taxes etc) and that is why your employer needs the store receipt, not a hand-written note from you, to show the IRS if the IRS asks. You said you paid with \"\"your own cash\"\" but in case this was not meant literally and you paid via credit card or debit card or check, then any mileage award, or points, or cash back for credit card use are yours to keep tax-free, and any interest charges (if you are carrying a revolving balance or paid through your HELOC) or overdraft or bounced check fees are yours to pay.\"" }, { "docid": "361978", "title": "", "text": "I know that there are a lot service on the internet helping to form an LLC online with a fee around $49. Is it neccessarry to pay them to have an LLC or I can do that myself? No, you can do it yourself. The $49 is for your convenience, but there's nothing they can do that you wouldn't be able to do on your own. What I need to know and what I need to do before forming an LLC? You need to know that LLC is a legal structure that is designed to provide legal protections. As such, it is prudent to talk to a legal adviser, i.e.: a Virginia-licensed attorney. Is it possible if I hire some employees who living in India? Is the salary for my employees a expense? Do I need to claim this expense? This, I guess, is entirely unrelated to your questions about LLC. Yes, it is possible. The salary you pay your employees is your expense. You need to claim it, otherwise you'd be inflating your earnings which in certain circumstances may constitute fraud. What I need to do to protect my company? For physical protection, you'd probably hire a security guard. If you're talking about legal protections, then again - talk to a lawyer. What can I do to reduce taxes? Vote for a politician that promises to reduce taxes. Most of them never deliver though. Otherwise you can do what everyone else is doing - tax planning. That is - plan ahead your expenses, time your invoices and utilize tax deferral programs etc. Talk to your tax adviser, who should be a EA or a CPA licensed in Virginia. What I need to know after forming an LLC? You'll need to learn what are the filing requirements in your State (annual reports, tax reports, business taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc). Most are the same for same proprietors and LLCs, so you probably will not be adding to much extra red-tape. Your attorney and tax adviser will help you with this, but you can also research yourself on the Virginia department of corporations/State department (whichever deals with LLCs)." }, { "docid": "172997", "title": "", "text": "I am in the United States. There is no need to keep the statements in any form forever. Once the bank gives you a 1099 stating how much interest you have earned, you don't need to keep them. If you only have them in electronic form, that is good enough for the IRS. When you do need to show a bank statement, such as when applying for a loan, the loan company will be keeping a copy. It doesn't matter if it was a scan from the original, from a printed PDF, or if you printed it from your archives. In the US they used send the original check back to the person who wrote it, so they could keep it for their records. Then many banks went to carbons, but if you paid extra they would send you the original. Now the bank that cashes the check scans the check and destroys the original. If you want a copy for your records it only exists as a scanned image." }, { "docid": "327903", "title": "", "text": "You can only claim an input tax credit if tax was actually collected by the seller, irrespective of whether it should have been or not. You need to contact the seller to request an invoice that shows the GST/HST, if any, as well as the seller's GST/HST number, which is required to be printed on invoices. If the seller is not including GST/HST in the prices indicated on Kickstarter, I would like to know how they get away with that!" } ]

[ { "docid": "503362", "title": "", "text": "\"The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an \"\"expected profit rate\"\" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with \"\"typical\"\" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "30808", "title": "", "text": "\"I think your analysis is very clear, it's a sensible approach, and the numbers sound about right to me. A few other things you might want to think about: Tax In some jurisdictions you can deduct mortgage interest against your income tax. I see from your profile that you're in Texas, but I don't know the exact situation there and I think it's better to keep this answer general anyway. If that's the case for you, then you should re-run your numbers taking that into account. You may also be able to make your investments tax-advantaged, for example if you save them in a retirement account. You'll need to apply the appropriate limits for your specific situation and take an educated guess as to how that might change over the next 30 years. Liquidity The money you're not spending on your mortgage is money that's available to you for other spending or emergencies - i.e. even though your default assumption is to invest it and that's a sensible way to compare with the mortgage, you might still place some extra value on having more free access to it. Overpayments Would you have the option to pay extra on the mortgage? That's another way of \"\"investing\"\" your money that gets you a guaranteed return of the mortgage rate. You might want to consider if you'd want to send some of your excess money that way.\"" }, { "docid": "245728", "title": "", "text": "I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way. Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book. It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays. Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company. In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company. How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate. You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic. Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing. Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it. Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price. It is good to look at index funds as a diversification. Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars. Big deal. How much money could you earn during that time period? Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time. If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double. Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing. Start building funds that can compound. Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant. The key is to get money to compound!" }, { "docid": "39927", "title": "", "text": "Because swing trading isn't the only reason to buy a stock, and it's not the only way to make money on a stock. I do not have the expertise to make advice one way or the other, but I personally I feel swing trading is one of the worse ways to invest in the stock market. To answer your specific questions: In the previous post, I outlined a naive trade intended to make $1,000 off a $10k buy, but it was shown this would likely fail, even if the stock price would have increased by 10% had I not placed the trade. Another way to state this is that my trade would disrupt the stock price, and not in my favor at all. So, that means I'd have to settle for a smaller trade. If I bought $100 worth of the stock, that size of a buy wouldn't be too disruptive. I might succeed and get $10 out of the trade (10% of $100). But my trade fee was $8 or so... To summarize, you are completely correct that even hoping for gains of 10% on a consistent basis (in other words, after every single trade!) is totally unrealistic. You already seem to understand that swing trading on low-volume stocks is pointless. But your last question was... So how do people make any significant money trading low volume stocks--if they even do? I assume money is made, since the stocks are bought and sold. I have some guesses, but I'd like to hear from the experts. ... and in a comment: Then if no one does make significant money trading these stocks...what are they doing there on the market? The answer is that the buying and selling is mostly likely not by swing traders. It's by investors that believe in the company. The company is on the market because the company believes public trading to be an advantageous position for them to receive capital investments, and there are people out there who think that transaction makes sense. In other words, real investing." }, { "docid": "163353", "title": "", "text": "\"What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short \"\"parking\"\" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do. Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet.\"" }, { "docid": "25247", "title": "", "text": "I think it really depends on how much you take out of your Nationwide account each month. At a certain point, it will become cheaper just to transfer your monthly rent + living allowance via an international bank transfer or using one of the currency transfer services like xe.com or Hifx. You will have to pay fees either way and/or you'll end up with a forex spread. If you have got enough money in your UK account to cover several months' worth of expenses in Germany, I would be tempted to make one big transfer every few months instead of a a monthly one; anything more than once a month is probably going to be too costly either way. It might also be worth comparing the transfer fees charged by the various banks, when I lived in the UK and had to regularly send money to Germany I found there was a massive difference between different banks for essentially the same service." }, { "docid": "241800", "title": "", "text": "The standard advice is to have 3-6 months worth of expenses saved up in a highly liquid savings or money market account. After you have that saved you could look to start investing. I would recommend reading the bogleheads investment wiki (https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started). Even if you aren't planning on following the bogle head's way of passive investing it will give you a lot of good info on options available to you to start investing." }, { "docid": "383743", "title": "", "text": "Paying yourself first is a method to ensure you are meeting your financial goals whatever they may be. It's also an easy way to automate the process of sending money where you need it go without needing to think about it. Your goals could be to buy a bit of a mutual fund every month, max your IRA, or stash a percentage of each paycheck in a wedding savings account. Maybe you are saving for a house. Knowing you should save and not doing is guilt generating. Paying yourself first means regularly putting money to these goals so you can stop worrying. Any way you figure it, you've still got bills to pay. Paying yourself first means taking care of these payments right off the top of your paycheck. The money goes where you need it. A good move is to automate this with bill pays, ACH transfers to investments accounts, etc. Once this is done, you can guiltlessly spend the money that is left over knowing that you've taken care of the important things and met all your goals. You never have to find yourself wondering if you paid your cell phone bill or if you have enough money to go out tonight. Savings for the new car you want are, as they say, in the bank." }, { "docid": "82952", "title": "", "text": "\"It all depends on your loan contract, and the way most are written, the 10 day thing will not help. However, assuming that the contract is written in such a way to allow this, the difference will be negligible. By \"\"saving money\"\" I assume you mean the amount of interest paid. There is really two ways of doing this. If you carry the loan to term paying the indicated amount on the due date you will pay $6,140 in interest. An increase of over 33% to the cost of the car. Yikes, that is a lot of money. You should seek to minimize your interest expense. One way to do this is to reduce your rate. Applying for a new loan that is at a more reasonable 6% and continuing to pay the ~285 per month will reduce the term to 59 months and only cost you $2,245 in interest. A large savings. Even better is to work a second job and earn an extra 1,000 per month. Then bundle it with your 285 payment and shoot that at the loan. This way you will only pay $965 in interest, and have it paid off in a year. Once you do that, you can stick $300/month or so in a savings account or other investment and pay for every other car in cash. Making choices like these leads to building wealth. So the question becomes do you want to spend the rest of your life on the hamster wheel of car payments, or do you want to spend one year in pain so you make smart choices in the future? The choice is yours.\"" }, { "docid": "571143", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't want to have a house no matter where I live. So I am more than OK with always living in an apartment. We live in a really nice place right now. My husband is pretty up-to-date on how the country is running and he would be telling me if he were at all concerned about the state of things. Which he isn't... at least not anymore than when I first met him. So, while I am sure that I will always be middle class... I am OK with that. And perhaps Americans do earn 20% more than Germans but they also pay a lot more for things that Germans do not pay as much for. Edit: Also, my husband's grandfather was one of the leading historians in germany until he died in 2009. His grandparents were very well off. His parents were poor while he grew up. My husband is on his way to being a partner in an expanding business (he does programming) and his brother is a Pharmacist. By this time in a year or so from now the amount of money my husband earns will double." }, { "docid": "454035", "title": "", "text": "\"Agreed on all points. You're still not saving a TON of money, given that you have to have a reasonable balance of salary/distributions, but an S-corp is the way to go if you're making substantial profit in order to save tax money. I'll reiterate (my wife is a CPA and she guides me on my business) - you can't legally save \"\"untaxed earnings\"\" for next year.\"" }, { "docid": "481874", "title": "", "text": "Frequently people saving money for a down payment, or for their emergency fund, feel that they need to find a way to speedup the process via methods that will generate more interest than a bank account or a CD. Once they have reached their goal they also feel that having the money sitting around not generating income is a missed opportunity. All investments that aren't 100% safe introduce risk. To entice you to invest they offer the opportunity make more money than a bank account or CD. But the downside is that the extra money isn't guaranteed. In fact the introduced risk also opens up the investment to the possibility of losses, including a total loss. You have identified risks with bank accounts and CDs. With the bank account you will generally lose money vs. inflation. With a CD the investment is less liquid if you sell early, or you want/need to sell 1/2 a CD, you will give up some of that extra income. Also if rates on a CD rise next month you are stilled locked into your current rate til the CD ends. Putting some or all of the money you are saving for the house into a risky investment means that you may shorten or extend the time period. Nobody knows. by investing in real estate we can offset the risk of real estate going up in the next couple years: if real estate goes up we will still be able to use our down payment for a comparable house as of now. Inversely, if real estate goes down we will lose on the down payment but be able to get a house cheaper. Unless the REIT matches the market of residential real estate in your city/metropolitan region there is no guarantee that home prices in your city will move the same way the REIT does. A recent listing of the 10 largest holdings of the index is: none of these tell me what home prices in my neighborhood will do next year." }, { "docid": "422561", "title": "", "text": "\"At this point, I want to tell you two things: 1. I truly believe that you are very concerned about racial hate and damage to society. You truly want Germany to help those in serious need. You are a fine person! I have the same concerns and approach. 2. I am a Jew, with many original family members in Germany now (almost all my family ran away from Germany and Czech Republic before WWII, few got hurt, and after WWII, some returned back, and to Germany). So all this argument I have with you is not so much about Germans, who some of them risked their lives to save few members of my family. Yes, Germans almost died to saved some of my family. It's about a concern for a misguided policy in Germany to allow AGAIN the rise of intolerance and racial problems, of which, for sure, Jews will be the victims again, but mostly other minorities, but not (!) Muslims. If you did not know, the word \"\"anti-semitism\"\" was invented by Germans, and it is supposed to be against the semite race. European Jews are hardly semite but all Muslims and Arabs are pure true semites. Yet, Hitler and Muslims worked together and collaborated against Jews. Muslims were not killed by Germany. (If you did not know, yes, all Jews were semites, but 2000 years in Europe, after expelled from ancient Israel 2000 years ago by the Romans, made the Jews in Europe hardly semite. Meanwhile, most Jews (60%) in Israel are not of European descent as they ended up in northern Africa and Asia and ALL(!) of them expelled from the Arabs/Muslim countries when Israel was established in 1948. Do you know that Hitler sent the Jews of Libya and other north Africa Arab/Muslim countries to concentration camps? But not any Libyans or other Arab/Muslims?) SO, ALLOW me go the other direction with you now: do migrants get fined, houses raided and sent to jail over racist and intolerant sayings and actions? How about their religious leaders? Sheikh Abu Bilal Ismail, speaking at the Al Nur mosque in Berlin, called upon Allah to “destroy the Zionist Jews”. And nothing was done to him by the German government. However, an old German lady was fined and her house was raided. Think about it. This will not end good with Germany!!!! Think it's early 1930 in Germany. Nobody could predict what happened 10 years later. **I highly(!!!) respect Germans as they have very high and good standards in every respect. Something to admire! But, because of that, shown many times in the past, not only the 1930s, Germany is the last country that should be experimented in regards to racial tensions and rising problems (crime, intolerance, fanatic religious people, etc).** Crime by migrants in Germany is up considerably, [Read here](https://counterjihadreport.com/2016/02/page/8/) Read about Sheikh Abu Bilal Ismail in Germany [here](http://forward.com/news/world/202751/germany-warns-against-hate-speech-after-imam-calls/)\"" }, { "docid": "286466", "title": "", "text": "Gosh don't do either! Unless you are fully funding you ROTH accounts and even then I wouldn't do it. Those interest rates are free money. You are giving away the best bargain in the history of home mortgages. Don't you think you can make more than 4% on your money invested? Don't you think in 5 years you will be able to make 4% on bond/cd's/ and other low risk investments? Don't forget money you pay in the 2020's on beyond to your mortgage are inflationary dollars. Do you think that money will be more valuable in the 20's and beyond? I don't. Roths are free money too. Think if you put 11k in there a year how much would you have at the end of it tax free. There is a reason you can only put $5,500 in them, they are too good a deal tax wise to let people put too much in there. Think about this my parents bought their home in 1967 their mortgage was $170 a month. Inflation hits and the interest they are paying at 8%! mind you, it was still a laughable amount of money each month for mortgage payment from 1977 and on. Also I bought a $450,000 house 38 months ago. Instead of putting down 180 I put down 80 I let the other 100k in my investment account and moved 5.5k over to Roth every year. I now have a roth worth $38k and an investment account worth $105k. I made 40k on my money those three years and the 38k is tax free! If you don't believe me call the help line at clarkhoward.com Get over the emotional need to be debt free and make a logical finical choice. I am begging you to think about this. This post could save you tens of thousands of dollars. Let me put it one more way. 100k in debt with 100k in investments is debt free living. Especially when you debt is under 4% and a tax write off." }, { "docid": "561123", "title": "", "text": "\"While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that \"\"regular\"\" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "134332", "title": "", "text": "I would not prepay a loan with a 3.79 rate, with just a tiny bit of inflation that's nearly free money. I would always seek to first max out a tax deferred savings program before making investments that are not receiving preferential tax treatment. (outside of emergency money, which you say is already dealt with) Especially since you effectively get an immediate return on the investment = to your marginal tax rate. (or to look at it another way, it takes a much smaller amount of money 'out of pocket' in order to make the investment) Every thousand you could put into a tax deferred account now, is generally equivalent to putting in several times that amount 20 years from now. OTOH Once you've maxed out the tax deferred savings, or if you need to set aside money for large purchase with a big time horizon that is short of retirement age, then making regular monthly investments in a no-load index fund with a quality company is a great way to go as you will be taking advantage of Dollar Cost Averaging, and a good deal of diversity, which is a great way to put money into the market. Just make sure you are investing in a fairly broad index, such as the S&P500 and not a little dinky 30 stock index like the Dow." }, { "docid": "388252", "title": "", "text": "\"(Congrats on earning/saving $3K and not wanting to blow it all on immediate gratification!) I currently have it invested in sector mutual funds but with the rise and fall of the stock market, is this really the best way to prepare long-term? Long-term? Yes! However... four years is not long term. It is, in fact, borderline short term. (When I was your age, that was incomprehensible too, but trust me: it's true.) The problem is that there's an inverse relationship between reward and risk: the higher the possible reward, the greater the risk that you'll lose a big chunk of it. I invest that middle-term money in a mix of junk high yield bond funds and \"\"high\"\" yield savings accounts at an online bank. My preferences are HYG purchased at Fidelity (EDIT: because it's commission-free and I buy a few hundred dollars worth every month), and Ally Bank.\"" }, { "docid": "574011", "title": "", "text": "\"Negative Yields on Bonds is opposite of Getting profit on your investment. This is some kind of new practice from world wide financial institute. the interest rate is -0.05% for ten years. So a $100,000 bond under those terms would be \"\"discounted\"\" to $100,501, give or take. No, actually what you are going to get out from this investment is after 10 years when this investment is mature for liquidation, you will get return not even your principle $100,000 , but ( (Principle $100,000) minus (Negative Yields @ -0.05) Times ( 10 Years ) ) assume the rates are on simple annual rate. Now anyone may wander why should someone going to buy this kind of investment where I am actually giving away not only possible profit also losing some of principle amount! This might looks real odd, but there is other valid reason for issuing / investing on such kind of bond. From investor prospective: Every asset has its own 'expense' for keeping ownership of it. This is also true for money/currency depending on its size. And other investment possibility and risk factor. The same way people maintain checking account with virtually no visible income vs. Savings account where bank issue some positive rate of interest with various time factor like annually/half-yearly/monthly. People with lower level of income but steady on flow choose savings where business personals go for checking one. Think of Millions of Ideal money with no secure investment opportunity have to option in real. Option one to keeping this large amount of money in hand, arranging all kind of security which involve extra expense, risk and headache where Option two is invest on bond issued by Government of country. Owner of that amount will go for second one even with negative yields on bonds where he is paying in return of security and risk free grantee of getting it back on time. On Issuing Government prospective: Here government actually want people not to keep money idle investing bonds, but find any possible sector to invest which might profitable for both Investor + Grater Community ultimately country. This is a basic understanding on issue/buy/selling of Negative interest bearing bond on market. Hope I could explain it here. Not to mention, English is not my 1st language at all. So ignore my typo, grammatical error and welcome to fix it. Cheers!\"" }, { "docid": "54619", "title": "", "text": "\"Donbey since you mention your expenses are very low, I'm going to assume that social security will cover your expenses once you qualify for it. Since you have no savings currently the first and most important job for this money is to make sure that you can live comfortably until social security kicks in. Social security could start for you as early as 62 so you need to set aside at least two years worth of money plus another chunk as a safety measure. Also, if you don't have health insurance please look to get a plan through your local ACA exchange as not having health insurance is by far the most common way someone your age ends up bankrupt. Insurance will eat up a good chunk of the money, but will be much cheaper after the first year if you continue to have no income. Now, if your expenses are low enough, you can look to use this money to delay when you start taking social security as long as possible as the longer you delay social security the more money you get. The AARP has a calculator where you can see how much more per year you will get from social security if you delay taking it as long as you can. This is a great way to insure you live as comfortably as possible even if you live to 120. Assuming you are reasonably healthy, this is a very secure and very meaningful way to \"\"invest\"\" this windfall. Once you have set aside the money for your expenses, emergencies, health care and delaying social security in a combination of checking and high-yielding savings accounts, yhen it can be in your interest to invest any remaining amount. Common, solid, low-risk investments for a 10+ year time frame would be either: While Glen is correct that it is possible for even the best bond fund to lose money it is rather unlikely that you will end up losing money over a period of 10 years. The nice thing about the bond fund is that most funds (find the right one) don't charge a fee if you need to need to take your money out early. CDs guarantee that you won't lose your money, but if you have to take the money out in an emergency the fees will eat up way more money than a bond fund would normally lose. Also, a good bond fund will generally yield a bit more than a CD. Investing in stock is generally much too risky for this sort of time frame without large savings to back it up.\"" }, { "docid": "94302", "title": "", "text": "Depends on how long you're willing to invest for. Broadly speaking, the best (by which I mean, more reliably repeatable) way to make money from market corrections is to accept them as a fact of life, and not sell in a panic when they happen, such that the money you already invested can ride back up again. Put another way, just invest your money in one or two broad, low cost index funds with dividends reinvested (maybe spreading your investment over the course of six months or so) and then let time do its work. Have you worked out how much you've missed out on by holding your money as cash all this time (I presume you've been saving up a while) instead of investing it as you went? I suspect that by waiting for your correction, you've already missed out on more than you're going to make from that correction." } ]

[ { "docid": "556233", "title": "", "text": "You can invest in a couple of Sharia-conform ETFs which are available in Germany and issued by Deutsche Bank (and other financial institutions). For instance, have a look at these ETFs: DB Sharia ETFs In addition, Kuveyt Turk Bank aims to become Germany's first Islamic bank offering Sharia conform investments (Reuters)." } ]

[ { "docid": "138102", "title": "", "text": "\"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"" }, { "docid": "441074", "title": "", "text": "The way I usually make this decision is to answer the following question: Do I think that I can earn a better return on my savings than the interest rate I would get on the loan? Yes= Get a loan No= Use the savings If you have your savings in a fixed income investment like a CD or bond, then it is just simple math to answer the question, for more volatile investments like stocks you just have to make an educated guess based on the direction of the markets and past performance." }, { "docid": "96791", "title": "", "text": "\"See my comment below about the official exchange rate. There is no \"\"official\"\" exchange rate to apply as far as I'm aware. However the bank is already applying the same exchange rate you can find in the forex markets. They are simply applying a spread (meaning they will add some amount to the exchange rate whichever way you are exchanging currency). You will almost certainly not find a bank that doesn't apply a spread. Of course, their spread might be large, so that's why it is good to compare rates. By the way, 5 GBP/month seems reasonable for a foreign currency (or any) acct. The transaction fees might be cheaper in a different \"\"package\"\" so check. You should consider trying PayPal. Their spread is quite small - and publicly disclosed - and their per-transaction fees are very low. Of course, this is not a bank account. But you can easily connect it to your bank account and transfer the money between accounts quickly. They also offer free foreign currency accounts that you can basically open and close in a click. Transfers are instantaneous. I am based in Germany but I haven't had a problem with clients from various English-speaking countries using PayPal. They actually seem to prefer it in many instances.\"" }, { "docid": "497764", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll start with a question... Is the 63K before or after taxes? The short answer to your question on how much is reasonable is: \"\"It depends.\"\" It depends on a lot more than where you live, it depends on what you want... do you want to pay down debt? Do you want to save? Are you trying to buy a house? Those will influence how much you \"\"can\"\" (should let yourselves) spend. It also depends on your actual salary... just because I spend 5% of my salary on something doesn't mean bonkers to you if you're making 63,000 and I'm only making 10,000. I also have a lot of respect for you trying to take this on. It's never easy. But I would also recommend you start by trying to see what you can do to track how much you are actually spending. That can be hard, especially if you mostly use cash. Once you're tracking what you spend, I still think you're coming at this a bit backwards though... rather than ask 'how much is reasonable' to spend on those other expenses, you basically need to rule out the bigger items first. This means things like taxes, your housing, food, transportation, and kid-related expenses. (I've got 2.5 kids of my own.) I would guess that you're listing your pre-tax salaries on here... so start first with whatever it costs you to pay taxes. I'm a US citizen living in Berlin, haven't filed UK taxes, but uktaxcalculators.co.uk says that on 63,000 a year with 3 deductions your net earnings will actually be 43,500. That's 3,625/month. Then what does it cost you each month for rent/utilities/etc. to put a house over your family's head? The rule of thumb they taught in my home-economics class was 35-40%, but that's not for Europe... you'll know what it costs. Let's say its 1,450 a month (40%) for rent and utilities and maybe insurance. That leaves 2,175. The next necessity after housing is food. My current food budget is about 5-6% of my after-tax salary. But that may not compare... the cost to feed a family of 3 is a fairly fixed number, and our salaries aren't the same. As I said, I am a US expat living in Berlin, so I looked at this cost of living calculator, and it looks like groceries are about 7-10% higher there around Cardiff than here in Germany. Still, I spend about 120 € per week on food. That has a fair margin in it for splurging on ice cream and a couple brewskies. It feeds me (I'm almost 2m and about 100 kilos) and my family of four. Let's say you spend 100£ a week on groceries. For budgeting, that's 433£ a month. (52 weeks / 12 months == 4.333 weeks/month) But let's call it 500£. That leaves 1,675. From here, you'll have to figure out the details of where your own money is going--that's why I said you should really start tracking your expenses somehow... even just for a short time. But for the purposes of completing the answers to your questions, the next step is to look at saving before you try spending anything else. A nice target is to aim for 10% of your after-tax pay going into a savings account... this is apart from any other investments. Let's say you do that, you'll be putting away 363£ per month. That leaves 1,300£. As far as other expenses... you need some money for transport. You haven't mentioned car(s) but let's say you're spending another 500£ there. That would be about enough to cover one with the petrol you need to get around town. That leaves 800£ As far as a clothing budget and entertainment, I usually match my grocery budget with what I call \"\"mad money\"\". That's basically money that goes towards other stuff that I would love to categorize, but that my wife gets annoyed with my efforts to drill into on a regular basis. That's another 500£, which leaves 300£. You mentioned debts... assuming that's a credit card at around 20% interest, you probably pay 133£ a month just in interest... (20% = 0.20 / 12 = 0.01667 x 8,000 = 133) plus some nominal payment towards principal. So let's call it 175£. That leaves you with 125£ of wiggle room, assuming I have even caught all of your expenses. And depending on how they're timed, you are probably feeling a serious squeeze in between paychecks. I recognize that you're asking specific questions, but I think that just based on the questions you need a bit more careful backing into the budget. And you REALLY need to track what you're spending for the time being, until you can say... right, we usually spend about this much on X... how can we cut it out? From there the basics of getting your financial house in order are splattered across the interwebs. Make a budget... stick to it... pay down debts... save. Develop goals and mini incentives/rewards as a way to make sure your change your psyche about following a budget.\"" }, { "docid": "237338", "title": "", "text": "Saving money for the future is a good thing. Whether spending those savings on a business venture makes sense, will depend on a few factors, including: (1) How much money you need that business to make [ie: will you be quitting your job and relying on the business for your sole income? Or will this just be a hobby you make some pocket change from?] (2) How much the money the business needs up front [some businesses, like simple web design consulting, might have effectively $0 in cash startup costs, where starting a franchise restaurant might cost you $500k-$1M on day 1] (3) How risky it is [the general stat is that something like 50% of all new businesses fail in their first year, and I think for restaurants that number is often given as 75%+] So sometimes investing in your own business is financially risky, and other times it is not risky. Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes it is not. Either way, saving for a future business that you may or may not ever invest in, is still saving money. If you never end up investing in a business, you can instead use that money for retirement, or whatever other financial goals you have. So it's not the saving for a new business that is risky, it's the spending. Part of good personal financial management is making financial goals, tracking your progress to those goals, and changing them as needed. In a simpler case, many people want to own their own home - this is a common financial goal, just like early retirement, or starting your own business, or paying for your kids' college education. All those goals are helped by saving money, so your job as someone mindful of personal finances, is to prioritize those goals in accordance to what is important for you. As mentioned by Stannius in the comments below, there is one catch here: if you are saving money for a short term goal (such as starting a business in a year), then you might want to keep it in low-interest savings accounts, instead of investing in the stock market. Doing this would remove the chance that your investments fail right before you need the startup money. Of course, this means that saving for a business that you never end up starting, could earn you less investment income on your savings. This would be the risk of saving for any specific short term goal that you end up changing later on." }, { "docid": "62162", "title": "", "text": "\"The day I paid my last student loan payment and my last car payment was (January 4, 2000) a very happy day for me, being then 100% debt free. It is a very good feeling, especially since I was saving cash as well. It's a great thing to know that no-one \"\"owns\"\" you. Many others here have provided useful information about debt, and I know that paying off your existing loans will improve your credit rating, in case you want to go back into debt (which I did later in 2000, by buying a house). For most people, borrowing money to invest it is complicated (make sure you're not paying more on your borrowed $ than you make on your investment) due to the fact that most investments have risk involved. I would say that being debt-free is a very good goal, and there's a level of freedom it gives you. Just make sure you have your \"\"rainy day\"\" fund building while you're on your way to getting there.\"" }, { "docid": "582161", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, leveraged investing is investing borrowed money. To do so, you need to convince a lender that you're good for the loan. This usually means you need to have collateral worth what you're trying to borrow, or you need to pay a higher rate to account for the fact that they're gambling that you will remain employed and pay off the loan. Leveraged investing is, in general, a risky move for exactly this reason. You can lose not just your original investment, but everything you borrowed as well. The only time it really makes sense, in my admittedly conservative opinion, is when you (a) can afford to suffer that loss, (b) are pretty confident of your investment, and (c) have assets which you have no intention to sell for the duration of the loan. An \"\"unneeded\"\" mortgage on a house is a classic example, thusly: When I purchased my house, I had enough savings that I could have bought it without taking a mortgage. Instead, I took out a mortgage for a large part of that, and left the remainder in my investment accounts -- essentially building the leveraging loan into the mortgage. I then got obscenely \"\"lucky\"\" when interest rates fell through the floor due to the Great Recession, and was able to refinance the mortgage to near record low rates. As a result, on that loan -- which, as I say, I'm in the position of being able to pay off at any time without killing my finances -- I'm currently paying about 3.5%, while the cash this has let me leave in my investments is earning several times that... a net win. But again, note that this required collateral. Essentially, all I'm doing is paying a bit to to borrow my own money (part of the value of the house). There really is no easy way to \"\"convert 25k to 250k\"\" -- if there was, everyone would be doing it. There's no magic in investment. Just time and compounding returns and trading off risk against potential gain. The more you try to push it and win big, the more you risk losing big. I really recommend not attempting anything fancy until you're wealthy enough that you can afford those losses. But if you insist on playing in this space, the answer to your question is to buy options. Options are a packaged form of borrowing to invest. Note that they're still considered high-risk unless you know EXACTLY what you're doing, and again I strongly recommend you not put money into them unless you can afford to lose it -- options have a nasty habit of turning from apparent gains on paper to losses remarkably quickly.\"" }, { "docid": "371672", "title": "", "text": "The Euro will collapse because Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece will have to default on their debt. In order to keep up with current payments they have to take emergency loans at the same time that their economies are in recession and demands on social programs are increasing. There is simply no way that they can cut enough spending and raise enough revenue to balance their budgets. That is not opinion, it is arithmetic. If they cannot pay their loans they will either voluntarily leave the Euro, or they will be forced out. Next comes France who also has a large and growing budget deficit and a large public debt. It is unsustainable. That which is unsustainable will end. The last reason that the Euro will fail and that it will be soon is Germany. Up to now, all the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have come predominantly from Germany. In order to float the Eurobonds that some idiots think might save Europe, the German people have to authorize their government to participate and thereby take on another mountain of debt. The German people will not vote for that authorization. Is that enough reasons? Because there are more. Lots more. Read [Mike Shedlock](http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com)" }, { "docid": "293243", "title": "", "text": "There are lots of answers here, but I'll add my two cents... The best way to win is not to play. MLM is not a viable business model. Don't go in thinking you'll beat the system by trying harder than everyone else. The only way you'll make any money is by recruiting lots of people, and selling products that can be obtained for cheaper elsewhere at a normal store. If your friend already committed to the decision and they're wise as to what's going on, yet gullible enough to try anyways, have them think about the ethics of exploiting the people down the pyramid from them. Maybe that will change their mind. All of the other answers about not investing too much of your own money remain true. You don't want to blow your life savings on a pipe dream." }, { "docid": "442906", "title": "", "text": "Immediately move your Roth IRA out of Edward Jones and into a discount broker like Scottrade, Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or E-Trade. Edward Jones will be charging you a large fraction of your money (probably at least 1% explicitly and maybe another 1% in hidden-ish fees like the 12b-1). Don't give away several percent of your savings every year when you can have an account for free. Places like Edward Jones are appropriate only for people who are unwilling to learn about personal finance and happy to pay dearly as a result. Move your money by contacting the new broker, then requesting that they get your money out of Edward Jones. They will be happy to do so the right way. Don't try and get the money out yourself. Continue to contribute to your Roth as long as your tax bracket is low. Saving on taxes is a critically important part of being financially wise. You can spend your contributions (not gains) out of your Roth for any reason without penalty if you want/need to. When your tax bracket is higher, look at traditional IRA's instead to minimize your current tax burden. For more accessible ways of saving, open a regular (non-tax-advantaged) brokerage account. Invest in diversified and low-cost funds. Look at the expense ratios and minimize your portfolio's total expense. Higher fee funds generally do not earn the money they take from you. Avoid all funds that have a nonzero 12b-1 fee. Generally speaking your best bet is buying index funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or their close competitors. Or buying cheap ETF's. Any discount brokerage will allow you to do this in both your Roth and regular accounts. Remember, the reason you buy funds is to get instant diversification, not because you are willing to gamble that your mutual funds will outperform the market. Head to the bogleheads forum for more specific advice about 3 fund portfolios and similar suggested investment strategies like the lazy portfolios. The folks in the forums there like to give specific advice that's not appropriate here. If you use a non-tax-advantaged account for investing, buy and sell in a tax-smart way. At the end of the year, sell your poor performing stocks or funds and use the loss as a tax write-off. Then rebalance back to a good portfolio. Or if your tax bracket is very low, sell the winners and lock in the gains at low tax rates. Try to hold things more than a year so you are taxed at the long-term capital gains rate, rather than the short-term. Only when you have several million dollars, then look at making individual investments, rather than funds. In a non-tax-advantaged account owning the assets directly will help you write off losses against your taxes. But either way, it takes several million dollars to make the transactions costs of maintaining a portfolio lower than the fees a cheap mutual/index fund will charge." }, { "docid": "82952", "title": "", "text": "\"It all depends on your loan contract, and the way most are written, the 10 day thing will not help. However, assuming that the contract is written in such a way to allow this, the difference will be negligible. By \"\"saving money\"\" I assume you mean the amount of interest paid. There is really two ways of doing this. If you carry the loan to term paying the indicated amount on the due date you will pay $6,140 in interest. An increase of over 33% to the cost of the car. Yikes, that is a lot of money. You should seek to minimize your interest expense. One way to do this is to reduce your rate. Applying for a new loan that is at a more reasonable 6% and continuing to pay the ~285 per month will reduce the term to 59 months and only cost you $2,245 in interest. A large savings. Even better is to work a second job and earn an extra 1,000 per month. Then bundle it with your 285 payment and shoot that at the loan. This way you will only pay $965 in interest, and have it paid off in a year. Once you do that, you can stick $300/month or so in a savings account or other investment and pay for every other car in cash. Making choices like these leads to building wealth. So the question becomes do you want to spend the rest of your life on the hamster wheel of car payments, or do you want to spend one year in pain so you make smart choices in the future? The choice is yours.\"" }, { "docid": "25247", "title": "", "text": "I think it really depends on how much you take out of your Nationwide account each month. At a certain point, it will become cheaper just to transfer your monthly rent + living allowance via an international bank transfer or using one of the currency transfer services like xe.com or Hifx. You will have to pay fees either way and/or you'll end up with a forex spread. If you have got enough money in your UK account to cover several months' worth of expenses in Germany, I would be tempted to make one big transfer every few months instead of a a monthly one; anything more than once a month is probably going to be too costly either way. It might also be worth comparing the transfer fees charged by the various banks, when I lived in the UK and had to regularly send money to Germany I found there was a massive difference between different banks for essentially the same service." }, { "docid": "39927", "title": "", "text": "Because swing trading isn't the only reason to buy a stock, and it's not the only way to make money on a stock. I do not have the expertise to make advice one way or the other, but I personally I feel swing trading is one of the worse ways to invest in the stock market. To answer your specific questions: In the previous post, I outlined a naive trade intended to make $1,000 off a $10k buy, but it was shown this would likely fail, even if the stock price would have increased by 10% had I not placed the trade. Another way to state this is that my trade would disrupt the stock price, and not in my favor at all. So, that means I'd have to settle for a smaller trade. If I bought $100 worth of the stock, that size of a buy wouldn't be too disruptive. I might succeed and get $10 out of the trade (10% of $100). But my trade fee was $8 or so... To summarize, you are completely correct that even hoping for gains of 10% on a consistent basis (in other words, after every single trade!) is totally unrealistic. You already seem to understand that swing trading on low-volume stocks is pointless. But your last question was... So how do people make any significant money trading low volume stocks--if they even do? I assume money is made, since the stocks are bought and sold. I have some guesses, but I'd like to hear from the experts. ... and in a comment: Then if no one does make significant money trading these stocks...what are they doing there on the market? The answer is that the buying and selling is mostly likely not by swing traders. It's by investors that believe in the company. The company is on the market because the company believes public trading to be an advantageous position for them to receive capital investments, and there are people out there who think that transaction makes sense. In other words, real investing." }, { "docid": "155816", "title": "", "text": "The core idea behind this statement is that there is always money for what you prioritize. If you try to use whatever is left over after your bills for savings, you probably won't save very much if anything. In practice, you decide on a fixed amount of money you will save out of each paycheck and put that aside in an investment or savings account, then pay your bills out of what is left. Essentially it is a way to counteract the tendency of your lifestyle rising to exactly meet your income and leaving nothing for savings." }, { "docid": "454287", "title": "", "text": "\"None of what I say is advice directed to you. It is how I would continue to analyse the situation you have, were it mine. First off, I prefer to work in certainties more than possibilities. Saying that, paying down the mortgage makes sense as I can calculate the amount I will save. I also believe that rate rises are coming in the future, based on the talk from the BofE, so any money I pay off now means guaranteed less interest to pay in the future. Also, the lower my loan-to-value ratio, the better/lower interest rates I can receive in the mortgage market. If I do not want to work until retirement age, it'd be nice to have as few bills as possible in the decade or so prior to retirement age. I could then do early-retirement or part-time work in the run-up to retirement. I could use my savings to fund life until retirement pays out. I'd be aiming to put 15% of my gross income into \"\"future investing\"\" - using ISAs to build up a savings pot, taking advantage of retirement products. That way all the money is not tied to a normal retirement age before it can accessed. And it's not touchable by future greedy Government taxation... Any income leftover above the 15%, I'd be throwing at the mortgage - taking advantage of the 10% overpay window, remortgaging as LTV comes down. In theory, overpaid mortgage equity is money that could still be accessed (provided house prices don't decline and remortgaging is a possibility). So, in short, I'd follow a plan along these lines of logic. 1) Make sure I have 4-6 months of living expenses as a Rainy Day Fund. Insulate myself from fluctuations in my financial situation. 2) Put away 15% of annual gross income towards \"\"future saving\"\". ISAs first, pension second. 3) Overpay the mortgage and look to remortgage as LTV drops. When LTV nears 60%, look to lock in to a longer-term fix. eg. 2 year fixes at 90% LTV, 5 year fixes at 60%. 4) Reassess steps 2 & 3 as life happens, circumstances change, work fluctuates, etc. 5) Once the mortgage is paid off, build as much wealth as possible - ISAs first, then non-tax efficient savings products. Aim for keeping expenses down and raising my savings % rate as much as possible. [Your analysis was thorough and shows you are thinking through consequences. Never forget to factor in the risk of carrying debt. Having no/low debt as you get older means there's more income left to build wealth. Ignore the American view of carrying debt for life and trusting investments to outperform the debt. You have to pay monthly to keep that debt around - and it ain't a pet!]\"" }, { "docid": "278678", "title": "", "text": "\"I opened several free checking accounts at a local credit union. One is a \"\"Deposit\"\" account where all of my new money goes. I get paid every two weeks. Every other Sunday we have our \"\"Money Day\"\" where we allocate the money from our Deposit account into our other checking accounts. I have one designated as a Bills account where all of my bills get paid automatically via bill pay or auto-pay. I created a spreadsheet that calculates how much to save each Money Day for all of my upcoming bills. This makes it so the amount I save for my bills is essentially equal. Then I allocate the rest of my deposit money into my other checking accounts. I have a Grocery, Household, and Main checking accounts but you could use any combination that you want. When we're at the store we check our balances (how much we have left to spend) on our mobile app. We can't overspend this way. The key is to make sure you're using your PIN when you use your debit card. This way it shows up in real-time with your credit union and you've got an accurate balance. This has worked really well to coordinate spending between me and my wife. It sounds like it's a lot of work but it's actually really automated. The best part is that I don't have to do any accounting which means my budget doesn't fail if I'm not entering my transactions or categorizing them. I'm happy to share my spreadsheet if you'd like.\"" }, { "docid": "94302", "title": "", "text": "Depends on how long you're willing to invest for. Broadly speaking, the best (by which I mean, more reliably repeatable) way to make money from market corrections is to accept them as a fact of life, and not sell in a panic when they happen, such that the money you already invested can ride back up again. Put another way, just invest your money in one or two broad, low cost index funds with dividends reinvested (maybe spreading your investment over the course of six months or so) and then let time do its work. Have you worked out how much you've missed out on by holding your money as cash all this time (I presume you've been saving up a while) instead of investing it as you went? I suspect that by waiting for your correction, you've already missed out on more than you're going to make from that correction." }, { "docid": "497281", "title": "", "text": "There are a number of scholarly articles on the subject including a number at the end of the Vanguard article you reference. However, unfortunately like much of financial research you can't look at the articles without paying quite a bit. It is not easy to make a generic comparison between lump-sum and dollar cost averaging because there are many ways to do dollar cost averaging. How long do you average over? Do you evenly average or exponentially put the money to work? The easiest way to think about this problem though is does the extra compounding from investing more of the money immediately outweigh the chance that you may have invested all the money when the market is overvalued. Since the market is usually near the correct value investing in lump sum will usually win out as the Vanguard article suggests. As a side note, while using DCA on a large one time sum of money is generally not optimal, if you have a consistent salary DCA by frequently investing a portion of your salary has been frequently shown to be a very good idea of long periods over saving up a bunch of money and investing it all at once. In this case you get the compounding advantage of investing early and you avoid investing a large chunk of money when the market is overvalued." }, { "docid": "353369", "title": "", "text": "Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc." } ]

[ { "docid": "371304", "title": "", "text": "\"What is actually a halal investment? Your definition of halal investment is loose and subject to interpretation. On one hand, nothing is fixed in the financial world. You might get a 10 Year Germany Bund with a fixed coupon rate of 1%, but the real rate of return of this investment is far from fixed. It depends on the market environment, the inflation, etc. (Also, you can trade this investment on the secondary market at any time.) Moreover, the country can default. For example, nothing is \"\"fixed\"\" if you hold the Argentina bonds. You might think a saving account in the bank is a fixed investment. But again, what about the inflation? And if you talk with the account holders in Cyprus, you will understand there is no such thing that you are \"\"guaranteed to profit a fixed amount each month or year\"\". So, from this point of view, everything is \"\"halal\"\", because nothing is fixed and the risk of losing the principle is alway there. On the other hand, if you assume that investing a government bond and having a saving account is not halal by definition, you will end up with a situation that every investment is not halal. Suppose you invest in a company. What does the company do with your money? Sure, they will use some of your money to buy equipments, hire new people, and so on. But they will always save some money as cash reserves to meet the short-term and emergency funding needs. Those cash reserves are usually in the form of highly liquid investment, such as short-term bonds, money market funds, savings in a bank account, etc. Because those investments are not halal per definition, is your investment in the company still halal? So in the end, you might just do whatever you want depending on your interpretation.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "95044", "title": "", "text": "The ruble was, is and will be very unstable because of unstable political situation in Russia and the economy strongly dependent of the export of raw resources. What you can do? I assume, you want to minimize risk. The best way to achieve that is to make your savings in some stable currency. Euro and Swiss Franc are currently very stable currencies, so storing your surpluses in them is a very good option if you want to keep your money safe. To prevent political risk, you should keep your money in countries with stable political regime, which are unlikely to 'nationalize' the savings of the citizens in predictable future. As for your existing savings in rubles, it's a hard deal. I assume, as the web developer, you have a plenty of money, which have lost a lot of value. If you convert them to euro or francs, you will preserver the current value (after the loss). You'll safe them agaist ruble falling down, but in case the ruble will return to previous value, you'll loose. Keeping savings in instable currencies is, however, speculation, like investing in gold etc. So if you can mentally accept the loss and want to sleep good, convert them. You have also option to invest in properties, for example buy an extra appartment. It's a good way to deal with financial surplus in Europe in US, however you should be aware, in Russland it's connected with the political risk. The real estates can be confiscated in any moment by the state and you can't run away with it (the savings can also be confiscated, but there's a fair chance you'll manage to rescue them if you act quickly)." }, { "docid": "223411", "title": "", "text": "To what end would you want to break the law? Why would you think it is beneficial to you in any way? The reason for these limitations is to protect people who have no financial reserves and are not sophisticated investors from making dangerous and risky investments with the little money they have to invest. You need to remember that there's no guarantee of principal with these loans and the rate of default is pretty high. From my own personal experience with Lending Club (and I've only invested in A and some B-rated loans) - rate of default is about 10%. This may be a nice exercise in microlending - but if you want to put all your savings into this, you're taking a huge risk. Risk which is completely unjustified since not only the returns are pretty low (again - from my aforementioned experience: <6% APR, you take higher rate loans - you get higher rate of defaults), but they're also taxed as ordinary gains. Why would you not, instead, invest in a more conservative bond or bond/stock mix fund which will pay you dividends that will get preferential tax treatment and appreciation would be subject to capital gains tax? No reason. And the limitation on who can invest in Lending Club is there for exactly this purpose - to weed out people like you who have no idea of what they're doing." }, { "docid": "556421", "title": "", "text": "You really have asked two different questions here: I'm interested in putting away some money for my family Then I urge you to read up on investing. Improving your knowledge in investing is an investment that will very likely pay off in the long-term - this can't be answered here in full length, pointers to where to start are asset allocation and low-cost index funds. Read serious books, read stackexchange posts, and try avoid the Wall Street marketing machine. Also, before considering any long term investments, build an emergency fund (e.g. 6 months worth of your expenses) in case you need some liquid money (loss of job etc.), and also helps you sleep better at night. What things are important to consider before making this kind of investment? Mainly the risk (other answers already elaborate on the details). Investing in a single stock is quite risky, even more so when your income also depends on that company. Framed another way: which percentage of your portfolio should you put into a single stock? (which has been answered in this post). If after considering all things you think it's a good deal, take the offer, but don't put a too great percentage of you overall savings into it, limit it to say 10% (maybe even less)." }, { "docid": "35680", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk." }, { "docid": "25247", "title": "", "text": "I think it really depends on how much you take out of your Nationwide account each month. At a certain point, it will become cheaper just to transfer your monthly rent + living allowance via an international bank transfer or using one of the currency transfer services like xe.com or Hifx. You will have to pay fees either way and/or you'll end up with a forex spread. If you have got enough money in your UK account to cover several months' worth of expenses in Germany, I would be tempted to make one big transfer every few months instead of a a monthly one; anything more than once a month is probably going to be too costly either way. It might also be worth comparing the transfer fees charged by the various banks, when I lived in the UK and had to regularly send money to Germany I found there was a massive difference between different banks for essentially the same service." }, { "docid": "34746", "title": "", "text": "You're doing great. I'd suggest trying get putting 5-10% towards your retirement and the balance to the student loans. You are a little weak in retirement savings, but you have $550k house with 20% equity that you bought at the bottom of the market. That's a smart investment IMO, and in my mind compensates somewhat for your low 401k balance. If I were you, I would retire the student loans ASAP to reduce the money that you have to shell out each month. That way, you have the option of scaling back you or your wife's work somewhat to avoid paying thousands for child care. In my mind, less debt == more options, and I like options." }, { "docid": "497281", "title": "", "text": "There are a number of scholarly articles on the subject including a number at the end of the Vanguard article you reference. However, unfortunately like much of financial research you can't look at the articles without paying quite a bit. It is not easy to make a generic comparison between lump-sum and dollar cost averaging because there are many ways to do dollar cost averaging. How long do you average over? Do you evenly average or exponentially put the money to work? The easiest way to think about this problem though is does the extra compounding from investing more of the money immediately outweigh the chance that you may have invested all the money when the market is overvalued. Since the market is usually near the correct value investing in lump sum will usually win out as the Vanguard article suggests. As a side note, while using DCA on a large one time sum of money is generally not optimal, if you have a consistent salary DCA by frequently investing a portion of your salary has been frequently shown to be a very good idea of long periods over saving up a bunch of money and investing it all at once. In this case you get the compounding advantage of investing early and you avoid investing a large chunk of money when the market is overvalued." }, { "docid": "82952", "title": "", "text": "\"It all depends on your loan contract, and the way most are written, the 10 day thing will not help. However, assuming that the contract is written in such a way to allow this, the difference will be negligible. By \"\"saving money\"\" I assume you mean the amount of interest paid. There is really two ways of doing this. If you carry the loan to term paying the indicated amount on the due date you will pay $6,140 in interest. An increase of over 33% to the cost of the car. Yikes, that is a lot of money. You should seek to minimize your interest expense. One way to do this is to reduce your rate. Applying for a new loan that is at a more reasonable 6% and continuing to pay the ~285 per month will reduce the term to 59 months and only cost you $2,245 in interest. A large savings. Even better is to work a second job and earn an extra 1,000 per month. Then bundle it with your 285 payment and shoot that at the loan. This way you will only pay $965 in interest, and have it paid off in a year. Once you do that, you can stick $300/month or so in a savings account or other investment and pay for every other car in cash. Making choices like these leads to building wealth. So the question becomes do you want to spend the rest of your life on the hamster wheel of car payments, or do you want to spend one year in pain so you make smart choices in the future? The choice is yours.\"" }, { "docid": "513281", "title": "", "text": "\"First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. \"\"Best\"\" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several \"\"discount\"\" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds.\"" }, { "docid": "75326", "title": "", "text": "Good job. Assuming that you are also contributing to retirement, you are bound to be a wealthy person. I'm not really sure how Australia works as far as retirement, but I am pretty sure you are taking care of that too. Given your time frame (more than 5 years) I would consider investing at least a portion of the money. If I was you, I would tend to make that amount significant, say 75% in mutual funds, 25% in your high interest savings. The ratio you choose is up to you, but I would be heavier in the investment than savings side. As the time for home purchase approaches, you may want more in savings and less in investments. You may want to look at a mutual fund with a low beta. Beta is a measure of the price volatility. I did a google search on low beta funds, and came up with a number of good articles that explains this further. Having a fund with a low beta insulates you, a bit, from radical swings in the market allowing you to count more on the money being there when needed. One way to get to the proper ratio, is to contribute all new money to the mutual fund until it is in proper balance. This way you don't lower your interest rate for a month. Given your time frame, salary, and sense of responsibility you may be able to do the 100% down plan. Again, good work!" }, { "docid": "94302", "title": "", "text": "Depends on how long you're willing to invest for. Broadly speaking, the best (by which I mean, more reliably repeatable) way to make money from market corrections is to accept them as a fact of life, and not sell in a panic when they happen, such that the money you already invested can ride back up again. Put another way, just invest your money in one or two broad, low cost index funds with dividends reinvested (maybe spreading your investment over the course of six months or so) and then let time do its work. Have you worked out how much you've missed out on by holding your money as cash all this time (I presume you've been saving up a while) instead of investing it as you went? I suspect that by waiting for your correction, you've already missed out on more than you're going to make from that correction." }, { "docid": "571143", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't want to have a house no matter where I live. So I am more than OK with always living in an apartment. We live in a really nice place right now. My husband is pretty up-to-date on how the country is running and he would be telling me if he were at all concerned about the state of things. Which he isn't... at least not anymore than when I first met him. So, while I am sure that I will always be middle class... I am OK with that. And perhaps Americans do earn 20% more than Germans but they also pay a lot more for things that Germans do not pay as much for. Edit: Also, my husband's grandfather was one of the leading historians in germany until he died in 2009. His grandparents were very well off. His parents were poor while he grew up. My husband is on his way to being a partner in an expanding business (he does programming) and his brother is a Pharmacist. By this time in a year or so from now the amount of money my husband earns will double." }, { "docid": "233100", "title": "", "text": "\"Goodness, I wish I could put away half my paycheck. Not to rain on your parade, but a 6-month emergency fund is not quite \"\"very good.\"\" It is the typical starting time frame. Personally, I would feel more comfortable with a 2+ year fund. That is a bit extreme, but only because many of us can barely seem to make it around to a 6-month fund. So, we focus on the more attainable goal. I say you do all three. Make saving money your priority, but do enjoy some of it; in moderation. Do not plan on making any big purchases with it, but know that you will eventually be able able to do so. Money not spent is worthless Idle money is worthless. Make some -- hopefully -- prudent investments with some of your money. A small portion of that investment portfolio can/should be in speculative investments. Maybe even as much as 20% of your investment portfolio, since you are young. Consider that money gone and you will hopefully be surprised by one of those speculative investments. That is the crucial point: earmark a small portion of your investment portfolio which you are willing to lose. However, do not gamble with it. Research the hot emerging technologies, for example, and find a way to make an investment. So, in summary: You may have more money that you know what do with, right now. However, that does not mean you need to go out and spend it all. Trust me, as you get older you will think of plenty of good uses for that money.\"" }, { "docid": "422561", "title": "", "text": "\"At this point, I want to tell you two things: 1. I truly believe that you are very concerned about racial hate and damage to society. You truly want Germany to help those in serious need. You are a fine person! I have the same concerns and approach. 2. I am a Jew, with many original family members in Germany now (almost all my family ran away from Germany and Czech Republic before WWII, few got hurt, and after WWII, some returned back, and to Germany). So all this argument I have with you is not so much about Germans, who some of them risked their lives to save few members of my family. Yes, Germans almost died to saved some of my family. It's about a concern for a misguided policy in Germany to allow AGAIN the rise of intolerance and racial problems, of which, for sure, Jews will be the victims again, but mostly other minorities, but not (!) Muslims. If you did not know, the word \"\"anti-semitism\"\" was invented by Germans, and it is supposed to be against the semite race. European Jews are hardly semite but all Muslims and Arabs are pure true semites. Yet, Hitler and Muslims worked together and collaborated against Jews. Muslims were not killed by Germany. (If you did not know, yes, all Jews were semites, but 2000 years in Europe, after expelled from ancient Israel 2000 years ago by the Romans, made the Jews in Europe hardly semite. Meanwhile, most Jews (60%) in Israel are not of European descent as they ended up in northern Africa and Asia and ALL(!) of them expelled from the Arabs/Muslim countries when Israel was established in 1948. Do you know that Hitler sent the Jews of Libya and other north Africa Arab/Muslim countries to concentration camps? But not any Libyans or other Arab/Muslims?) SO, ALLOW me go the other direction with you now: do migrants get fined, houses raided and sent to jail over racist and intolerant sayings and actions? How about their religious leaders? Sheikh Abu Bilal Ismail, speaking at the Al Nur mosque in Berlin, called upon Allah to “destroy the Zionist Jews”. And nothing was done to him by the German government. However, an old German lady was fined and her house was raided. Think about it. This will not end good with Germany!!!! Think it's early 1930 in Germany. Nobody could predict what happened 10 years later. **I highly(!!!) respect Germans as they have very high and good standards in every respect. Something to admire! But, because of that, shown many times in the past, not only the 1930s, Germany is the last country that should be experimented in regards to racial tensions and rising problems (crime, intolerance, fanatic religious people, etc).** Crime by migrants in Germany is up considerably, [Read here](https://counterjihadreport.com/2016/02/page/8/) Read about Sheikh Abu Bilal Ismail in Germany [here](http://forward.com/news/world/202751/germany-warns-against-hate-speech-after-imam-calls/)\"" }, { "docid": "293243", "title": "", "text": "There are lots of answers here, but I'll add my two cents... The best way to win is not to play. MLM is not a viable business model. Don't go in thinking you'll beat the system by trying harder than everyone else. The only way you'll make any money is by recruiting lots of people, and selling products that can be obtained for cheaper elsewhere at a normal store. If your friend already committed to the decision and they're wise as to what's going on, yet gullible enough to try anyways, have them think about the ethics of exploiting the people down the pyramid from them. Maybe that will change their mind. All of the other answers about not investing too much of your own money remain true. You don't want to blow your life savings on a pipe dream." }, { "docid": "559927", "title": "", "text": "If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider moving them into an online saving account. You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible. Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks). If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be. Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio. It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments. If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate. Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value." }, { "docid": "178303", "title": "", "text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\"" }, { "docid": "353369", "title": "", "text": "Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc." }, { "docid": "475241", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, that's all they do. It's effectively an \"\"automatic saving/investing\"\" program. Bank of America does something similar with \"\"Keep the Change\"\", transferring the leftovers from checking to savings. The basic concept here is that people are lousy at saving, so if you put money into savings/investments in some way that is not in your control, it will be better than if you do it under your control even if it costs something because you're going to spend whatever your checking account balance is - so if that balance is artificially reduced, you'll not spend that money and instead have it in savings. This may be effective for some people, I don't know. Not something I would touch with a ten foot pole.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "20943", "title": "", "text": "What is not permitted in Islam is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender. Originally, usury meant interest of any kind. A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors. But In case of financial markets, people borrow money to make money and both parties benefits, and no one is taking advantage of the other. I may be wrong in interpreting this way, God knows the best." } ]

[ { "docid": "361623", "title": "", "text": "\"The most important thing is not to tell yourself \"\"I'll save more later in my career when I have more disposable income,\"\" because of two factors. 1) You will get raises over your career, but unless you make it big, it will never really feel like you have extra money. You may double or triple your salary over a career, but it usually happens in small increments which your lifestyle tends to adjust upwards to meet even though it doesn't feel like it. 2) Later in your career you may have more money to save, but now the commodity you have is time. Your total savings at retirement are going to be influenced in a massive way by both of these factors. A good strategy is save SOMETHING early in your career even if it feels like an insignificant amount. Then save larger amounts later in your career when you are earning more, but have less time for your investments to grow and less tolerance for high risk/high growth investments.\"" }, { "docid": "479206", "title": "", "text": "There are a lot of good answers above, all of them will probably work for you in some way or another. One point to note (from the procrastination theme) is that you could invest your free money that you have currently in some investment instrument which would require you to do some paperwork etc. to get out, this way the immediate cash flow is decreased and also invested. Now from each montly budget save a small amount for the things that you would like to buy. Give this small savings some months to accumulate so that you can afford only one of the items that you want to buy or target an item that you want to buy. After the money is accumulated, if you still want to buy the item, then you probably should. One point of note is that budgeting is also important on a monthly basis, Pete has provided excellent suggestion in this regard." }, { "docid": "513281", "title": "", "text": "\"First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. \"\"Best\"\" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several \"\"discount\"\" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds.\"" }, { "docid": "383743", "title": "", "text": "Paying yourself first is a method to ensure you are meeting your financial goals whatever they may be. It's also an easy way to automate the process of sending money where you need it go without needing to think about it. Your goals could be to buy a bit of a mutual fund every month, max your IRA, or stash a percentage of each paycheck in a wedding savings account. Maybe you are saving for a house. Knowing you should save and not doing is guilt generating. Paying yourself first means regularly putting money to these goals so you can stop worrying. Any way you figure it, you've still got bills to pay. Paying yourself first means taking care of these payments right off the top of your paycheck. The money goes where you need it. A good move is to automate this with bill pays, ACH transfers to investments accounts, etc. Once this is done, you can guiltlessly spend the money that is left over knowing that you've taken care of the important things and met all your goals. You never have to find yourself wondering if you paid your cell phone bill or if you have enough money to go out tonight. Savings for the new car you want are, as they say, in the bank." }, { "docid": "25247", "title": "", "text": "I think it really depends on how much you take out of your Nationwide account each month. At a certain point, it will become cheaper just to transfer your monthly rent + living allowance via an international bank transfer or using one of the currency transfer services like xe.com or Hifx. You will have to pay fees either way and/or you'll end up with a forex spread. If you have got enough money in your UK account to cover several months' worth of expenses in Germany, I would be tempted to make one big transfer every few months instead of a a monthly one; anything more than once a month is probably going to be too costly either way. It might also be worth comparing the transfer fees charged by the various banks, when I lived in the UK and had to regularly send money to Germany I found there was a massive difference between different banks for essentially the same service." }, { "docid": "582161", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, leveraged investing is investing borrowed money. To do so, you need to convince a lender that you're good for the loan. This usually means you need to have collateral worth what you're trying to borrow, or you need to pay a higher rate to account for the fact that they're gambling that you will remain employed and pay off the loan. Leveraged investing is, in general, a risky move for exactly this reason. You can lose not just your original investment, but everything you borrowed as well. The only time it really makes sense, in my admittedly conservative opinion, is when you (a) can afford to suffer that loss, (b) are pretty confident of your investment, and (c) have assets which you have no intention to sell for the duration of the loan. An \"\"unneeded\"\" mortgage on a house is a classic example, thusly: When I purchased my house, I had enough savings that I could have bought it without taking a mortgage. Instead, I took out a mortgage for a large part of that, and left the remainder in my investment accounts -- essentially building the leveraging loan into the mortgage. I then got obscenely \"\"lucky\"\" when interest rates fell through the floor due to the Great Recession, and was able to refinance the mortgage to near record low rates. As a result, on that loan -- which, as I say, I'm in the position of being able to pay off at any time without killing my finances -- I'm currently paying about 3.5%, while the cash this has let me leave in my investments is earning several times that... a net win. But again, note that this required collateral. Essentially, all I'm doing is paying a bit to to borrow my own money (part of the value of the house). There really is no easy way to \"\"convert 25k to 250k\"\" -- if there was, everyone would be doing it. There's no magic in investment. Just time and compounding returns and trading off risk against potential gain. The more you try to push it and win big, the more you risk losing big. I really recommend not attempting anything fancy until you're wealthy enough that you can afford those losses. But if you insist on playing in this space, the answer to your question is to buy options. Options are a packaged form of borrowing to invest. Note that they're still considered high-risk unless you know EXACTLY what you're doing, and again I strongly recommend you not put money into them unless you can afford to lose it -- options have a nasty habit of turning from apparent gains on paper to losses remarkably quickly.\"" }, { "docid": "178303", "title": "", "text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\"" }, { "docid": "454035", "title": "", "text": "\"Agreed on all points. You're still not saving a TON of money, given that you have to have a reasonable balance of salary/distributions, but an S-corp is the way to go if you're making substantial profit in order to save tax money. I'll reiterate (my wife is a CPA and she guides me on my business) - you can't legally save \"\"untaxed earnings\"\" for next year.\"" }, { "docid": "273209", "title": "", "text": "There is a fourth option - pay those taxes. Depending on the amounts, it might be the easiest way - if you make 34.49 in interest, and pay 6 $ in taxes on it, and be done, that might not be worth any other effort. If the expected taxable amount is significant, moving (most of it) to index funds or other simply switching existing investments to ‘reinvest’ instead of ‘pay out in cash’ would be the best approach. Again, some smaller amounts in savings or checkings accounts are probably not worth any effort. Transferring the money to the US doesn’t save you taxes, as any interest would still be taxable. You have a risk to lose on the conversion back and forth (and a potential to gain - the exchange rate could go either way!), so if you are sure you go back, it’s not a good idea to move the money." }, { "docid": "155816", "title": "", "text": "The core idea behind this statement is that there is always money for what you prioritize. If you try to use whatever is left over after your bills for savings, you probably won't save very much if anything. In practice, you decide on a fixed amount of money you will save out of each paycheck and put that aside in an investment or savings account, then pay your bills out of what is left. Essentially it is a way to counteract the tendency of your lifestyle rising to exactly meet your income and leaving nothing for savings." }, { "docid": "552887", "title": "", "text": "My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more." }, { "docid": "574011", "title": "", "text": "\"Negative Yields on Bonds is opposite of Getting profit on your investment. This is some kind of new practice from world wide financial institute. the interest rate is -0.05% for ten years. So a $100,000 bond under those terms would be \"\"discounted\"\" to $100,501, give or take. No, actually what you are going to get out from this investment is after 10 years when this investment is mature for liquidation, you will get return not even your principle $100,000 , but ( (Principle $100,000) minus (Negative Yields @ -0.05) Times ( 10 Years ) ) assume the rates are on simple annual rate. Now anyone may wander why should someone going to buy this kind of investment where I am actually giving away not only possible profit also losing some of principle amount! This might looks real odd, but there is other valid reason for issuing / investing on such kind of bond. From investor prospective: Every asset has its own 'expense' for keeping ownership of it. This is also true for money/currency depending on its size. And other investment possibility and risk factor. The same way people maintain checking account with virtually no visible income vs. Savings account where bank issue some positive rate of interest with various time factor like annually/half-yearly/monthly. People with lower level of income but steady on flow choose savings where business personals go for checking one. Think of Millions of Ideal money with no secure investment opportunity have to option in real. Option one to keeping this large amount of money in hand, arranging all kind of security which involve extra expense, risk and headache where Option two is invest on bond issued by Government of country. Owner of that amount will go for second one even with negative yields on bonds where he is paying in return of security and risk free grantee of getting it back on time. On Issuing Government prospective: Here government actually want people not to keep money idle investing bonds, but find any possible sector to invest which might profitable for both Investor + Grater Community ultimately country. This is a basic understanding on issue/buy/selling of Negative interest bearing bond on market. Hope I could explain it here. Not to mention, English is not my 1st language at all. So ignore my typo, grammatical error and welcome to fix it. Cheers!\"" }, { "docid": "293243", "title": "", "text": "There are lots of answers here, but I'll add my two cents... The best way to win is not to play. MLM is not a viable business model. Don't go in thinking you'll beat the system by trying harder than everyone else. The only way you'll make any money is by recruiting lots of people, and selling products that can be obtained for cheaper elsewhere at a normal store. If your friend already committed to the decision and they're wise as to what's going on, yet gullible enough to try anyways, have them think about the ethics of exploiting the people down the pyramid from them. Maybe that will change their mind. All of the other answers about not investing too much of your own money remain true. You don't want to blow your life savings on a pipe dream." }, { "docid": "571143", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't want to have a house no matter where I live. So I am more than OK with always living in an apartment. We live in a really nice place right now. My husband is pretty up-to-date on how the country is running and he would be telling me if he were at all concerned about the state of things. Which he isn't... at least not anymore than when I first met him. So, while I am sure that I will always be middle class... I am OK with that. And perhaps Americans do earn 20% more than Germans but they also pay a lot more for things that Germans do not pay as much for. Edit: Also, my husband's grandfather was one of the leading historians in germany until he died in 2009. His grandparents were very well off. His parents were poor while he grew up. My husband is on his way to being a partner in an expanding business (he does programming) and his brother is a Pharmacist. By this time in a year or so from now the amount of money my husband earns will double." }, { "docid": "283159", "title": "", "text": "First--and I'm only repeating what has been said already--roboadvisors are a great way to avoid paying high MERs and still not have to do much yourself. The Canadian Couch Potato method is great IF you are disciplined and spend the time every few months to regularly re-balance your portfolio. However, any savings you gain in low MERs is going to very likely be lost if you aren't re-balancing or if you aren't patient and disciplined in your investing. For that reason, the Couch Potato way isn't appropriate for 97% of the general population in my opinion. But if you are reading this, you probably already aren't a member of the general population. For myself, life seems always too busy and I've got a kid on the way. I see a huge value in using a robo-advisor (or alternatively Tangerine) and saving time in my day. The next question, which robo-advisor is best? I did a bunch of research here and my conclusion is that they are all fairly similar. My final three came down to Wealthbar/Wealthsimple/NestWeatlh. Price structures vary, but minus a few dollars here or there, there isn't a lot of difference in costs. What made WealthSimple stick out was that they provide some options for US citizens that help me prevent tax headaches. They also got back to me by email with really detailed answers when I had questions, which was really appreciated. Their site and monthly updates are minimalist and intuitive to navigate. Great user experience all around (I do web design myself). My gut feeling is that they have their act together and will stick around as a company for a long while." }, { "docid": "475241", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, that's all they do. It's effectively an \"\"automatic saving/investing\"\" program. Bank of America does something similar with \"\"Keep the Change\"\", transferring the leftovers from checking to savings. The basic concept here is that people are lousy at saving, so if you put money into savings/investments in some way that is not in your control, it will be better than if you do it under your control even if it costs something because you're going to spend whatever your checking account balance is - so if that balance is artificially reduced, you'll not spend that money and instead have it in savings. This may be effective for some people, I don't know. Not something I would touch with a ten foot pole.\"" }, { "docid": "480400", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll assume that you would work as a regular (part-time) employee. In this case, you are technically a Grenzgänger. You will need a specific kind of Swiss permit (\"\"Grenzgängerbewilligung\"\") allowing you to work in Switzerland. Your employer typically takes care of this - they have more experience than you. You being non-EU might make matters a bit more complicated. Your employer will withhold 4.5% of your gross income as source taxes (\"\"Quellensteuer\"\"). When you do your tax declaration, your entire income will be taxed in Germany, since this is where you live. This will happen after your first year of work. Be prepared for a large tax bill (or think of this as an interest-free loan from Germany to you). However, due to the Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen (DBA), the 4.5% you already paid to Switzerland will be deducted from the taxes you are due in Germany. Judging from my experience, the tax authorities in Germany are not fluent in the DBA - particularly in areas far away from the Swiss border. I had to gently remind them to deduct the source taxes, explicitly referring to the DBA. The bill was revised without problems, but I strongly recommend making sure that your source taxes are correctly deducted from your German tax liability. Once your local German tax office understands your situation, you will be asked to make quarterly prepayments, which will be calculated in a way to minimize your later overall tax liability. Budget for these. You didn't ask, but I'll tell you anyway: social security will normally be handled by Switzerland as the country of employment - not the country of residence. Your employer will automatically deduct old age, unemployment and accident insurance and contribute to a pension plan, all in Switzerland. However... ... if you do a lot of your work in Germany (>25%), which certainly applies if you plan on mostly working remotely, your social security will be handled by your country of residence. This is a major pain for your employer, because now your Swiss employer needs to understand the German social security system, how much and to whom to co-pay and so forth. This is a major area of study, and your employer may not want to spend all this effort. My employer has looked at this and requires anyone living outside of Switzerland to limit working from home to less than 25%, because by extension, they would some day also need to do the same for employees living in France, Italy, Austria... or even the UK. They don't want to dig through half the EU states' social security regulations. Therefore, you would not be able to work remotely from Germany for my employer. This is actually a fairly recent development that only entered in force at the beginning of 2015 (before that, this was all a bit of a gray area). Your prospective employer may not be aware of all details. So you will need to think about whether you actively want to point them at this (possibly ruining your plans of working remotely), or not (and possibly getting major problems and post-payments years later). Finally, I think you can choose whether you want to have your health insurance in Switzerland or in Germany (unless your Swiss obligation to be insured is waived because of your part-time status). Some Swiss health insurers offer plans where they cooperate with German health insurers, so you can go to German doctors just like a German resident. Source: I have been a Grenzgänger from Germany into Switzerland off and on for over ten years now. I can't say anything about whether your German visa restricts you from working in Switzerland. You may want to ask about this at Expatriates.SE, but I'd much rather ask your local German authorities than random strangers on the internet.\"" }, { "docid": "39927", "title": "", "text": "Because swing trading isn't the only reason to buy a stock, and it's not the only way to make money on a stock. I do not have the expertise to make advice one way or the other, but I personally I feel swing trading is one of the worse ways to invest in the stock market. To answer your specific questions: In the previous post, I outlined a naive trade intended to make $1,000 off a $10k buy, but it was shown this would likely fail, even if the stock price would have increased by 10% had I not placed the trade. Another way to state this is that my trade would disrupt the stock price, and not in my favor at all. So, that means I'd have to settle for a smaller trade. If I bought $100 worth of the stock, that size of a buy wouldn't be too disruptive. I might succeed and get $10 out of the trade (10% of $100). But my trade fee was $8 or so... To summarize, you are completely correct that even hoping for gains of 10% on a consistent basis (in other words, after every single trade!) is totally unrealistic. You already seem to understand that swing trading on low-volume stocks is pointless. But your last question was... So how do people make any significant money trading low volume stocks--if they even do? I assume money is made, since the stocks are bought and sold. I have some guesses, but I'd like to hear from the experts. ... and in a comment: Then if no one does make significant money trading these stocks...what are they doing there on the market? The answer is that the buying and selling is mostly likely not by swing traders. It's by investors that believe in the company. The company is on the market because the company believes public trading to be an advantageous position for them to receive capital investments, and there are people out there who think that transaction makes sense. In other words, real investing." }, { "docid": "422561", "title": "", "text": "\"At this point, I want to tell you two things: 1. I truly believe that you are very concerned about racial hate and damage to society. You truly want Germany to help those in serious need. You are a fine person! I have the same concerns and approach. 2. I am a Jew, with many original family members in Germany now (almost all my family ran away from Germany and Czech Republic before WWII, few got hurt, and after WWII, some returned back, and to Germany). So all this argument I have with you is not so much about Germans, who some of them risked their lives to save few members of my family. Yes, Germans almost died to saved some of my family. It's about a concern for a misguided policy in Germany to allow AGAIN the rise of intolerance and racial problems, of which, for sure, Jews will be the victims again, but mostly other minorities, but not (!) Muslims. If you did not know, the word \"\"anti-semitism\"\" was invented by Germans, and it is supposed to be against the semite race. European Jews are hardly semite but all Muslims and Arabs are pure true semites. Yet, Hitler and Muslims worked together and collaborated against Jews. Muslims were not killed by Germany. (If you did not know, yes, all Jews were semites, but 2000 years in Europe, after expelled from ancient Israel 2000 years ago by the Romans, made the Jews in Europe hardly semite. Meanwhile, most Jews (60%) in Israel are not of European descent as they ended up in northern Africa and Asia and ALL(!) of them expelled from the Arabs/Muslim countries when Israel was established in 1948. Do you know that Hitler sent the Jews of Libya and other north Africa Arab/Muslim countries to concentration camps? But not any Libyans or other Arab/Muslims?) SO, ALLOW me go the other direction with you now: do migrants get fined, houses raided and sent to jail over racist and intolerant sayings and actions? How about their religious leaders? Sheikh Abu Bilal Ismail, speaking at the Al Nur mosque in Berlin, called upon Allah to “destroy the Zionist Jews”. And nothing was done to him by the German government. However, an old German lady was fined and her house was raided. Think about it. This will not end good with Germany!!!! Think it's early 1930 in Germany. Nobody could predict what happened 10 years later. **I highly(!!!) respect Germans as they have very high and good standards in every respect. Something to admire! But, because of that, shown many times in the past, not only the 1930s, Germany is the last country that should be experimented in regards to racial tensions and rising problems (crime, intolerance, fanatic religious people, etc).** Crime by migrants in Germany is up considerably, [Read here](https://counterjihadreport.com/2016/02/page/8/) Read about Sheikh Abu Bilal Ismail in Germany [here](http://forward.com/news/world/202751/germany-warns-against-hate-speech-after-imam-calls/)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "25019", "title": "", "text": "I think the first step is to get an accountant whose advice you believe. Your accountant is far better placed to advise you on what sounds like a fairly complicated, fairly high stakes corporate arrangement than the internet. I would go back to the accountant and get him to explain in writing what his specific advice is. If you still don't like it absolutely get a second opinion. You may also want to speak to a lawyer." } ]

[ { "docid": "20796", "title": "", "text": "\"I've had a mortgage changing hands with mid size companies for many years with no problems. I've handled many complex financial and technical transactions with multiple parties with no problems over the course decades. Then, after my last refinance, my mortgage fell into the hands of JP Morgan Chase. The bank sent one letter to let me know of the transfer, and in the next week they sent my loan to collections for what I later found to be Chase's process error in the transfer. For the next three months, I ended up in customer service hell as one Chase group threatened to foreclose on my house while another group told me to ignore the imminent foreclosure notices. One started to \"\"investigate\"\" the transfer while the collections group tried to make me pay my mortgage payment twice. The mess only ended up being taken care of after I tracked down the old owner of my loan and had them refund the \"\"lost\"\" payment directly to me - normally they would have sent it to the company buying the loan, but could not get Chase to accept the payment. Then I paid Chase that exact same mortgage payment. All the time the Chase internal investigations and collections department were completely incapable of a simple call to previous holder of the loan. A company handling millions of mortgage transactions is somehow incapable of handling a minor glitch in a mortgage transfer? It's either utter incompetence or total malice in picking up extra penalty fees or maybe an occasional forclosure if homeowners didn't say on top of the details. This is what we used our collective tax dollars to bail out.\"" }, { "docid": "105210", "title": "", "text": "\"My experiences in WNY as a manufacturing engineer getting laid off 3 times due to outsourcing to china and mexico has shown me that there is an issue, that is not addressed by the MF article's bent on spending. My argument is outsourced jobs, not spending. I agree with the kodak culture. Having gone to RIT with alot of Kodakers that lost jobs because of EK's shift to china and I'd say its more than just ignoring digital. It is the continued investment in china in film processing and ignoring digital. there is a huge film processing plant in china sitting idle. Beyond that, Kodak was more than just film. Medical imagining company and the spun off chemical division they sold are both doing well. By the time they did digital, it was too late. Sad thing is I saw kodak employees buying fuji film because the hated the company so much. I was laid off from Perkin Elmer, now Eaton, building valves for aerospace. It went to Tijuana. I was laid off from Getinge USA building sterilizers, it opened a plant in china, I got laid off with others. Its completion, steris opened a plant in mexico and moved alot of manufacturing there. getinge used to buy copper and stainless plumbing fittings in the usa, now they are only available from china. I worked at liberty pumps, they used to get casting for pumps from usa, it all comes from china along w/ several plastic pumps entirely made in china. http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_60eaa658-9226-598b-883f-ae4eadf032c7.html Xerox has outsourced manufacturing and machining to china; I know the engineers who had to do it. IT services are going to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/technology/companies/06xerox.html search more on xerox and hcl tech. Engineers I know that work at Delphi developing automated manufacturing cells that are then packed up and moved to Juarez to run parts for auto industry. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_25/b4183009392434.htm many others are moving there as well. Southco fasteners does the same a Delphi, except they outsource the manufacturing cell to china and run all production there. Closing usa plants for opening chinese ones. http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=227116 \"\"One example of the shifting tide of American fastener production is Southco, which first began manufacturing specialty fastener devices in Essington, PA in 1945. Last year Southco announced plans to close its Brandywine Manufacturing facility in Concordville, PA. Products and technologies are being transferred to Honeoye Falls, NY, Rockledge, FL, Chihuahua, Mexico and Fu Wang and Shanghai, China. Output from Southco’s four Chinese plants rose 40 percent last year. An assembly center is now operating in the Czech Republic.\"\" http://www.massdevice.com/news/covidien-shutters-upstate-ny-plant \"\"After a round of layoffs last year and a manufacturing move to China, Covidien closes its Watertown, N.Y., plant, leaving nearly 250 out of work.\"\" I must say it wasn't a good move for me to get a engineering degree, should have been in something else. My wife has just stated that I am \"\"winning friends and influencing people on the the internet now\"\" /Sarcasm runs deep in this house.\"" }, { "docid": "175693", "title": "", "text": "It seems like you are asking two different questions, one is, how do I know if I can afford a house? The other is, how do I know what type of mortage to get? The first question is fairly simple to answer, there's plenty of calculators out there that will tell you what you can afford, but rule of thumb is 30% of income can goto housing. Now what type of mortgage to get can be much more confusing, because the mortgage industry makes money off of these confusing products. The best thing to do in my opionion in situations like this is to keep it simple. You need to be careful buying a house. So much money is changing hands and there are so many parasites involved in the transaction I would be extremely wary of anybody who is going to tell you what mortgage to get. I've never heard of a fee only independent mortgage broker, and if I found one that claimed to be I wouldn't believe him. I would just ignore all the exotic non-conforming products and just answer one simple question. Are you the type of person that buys an insurance policy or that likes to self insure? If you like insurance, get a 30 year fixed mortgage. If you like to self insure, get a 7 year ARM. The average lenghth someone owns a house is 7 years, plus in 7 years time, it might not adjust up, and even if it does, you can just accelerate your payments and pay it off quickly (this is the self insurance part of it). If you're like me, I'm willing to pay an extra .5% for the 30 year so that my payment never changes and I'm never forced to move (which is admitedly extremely unlikely, but I like the safety). I don't like 15 year term loans because rates are so low, you can get way better returns in the stock market right now, so why pay off sooner then you need to. Heck, if I had a paid off house right now I'd refi into a 30 year and invest the money. In summary, pick 30 year or ARM, then just shop around to find the lowest rate (which is extremely easy)." }, { "docid": "339463", "title": "", "text": "If I hire someone in Utah to do sales for me over the phone, and he works out of his home, am I required to register an LLC or file my current one as a foreign entity in Utah? Yes, since you've established presence in Utah. You'll register your current LLC in Utah, no point creating another one. If my sales guy, or I, call businesses in, say, Florida, and sell a few businesses our services for online work like maybe a website design, etc. Are we required to file our LLC In Florida as either a new LLC or a foreign one? No, you need to register where you (your company, including your employees or physical offices) are physically present. You don't need to register in any state you ship products or provide services to. If no-one of your company's employees is present in Florida and you don't have an office/rent a storage there - then you have no presence in Florida. If you actually go there to provide the services - then you do." }, { "docid": "545789", "title": "", "text": "\"How can I say this more clearly? SCAM, SCAM, SCAM! This is another one of the oldest scams out there, where you've won a prize or an inheritance has come in, and all you have to do is pay the taxes on it to claim it. Don't be a sucker! Ask yourself why the government couldn't (and wouldn't) just take the taxes due out of the funds they have and give the rest to the person they belong to? Wouldn't that be the smartest and easiest thing to do? As an example, let's say that you have $1,000 that belongs to me, and I owe you $100. Would you tell me to pay you the $100 and then you'll give me the $1,000 or would you take the $100 I owe you out of the $1,000 and give me the remaining $900? The fact this is someone you know from the internet and they want your \"\"help\"\" to claim their money should tell you how much of a scam this is. Stop talking to this person, and don't tell them anything personal about you. They are scam artists, and whatever you tell them could be used to steal your identity or take your money. Be careful, my friend!\"" }, { "docid": "427727", "title": "", "text": "I've given up on trying to understand how the allowances correspond to my number of dependents. What I do instead to achieve the same end goal of having the right amount of money withheld is using a paycheck calculator. If I get paid 24 times a year (twice a month) and I figure I'm going to owe about $6,000 of taxes, then every paycheck needs to have $250 of federal tax withheld from it to make sure I am covered. Go to the paycheck calculator and play with the allowance numbers until you get $250 as the federal tax withheld and then submit a new W4 to your employer. This is the only reliable way I've found to figure this out on my own. Because my calculations are done in dollars instead of exemptions, etc. and my taxes do not wildly fluctuate year-to-year this works well for me." }, { "docid": "538699", "title": "", "text": "\"It is the presupposition that makes this a rather ridiculous question. Makes me curious, would this be a civil or criminal crime? If you are convinced that this presupposition of illegality is a thing, talk to a lawyer. Yes, there may be consequences of doing any variety of actions while you owe the IRS, and while you do not owe the IRS. As an unincorporated business the IRS does not stop you from gaining an additional source of income to pay them with. Perhaps lenders might not help you with capital. As an incorporated business no state is going to ask you if you \"\"owe back taxes\"\" before they allow you to pay them to register your business in their state. This isn't legal advice, I'm just assuming there is no legal advice to give based on your presupposition, to your original question, I'm going to go with no.\"" }, { "docid": "29372", "title": "", "text": "\"Lets say you owed me $123.00 an wanted to mail me a check. I would then take the check from my mailbox an either take it to my bank, or scan it and deposit it via their electronic interface. Prior to you mailing it you would have no idea which bank I would use, or what my account number is. In fact I could have multiple bank accounts, so I could decide which one to deposit it into depending on what I wanted to do with the money, or which bank paid the most interest, or by coin flip. Now once the check is deposited my bank would then \"\"stamp\"\" the check with their name, their routing number, the date, an my account number. Eventually an image of the canceled check would then end up back at your bank. Which they would either send to you, or make available to you via their banking website. You don't mail it to my bank. You mail it to my home, or my business, or wherever I tell you to mail it. Some business give you the address of another location, where either a 3rd party processes all their checks, or a central location where all the money for multiple branches are processed. If you do owe a company they will generally ask that in the memo section in the lower left corner that you include your customer number. This is to make sure that if they have multiple Juans the money is accounted correctly. In all my dealings will paying bills and mailing checks I have never been asked to send a check directly to the bank. If they want you to do exactly as you describe, they should provide you with a form or other instructions.\"" }, { "docid": "385932", "title": "", "text": "\"*(\"\"Fee-only\"\" meaning the only money they make is the fee your folks pay directly; no kickbacks from financial products they're selling.) The answer to this is: for God's sake, leave it alone! I commend you on wanting to help your family avoid more losses. You are right, that having most of one's retirement in one stock or sector is just silly. And again yes, if they're retired, they probably need some bonds. But here's the thing, if they follow your advise and it doesn't work out, it will be a SERIOUS strain on your relationship. Of course you'll still be a family and they'll still love you, but emotionally, you are the reason they lost the money, and that will an elephant in between you. This is especially the case since we're talking about a lot of money here (presumably), and retirement money to boot. You must understand the risk you're taking with your relationships. If you/they lose, at best it'll make things awkward, and you'll feel guilty about their impoverished retirement. At worst it can destroy your relationship with your folks. What about if you win? Won't you be feted and appreciated by your folks for saving them from themselves? Yes, for a short while. Then life moves on. Everything returns to normal. But here's the thing. You won't win. You can't. Because even if you're right here, and they win, that means both they and you will be eager for you to do it again. And at some point they'll take a hit based on your advise. Can I be blunt here? You didn't even know that you can't avoid capital gains taxes by reinvesting stock gains. You don't know enough, and worse, you're not experienced enough. I deduce you're either a college student, or a recent grad. Which means you don't have experience investing your own money. You don't know how the market moves, you just know the theory. You know who you are? You're me, 20 years ago. And thank God my grandparents ignored my advise. I was right about their utilities stocks back then, too. But I know from what I learned in the years afterwards, investing on my own account, that at some point I would have hurt them. And I would have had a very hard time living with that. So, tell your folks to go visit a fee-only financial adviser to create a retirement plan. Perhaps I'm reading into your post, but it seems like you're enthusiastic about investing; stocks, bonds, building wealth, etc. I love that. My advise -- go for it! Pull some money together, and open your own stock account. Do some trading! As much as people grouse about it, the market really is glorious. It's like playing Monopoly, but for keeps. I mean that in the best way possible. It's fun, you can build wealth doing it, and it provides a very useful social purpose. In the spirit of that, check out these ideas (just for you, not for your folks!), based on ideas in your post: Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "290265", "title": "", "text": "\"TL;DR - my understanding of the rules is that if you are required to register for GST (earning more than $75k per annum), you would be required to pay GST on these items. To clarify firstly: taxable income, and goods and services tax, are two different things. Any income you receive needs to be considered for income tax purposes - whether or not it ends up being taxable income would be too much to go into here, but generally you would take your expenses, and any deductions, away from your income to arrive at what would generally be the taxable amount. An accountant will help you do this. Income tax is paid by anyone who earns income over the tax free threshold. By contrast, goods and services tax is a tax paid by business (of which you are running one). Of course, this is passed on to the consumer, but it's the business that remits the payment to the tax office. However, GST isn't required to be charged and paid in all cases: The key in your situation is first determining whether you need to register for GST (or whether indeed you already have). If you earn less than $75,000 per year - no need to register. If you do earn more than that through your business, or you have registered anyway, then the next question is whether your items are GST-free. The ATO says that \"\"some education courses [and] course materials\"\" are GST-free. Whether this applies to you or not I'm obviously not going to be able to comment on, so I would advise getting an accountant's advice on this (or at the very least, call the ATO or browse their legal database). Thirdly, are your sales connected with Australia? The ATO says that \"\"A sale of something other than goods or property is connected with Australia if ... the thing is done in Australia [or] the seller makes the sale through a business they carry on in Australia\"\". Both of these appear to be true in your case. So in summary: if you are required to register for GST, you would be required to pay GST on these items. I am not a financial advisor or a tax accountant and this is not financial advice.\"" }, { "docid": "57994", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm a manager of a charity shop so work with a wide range of unpaid volunteers, which requires an especially soft touch (most of the time, everyone is different) or people will just leave. It takes longer, but the overall results are better and more long-lasting. Think of it like pushing a boat from the docks with your hand, always applying a small pressure to get the boat to gradually move where you want, rather than ramming into the side of a boat with a truck - sure it'll get you there quicker, but will cause lasting damage. It's also best to take it slow, as you need time to learn the business and people. Be clear about your approach with your boss, managing their expectations is important. Anyway, here is what I've learnt in my first year or so doing this job, plus things I've learnt along the way in my previous career as a software engineer (radical career change!) where I've managed people and been managed: 1. Be yourself. Don't pretend to be someone you're not, everyone will see right through you in an instant. You'll change over time as you get used to managing people, that's fine, but always be yourself through that. 1. Say \"\"thank you\"\" to everyone at the end of each day as you say goodbye. Mean it. Think of all the work they've done today for you. 1. Spread the shit evenly. Every job has crap parts, make sure you and everyone else gets their fair share and no more. I regularly hoover, clean the bathroom, wash-up, and so on. 1. Ask, don't tell. If you bark orders, people will do them.. but they'll put no effort into it and you'll distance yourself from them. Ask if they could do something for you. It's a politeness, nobody ever says no unless there is an issue which you need to deal with anyway. 1. Pick your battles. Is it worth moaning at someone for that little infraction? Or can you get over that message another way? i.e. I don't like people having drinks on the till counter, so when I take over to cover for them for a break, I just move it. After a while, no drinks appear on the counter. 1. Be honest. If you don't know, say so.. ask for input. Weigh up the options out loud, then pick one, explain why, and go for it - or better yet, get the person that thought of it working with you (not for you) to implement it. If you're wrong, hold your hand up and try the other suggestion(s). 1. Always take responsibility when things go wrong - that is actually your job. When things go well, use *you* and *we*. If things go badly, sometimes *I*, sometimes *we*, but never *you*. 1. Always be pro-active with money. If you owe your staff money for any reason, chase them to give it to them, never let them chase you. If there even *might* be any problems at all with money, let everyone know as soon as you know. Go out of your way to ensure they get what they're owed *now*, not later. I just did this today actually, I forgot to do expenses for someone and switched over the till so there wasn't enough cash in the new till to cover it.. so I just took it from the money to bank, and marked down why there was a discrepancy on the paperwork and will do the same tomorrow when that doesn't match by the opposite amount. I should not do this at all, but it's the right thing to do. 1. Listen carefully. Often employees have problems but won't bring them up, either they don't think anything will get done, or they don't want to get someone in trouble, or something else. However, if you listen and observe carefully, often there are clues to the things that are bothering them and you'll find ways to tackle them. 1. Don't run a team meeting until you know everyone, if you can avoid it. You don't know shit about how the company works, who the people are, what makes them tick, what they do, and so on. All you'll do is come across as a bit of a tool, and distance yourself from them (as boss). When you do run one, just guide it, don't lead it. Always hand over control of the conversation as much as possible, except of course where you've got things that they need to hear. 1. Never joke about your 'power'. i.e. Don't mess about saying how you'll fire them if blah, or how you'll give them all the shit work, or mention pay jokingly, etc. I had a boss that did that when drunk, not in a serious way at all, and he was very widely hated for pretty well nothing other than that. It served as a constant reminder that he's separate from us. 1. Give people room, but don't be taken for a ride. If someone is late once, fine, I wouldn't even mention it. Late again, maybe I'd make a light joke of it. Late again.. we'll have a chat.. always listen to what they have to say, is there any way you can help? But, don't be taken for a ride. I've had people pick me up on being late the very first time I was late, and you know what, I was more late for that job from then on than I've ever been before or since. 1. Try to get your employees to come up with ideas to move the business forwards. It's very easy to look at a business and say \"\"we need this, that, and the other doing.. like this!\"\". But you need to get your employees to buy into it, or they just won't do it properly. It'll be like getting blood out of a stone to start with, but if you're patient and support their ideas most people will come around. You *need* their input as they know their job better than you. 1. EDIT: Always be clear what you want from people, when. Speak with them about the task(s) before-hand to make sure they're comfortable with it and think it can be done in the time. So many times I've been given tasks with unrealistic deadlines, the manager hasn't wanted to listen to my protests, then wonders why it didn't get done in time. It's crazy really, wanting something to be possible doesn't make it so. *A (not so) Quick Example* One volunteer said to me that we should halve the price of all the fiction books to .99 to compete with other shops. I personally don't think that's a good idea (our shop has better quality stock and is much more organised), but I have no evidence to the contrary, and I honestly don't really know.. so I say go for it and support it completely as a good idea. We tried it for a month, and we made exactly the same amount of money.. sold twice as many books, but no extra cash. So it was valuable to do, and we discovered that maybe 1.49 might be a good option to try. But, far more importantly, they saw their ideas put into action right away, and saw the results of that. It empowered them, which is incredibly important for a wide variety of reasons that are too much to go into here, but basically it makes them feel more respected, enjoy their job more, think more about the business, and so on - you know what it's like when you're empowered, how good it feels. However, it's being empowered with the support that's important, something which you personally going into your new job don't feel you have, which leads to the anxiety and so on I'm sure you're feeling now. Don't put your employees in that position if you can help it. There is also another reason why I outright supported their idea from the offset. It didn't work (although we didn't loose anything) and I thought it wouldn't, but I can say \"\"*we* tried\"\". It wasn't down to that one person, they didn't feel bad that it didn't work because I was right behind it, and it's my job to take responsibility. If it had been *their* idea that had failed, they wouldn't give any ideas ever again, and everyone else would be put off too. As soon as anyone tries to take personal responsibility, and they will, stick to your guns in supporting them.. stronger than ever. Now we're getting a lot of ideas all the time, they're having in-depth discussions amongst each other, they're pro-active, and so on. As a business we're doing much better now because of it.. profits are up 15% from last year and we've only just begun to kick things off, and that's going against a national trend downwards. We've had several critical changes to our shop layout, back-room organisation, results reporting, stock handling processes, and so on.. all from volunteer ideas and feedback. So the 15% is actually the tip of the iceberg, what we've got in place now should allow us to grow more quickly too. And remember, you can make suggestions too of course.. but they're just that, suggestions. Suggest them to your employees, speak with several of them, then get back to them when you've made a decision. Don't say \"\"I'm thinking of trying this\"\", say \"\"I was just thinking.. what about this? Do you think it would work?\"\" and talk about it. Think of arguments against your idea, see if they counter them, and so on. Now.. how many of these changes did I think of before-hand and want to enact? About half.. so we've got a significant number of successful ideas that I personally hadn't thought of, everyone's happier and working harder for the business, and we have a bright future. I have more ideas too, and people listen to and respect them now just like I have with them. I think that's the key to it all really. Show your employees respect, and they'll show you it in return.\"" }, { "docid": "47373", "title": "", "text": "\"If the answer were \"\"no,\"\" you still found the 'black swan' type exception that proves the answer to be \"\"yes,\"\" right? My experience is this - again just my experience, my bank - When by balance goes below $10, I have the account trigger an email. I wrote a check I forgot to register and subtract, so the email was sent and the account balance in fact showed negative. I transferred to cover the check and the next day, there was a history that didn't go negative, the evening deposit was credited prior to check clearing. I set up my bills on line. I set a transfer in advance for the same dollar amount as a bill that was due, e.g. $1000 transfer for a $1000 bill. I woke up to an email, and the account showed the bill was paid prior to the transfer. So one line showed going -$900, and the next line +$100 after transfer. Even though it's the same online process. Again, the next day the history re-ordered to look like I was never negative. But even on a day I know I'm having payments issued, I can never just ignore that email. The first time this happened, I asked the bank, and they said if the negative went until the next day, I'd get an overdraft/short balance notice. This is a situation to ask your bank how they handle this.\"" }, { "docid": "437901", "title": "", "text": "\"Most of what other ppl are suggesting can be be filed under \"\"be a good employee\"\" which it sounds like you already kind of are as a waitress which is why he asked you to interview with him. Things that are maybe more specific to the finance world that can help you out would be more helpful for you. A huge thing I've seen that assistants can do that can be very helpful is to help their boss catch things they may otherwise be too busy to catch themselves. If you can save your boss an hour or two and get him the information he needs to make a more informed decision yourself you will find yourself an invaluable member of the team. Maybe you can suggest the following plan in the interview: - See if you can figure out what types of investments they make and what they specialize in (PM me if you want don't want to share the company name here and I can maybe help you figure that part out) - Set up Google Alerts for anything and everything that might be of interest to the firm. Maybe he invests in certain industry verticals and needs to follow all the trends in that industry very closely. Maybe he handles a specific customer and needs to know anything that might affect their positions in the market. You won't really know any of these details before you get the job but asking the right questions in the interview can show that you are taking an initiative. - Spend an hour or two in the morning (before markets open preferably) preparing a \"\"Things to Watch\"\" memo based on his meetings for the day, funds/companies he might be investing in, or general macrofinance trends that he will need to watch out for potentially. This should include things like earnings calls coming up, news announcements, changes in important market indicators, or new reports from market movers (like [Bridgewater's Daily Observations](https://www.bridgewater.com/research-library/daily-observations/)). The goal is to make it so he doesn't have to spend too much time researching these things himself but obviously if he wants to he will have to read up on it himself - you should just give him the \"\"big picture thesis\"\" of what's going on and he can take it from there. - Talk a lot about optimization. My personal goal for myself is to take everything I spend any amount of time on and automate it by one order of magnitude. If something takes me 2 days to do, it should only take me 2 hours. If something takes me 2 hours, it should only take me 2 minutes. That way my work gets easier over time and lets me focus on new things that I haven't figured out yet. If you talk about that in the interview I'm sure he'd love to have you help him make his life easier!\"" }, { "docid": "357340", "title": "", "text": "Someone messed up here. My tax accountant says she is supposed to enter the values as they are on the W2 and CompanyB said they will not issue a new W2 because they were not involved in the refund of the money. Correct. We decided that we will enter a value different from 12b-d, subtract the money that was refunded to me because it's already on the 1099. Incorrect. Is there an alternative to avoid paying taxes twice on the 401k overages? If not, is there a better way to do this to minimize the risk of an audit? You should enter the amounts in W2 as they are. Otherwise things won't tie at the IRS and they will come back asking questions. The amount in box 12-D was deducted from your wages pre-tax, so you didn't pay tax on it. The distribution is taxable, and if it was made before the tax day next year - only taxable once. So if you withdrew the same year of the contribution, as it sounds like you did, you will only pay tax on it once because the amounts were not included in your salary. If the 1099-R is marked with the correct code, the IRS will be able to match the excess contribution (box 12-D) and the removal of the excess contribution (1099-R with the code) and it will all tie, no-one will audit you. The accountant is probably clueless as to how her software works. By default, the accounting software will add the excess contribution on W2 box 12-D back into wages, and it will be added to taxable income on your tax return. However, when you type in the 1099 with the proper code, this should be reversed by the software, and if it is not - should be manually overridden. This should be done at the adjustment entry, not the W2 entry screen, since a copy of the W2 will be transmitted with your tax return and should match the actual W2 transmitted by your employer. If she doesn't know what she's doing, find someone who does." }, { "docid": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" }, { "docid": "220032", "title": "", "text": "So My question is. Is my credit score going to be hit? Yes it will affect your credit. Not as much as missing payments on the debt, which remains even if the credit line is closed, and not as much as missing payments on other bills... If so what can I do about it? Not very much. Nothing worth the time it would take. Like you mentioned, reopening the account or opening another would likely require a credit check and the inquiry will add another negative factor. In this situation, consider the impact on your credit as fact and the best way to correct it is to move forward and pay all your bills on time. This is the number one key to improving credit score. So, right now, the key task is finding a new job. This will enable you to make all payments on time. If you pay on time and do not overspend, your credit score will be fine. Can I contact the creditors to appeal the decision and get them to not affect my score at the very least? I know they won't restore the account without another credit check). Is there anything that can be done directly with the credit score companies? Depending on how they characterize the closing of the account, it may be mostly a neutral event that has a negative impact than a negative event. By negative events, I'm referring to bankruptcy, charge offs, and collections. So the best way to recover is to keep credit utilization below 30% and pay all your bills and debt payments on time. (You seem to be asking how to replace this line of credit to help you through your unemployment.) As for the missing credit line and your current finances, you have to find a way forward. Opening new credit account while you're not employed is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. You might find yourself in a situation where you need to take whatever part time gig you can find in order to make ends meet until your job search is complete. Grocery store, fast food, wait staff, delivery driver, etc. And once you get past this period of unemployment, you'll need to catch up on all bills, then you'll want to build your emergency fund. You don't mention one, but eating, paying rent/mortgage, keeping current on bills, and paying debt payments are the reasons behind the emergency fund, and the reason you need it in a liquid account. Source: I'm a veteran of decades of bad choices when it comes to money, of being unemployed for periods of time, of overusing credit cards, and generally being irresponsible with my income and savings. I've done all those things and am now paying the price. In order to rebuild my credit, and provide for my retirement, I'm having to work very hard to save. My focus being financial health, not credit score, I've brought my bottom line from approximately 25k in the red up to about 5k in the red. The first step was getting my payments under control. I have also been watching my credit score. Two years of on time mortgage payments, gradual growth of score. Paid off student loans, uptick in score. Opened new credit card with 0% intro rate to consolidate a couple of store line of credit accounts. Transferred those balances. Big uptick. Next month when utilization on that card hits 90%, downtick that took back a year's worth of gains. However, financially, I'm not losing 50-100 a month to interest. TLDR; At certain times, you have to ignore the credit score and focus on the important things. This is one of those times for you. Find a job. Get back on your feet. Then look into living debt free, or working to achieve financial independence." }, { "docid": "46718", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;The rules are regulations are setup as needed As needed by whose definition? &gt;Govt. sets new rules as needed as a response to something, not because people in the govt. who change every few years feel so. And you just claimed you weren't naive! &gt;all adhering to the same laws Government doesn't follow laws, it makes them. YOU are the one expected to follow laws. &gt;it makes sense to keep it and if not, it gets repealed What resounding bullshit! Let's talk about how many laws are passed versus how many are repealed. Why is pot illegal? &gt;Govt. does care about fairness Bizarrely oblivious to reality. &gt;HFT's existing is proof that govt. lets free market and private business start things as it pleases till such time as it stops being fair for all. There's no \"\"let\"\" to it. The government is not physics, where nothing happens without its leave. &gt;Govt. is not really an inhibitor to free market You don't know what a free market is, if you think the main thing that inhibits and distorts markets and makes them NOT free, \"\"is not really an inhibitor\"\". &gt;Govt. is just people who agreed with it, joined the govt and made it so and others agreed I don't agree, yet I will be isolated or killed if I refuse to obey. &gt;If we don't agree in future, it can be changed. Hilariously naive. When were you *ever* asked consent? &gt;There is a term as regulated free market There is no such thing as a \"\"regulated free market\"\". That's like saying \"\"white black\"\" or \"\"inside outside\"\". They are opposites. &gt;I don't think you really want to talk I don't think you want to listen. &gt;You just want to spew your ignorant libertarian viewpoints And you're spewing wildly ignorant statist bullshit. &gt;You just blindly believe the govt. is always wrong with no logic or justification, just like religious people. You're the one with religion here, and it's government you're worshiping. If government is a religion, I'm an atheist. &gt;But it is some times and it does do the right things many times Well golly gee, better blindly adhere to it then! &gt;But I don't believe like you do at all because I think for myself and reason. Sounds like you're letting government think for you, but accusing *me* of blindly following others *who I don't even give a shit about!* Stossel is a jackass, and Paul is irrelevant. &gt;I won't bother replying to you anymore Just want to spew a bunch of wild bullshit and demand that I not reply, huh? Just want to expound freely on something you know nothing about and refuse to listen when someone tries to show you how you're wrong? &gt;So you've never been taken to reason or logic like others have to you on this board. Oh my, thank you for saving me with your \"\"reason\"\" and \"\"logic\"\". Clearly I've been a fool. &gt;Look at the other replies to your posts - almost all contradict you. Popularity is not correctness. Lots of times in human history, common opinion has been fucking retarded. Flies auto-generating from rotting meat? Earth being the center of existence? Lots of people believe lots of dumb shit, just like you.\"" }, { "docid": "382712", "title": "", "text": "\"The seriousness of your situation depends on whether your girlfriend was owed a refund for each tax return she failed to file, or whether she owed additional money. If she owed money on one or more of the tax returns she failed to file, stop! It is time to consult a lawyer. At the very least, you need to contact an accountant who specialises in this sort of thing. She will owe interest and penalties, and may be liable for criminal prosecution. There are options available and lawyers who specialise in this sort of thing (e.g. this one, from a simple google search). If she is in this position, you need professional help and you need it soon, so you can make a voluntary disclosure and head off criminal prosecution. Assuming the taxes are fairly simple, you are likely looking at a few thousand dollars, but probably less than $7,500, for professional help. There will be substantial penalties assessed as well, for any taxes owing. If you wait until the CRA starts proceedings, you are most likely looking at $10,000 to $50,000, assuming the matter is not too complicated, and would be facing the possibility of a jail term not exceeding five years. If she was due a refund on every single one of the tax returns she failed to file, or at least if she did not owe additional money, you are probably in a situation you can deal with yourself. She will want to file all of the tax returns as soon as possible, but will not be assessed a penalty. I have personally filed taxes several months late a number of times, when I was owed a refund. You may still want to consider professional help, but it is probably not necessary. Under no circumstances should she allow her father near her finances again, ever. You should also be careful to trust any responses to this question, including my response, because we are unlikely to be professional accountants (I certainly am not). You are well outside the abilities of an H&R Block \"\"accountant\"\" in this matter and need a real certified accountant and/or a lawyer who specialises in Failure To File cases.\"" }, { "docid": "344928", "title": "", "text": "\"Wyoming is a good state for this. It is inexpensive and annual compliance is minimal. Although Delaware has the best advertising campaign, so people know about it, the reality is that there are over 50 states/jurisdictions in the United States with their own competitive incorporation laws to attract investment (as well as their own legislative bodies that change those laws), so you just have to read the laws to find a state that is favorable for you. What I mean is that whatever Delaware does to get in the news about its easy business laws, has been mimicked and done even better by other states by this point in time. And regarding Delaware's Chancery Court, all other states in the union can also lean on Delaware case law, so this perk is not unique to Delaware. Wyoming is cheaper than Delaware for nominal presence in the United States, requires less information then Delaware, and is also tax free. A \"\"registered agent\"\" can get you set up and you can find one to help you with the address dilemma. This should only cost $99 - $200 over the state fees. An LLC does not need to have an address in the United States, but many registered agents will let you use their address, just ask. Many kinds of businesses still require a bank account for domestic and global trade. Many don't require any financial intermediary any more to receive payments. But if you do need this, then opening a bank account in the United States will be more difficult. Again, the registered agent or lawyer can get a Tax Identification Number for you from the IRS, and this will be necessary to open a US bank account. But it is more likely that you will need an employee or nominee director in the United States to go in person to a bank and open an account. This person needs to be mentioned in the Operating Agreement or other official form on the incorporation documents. They will simply walk into a bank with your articles of incorporation and operating agreement showing that they are authorized to act on behalf of the entity and open a bank account. They then resign, and this is a private document between the LLC and the employee. But you will be able to receive and accept payments and access the global financial system now. A lot of multinational entities set up subsidiaries in a number of countries this way.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "324921", "title": "", "text": "Tax Deducted at source is applicable to Employee / Employer [contract employee] relations ... it was also made applicable for cases where an Indian company pays for software products [like MS Word etc] as the product is not sold, but is licensed and is treated as Royalty [unlike sale of a consumer product, that you have, say car] ... Hence it depends on how your contract is worded with your India clients, best is have it as a service agreement. Although services are also taxed, however your contract should clearly specify that any tax in India would be borne by your Indian Client ... Cross Country taxation is an advanced area, you will not find good advice free :)" } ]

[ { "docid": "79552", "title": "", "text": "I was able to find several references that claim that the Indo-US treaty provision is limited to five years: Here it says this (on page 20): Generally the treaty exemption for students is limited to the first five calendar years that the international student is in the U.S. However there is no set time limit for students from Belgium, Bulgaria, China, The Netherlands, and Pakistan. However, I couldn't find any specific time limit neither in the treaty nor in the technical explanation. The explanation says: Thus, for example, an Indian resident who visits the United States as a student and becomes a U.S. resident according to the Code, other than by virtue of acquiring a green card, would continue to be exempt from U.S. tax in accordance with this Article so long as he is not a U.S. citizen and does not acquire immigrant status in the United States. The saving clause does apply to U.S. citizens and immigrants. However, the treaty explicitly says this: The benefits of this Article shall extend only for such period of time as may be reasonable or customarily required to complete the education or training undertaken. The reason for this last paragraph is to ensure that you don't artificially prolong your student status, and the 5 year limit may come out of the interpretation of this specific paragraph. Similar paragraph exists in the US-China treaty, and the explanation for that treaty says this: These exemptions may be claimed only for the period reasonably necessary to complete the education or training. In some cases, the course of study or training may last less than year. For most undergraduate college or university degrees the appropriate period will be four years. For some advanced degrees, such as in medicine, the required period may be longer, e.g., seven years. Based on this, it is my personal impression that if you're an undergraduate student and studying the same degree (and not, for example, finished your BA, and started your MS) - you are no longer eligible for the treaty benefit. But I suggest you ask a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for a more reliable tax advice on the matter. I'm not a tax professional and this is not a tax advice." }, { "docid": "55108", "title": "", "text": "From what I understand this is what you can do : You need to raise an invoice to your brother's company in USA Your brother makes a payment into your Indian company's bank account using wire transfer straight into a bank account in your company's name. Your brother wont have to pay taxes on the money that he pays you against an invoice as it would be an expense and would not be considered as profit for tax purposes. Once you have the money you can then file your income tax returns after deducting your own expenses etc in India. I hope this helps." }, { "docid": "312679", "title": "", "text": "Here's the best explanation I found relating to why your T4 box 39 might not have an amount filled in, even when box 38 has one: Department of Finance – Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act [...]. It's a long document, but here's the part I believe relevant, with my emphasis: Employee Stock Options ITA 110(1) [...] Paragraph 110(1)(d) is amended to include a requirement that the employee [...] exercise the employee’s rights under the stock option agreement and acquire the securities underlying the agreement in order for the deduction in computing taxable income to be available [...] ensures that only one deduction is available in respect of an employment benefit. In other words, if employee stock option rights are surrendered to an employer for cash or an in-kind payment, then (subject to new subsections 110(1.1) and (1.2)) the employer may deduct the payment but the employee cannot claim the stock option deduction. Conversely, where an employer issues securities pursuant to an employee’s exercise of stock options, the employer can not deduct an amount in respect of the issuance, but the employee may be eligible to claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d). Did you receive real shares based on your participation in the ESPP, or did you get a cash payment for the net value of shares you would have been issued under the plan? From what I can tell, if you opted for a cash payment (or if your plan only allows for such), then the part I emphasized comes into play. Essentially, if conditions were such that your employer could claim a deduction on their corporate income tax return for the compensation paid to you as part of the plan, then you are not also able to claim a similar deduction on your personal income tax return. The money received in that manner is effectively taxed in your hands the same as any bonus employment income would be; i.e. it isn't afforded tax treatment equivalent to capital gains income. Your employer and/or ESPP administrator are best able to confirm the conditions which led to no amount in your box 39, but at least based on above you can see there are legitimate cases where box 38 would have an amount while box 39 doesn't." }, { "docid": "376850", "title": "", "text": "Your federal taxes in US include the tax which Indian government wants back from you under the treaty with US government. Some countries have treaty with US where all the money person earns in US can be reclaimed at the end of the financial year i.e no money goes to the country of citizenship. However, Indian citizens working in US are not liable for 100% reclaim on their federal tax." }, { "docid": "199789", "title": "", "text": "The money was sent from my US bank to my father in India Your father can receive unlimited amount of money as GIFT from you. There is no tax implication on this transaction. Related question After 3 years, my father received a note from the income tax dept. asking him to pay income taxes. Possibly because the income does not match and there maybe high value transactions. This should be replied preferably with the help of CA. Now, the CA is asking him to pay tax in the money I transferred. Is that correct? This is incorrect. Please change the CA and get someone competent. If not, what should I or he do in this case? Get guidance from another CA. Your father can establish that this was convenience and show evidence of transfer from you [need bank statements from your bank and Indian bank]. Property registration payments receipts, etc. Or he can also show this as Gift. If required get a gift deed created." }, { "docid": "268294", "title": "", "text": "\"If they directly paid for your education, it is possible that it wouldn't count as taxable income to you according to the IRS, depending on the amount: If you receive educational assistance benefits from your employer under an educational assistance program, you can exclude up to $5,250 of those benefits each year. This means your employer should not include those benefits with your wages, tips, and other compensation shown in box 1 of your Form W-2. This also means that you do not have to include the benefits on your income tax return. source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch11.html However, your situation is a bit trickier since they are sort of retroactively paying for your education. I'd think the answer is \"\"Maybe\"\" and you should consult a tax professional since it is a gray area. Update: On further research, I'm going to downgrade that \"\"Maybe\"\" to \"\"Probably not, but hopefully soon.\"\" The reason I am doing so is that there is a bill in Congress specifically to allow what you are asking, which presumes that you currently can't do this. The Bill is HR Bill 395 \"\"The Student Loan Employment Benefits Act of 2013\"\" sponsored by rep Steve Israel (D). It has co-sponsors from both parties, so that is promising for it's passage, I suppose. However, it appears to be still early in the legislative process. If this issue is near/dear to your heart maybe you should call your congressman. Summary of the Bill: (from govtrack.us) Student Loan Employment Benefits Act of 2013 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude from the gross income of an employee amounts paid by an employer under a student loan payment assistance program. Limits the amount of such exclusion to $5,000 in a taxable year. Requires an employer student loan payment assistance program to be a separate written plan of an employer to provide employees with student loan payment assistance. Defines \"\"student loan payment assistance\"\" as the payment of principal or interest on any indebtedness incurred by an employee solely to pay qualified higher education expenses which are paid or incurred within a reasonable time before or after such indebtedness was incurred and are attributable to education furnished during a period in which such employee was a student eligible for federal financial assistance.\"" }, { "docid": "204703", "title": "", "text": "The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)" }, { "docid": "53434", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, perhaps \"\"have a dedicated tax advisor\"\" is an answer then. I wouldn't have thought of this, as it's not specifically about taxation, is it? Or more broadly \"\"consult with a dedicated professional for the situation in detail\"\"... Yes, that is the only real answer you can get. Anything else will vary between highly localized to entirely incorrect. Pensions are rarely defined benefit anymore, and not many countries still keep state-sponsored defined benefit pension plans. For most, what's left is Social Security system, which is in no way a pension. This is an insurance, and is paid as tax which is rarely refundable (but you won't always have to pay it if you're a foreigner in the country). Usually, Social Security benefits are only available to citizens and (/or, in some rare cases) residents of that country. So it is unlikely (although possible) that you'll benefit from social security payments of more than one country. Some countries have totalization treaties that make your social security payments in one count in the other. If you're in a country that has such an agreement with the Netherlands - you're lucky. Your personal pension savings are basically tax-deferred investment accounts. But tax deferral in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. In the US you have 401k or IRA accounts, but in your own country they may very well be taxable. So you gain the tax deferral in the US, but if your own country taxes them - you lost the benefit, and you will still have to abide by the US tax rules when taking the money out. If you don't plan properly you can easily be hit by double taxation in such cases. Bottom line, you need to plan your pension savings on your own, privately, with a good and solid tax advice (and pension planning advice) that would be relevant to all the countries that you are tax resident at at any given time (you can easily be resident for tax purposes in more than one country). These advisers have to take into account the laws of the countries involved, the tax treaties between themselves and between them and the country of your citizenship, and the future countries you're planning on visiting or getting old at. Its complicated, and most likely you won't be able to predict everything, especially because the laws and treaties tend to change over time.\"" }, { "docid": "492456", "title": "", "text": "Work under UK umbrella company. By this you are thinking of creating a new legal entity in UK, then its not a very great idea. There will be lot of paperwork, additional taxes in UK and not much benefit. Ask UK company to remit money to Indian savings bank account Ask UK company to remit money to Indian business bank account Both are same from tax point of view. Opening a business bank account needs some more paper work and can be avoided. Note as an independent contractor you are still liable to pay taxes in India. Please pay periodically and in advance and do not wait till year end. You can claim some benefits as work related expenses [for example a laptop / mobile purchase, certain other expenses] and reduce from the total income the UK company is paying" }, { "docid": "513392", "title": "", "text": "Yes, it really will hurt you to keep pulling your money from your IRA. Your best bet is to set up a payment plan with the IRS, and pay the taxes you owe now, as well as adjust your withholding (with a new W-4 to your payroll department) so that you don't have a large tax liability next year. These tax advantaged plans really are designed to penalize you if you pull the money out early to give you incentive to keep the money for retirement. Your best bet is to make a monthly budget that includes your tax payments for taxes owed this year, as well as higher deductions from your paycheck to properly withhold taxes for next year." }, { "docid": "521843", "title": "", "text": "\"Probably not. In general, if you withdraw money from a 401k before age 59 1/2, you must pay a 10% penalty. There are some special cases. You can withdraw money to pay certain unreimbursed medical bills, if you are disabled, or to pay back taxes. You can also withdraw money if you are dead. See https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-Tax-on-Early-Distributions. There is also a provision that you can make penalty-free withdrawals as long as you take them regularly: \"\"Made as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments beginning after separation from service and made at least annually for the life or life expectancy of the participant or the joint lives or life expectancies of the participant and his or her designated beneficiary. (The payments under this exception, except in the case of death or disability, must continue for at least 5 years or until the employee reaches age 59½, whichever is the longer period.)\"\" See https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Sponsor/401(k)-Resource-Guide-Plan-Sponsors-General-Distribution-Rules. (I don't quite understand this rule. You can't take money out one time, but you can take money out multiple times. Oh well. I think the idea is supposed to be that you can take out money for an early retirement.)\"" }, { "docid": "431481", "title": "", "text": "There's probably no simple answer, but it's fair to say there are bad times to buy, and better times. If you look at a house and see the rent is more than the mortgage payment, it may be time to consider buying. Right now, the market is depressed, if you buy and plan to stay put, not caring if it drops from here because you plan to be there for the long term, you may find a great deal to be had. Over the long term, housing matches inflation. Sounds crazy, but. Even into the bubble, if you looked at housing in terms of mortgage payment at the prevailing 30yr fixed rate and converted the payment to hours needed to work to make the payment, the 2005 bubble never was. Not at the median, anyway. At today's <5% rate, the mortgage will cost you 3.75% after taxes. And assuming a 3% long term inflation rate, less than 1%. You have expenses, to be sure, property tax, maintenance, etc, but if you fix the mortgage, inflation will eat away at it, and ultimately it's over. At retirement, I'll take a paid for house over rising rents any day." }, { "docid": "322838", "title": "", "text": "How much amount can we transfer from India to the USA? Is the limit per year? As I understand your father in law is Indian Citizen and his tax paid earnings need to be transferred outside of India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme by RBI, one can transfer upto 2,50,000 USD. Please check with your Bank for the exact paperwork. A form 15CA and 15CB [by CA] are required to establish taxes have been paid. What documents we have to present to the bank? See above. Should money be transferred to company's account(Indian Company) to USA company? or can be transferred to my husband's account. Transfer of funds by a Indian Company to US Company has some restrictions. Please check with CA for details. If you father in law has sold the Indian Company and paid the taxes in India; he can transfer the proceeds to his son in US as per the Liberalized Remittance Scheme. Can they just gift the whole amount to my husband? What will be the tax implication on my husband's part in USA and on my father in law in India. The whole amount can be gifted by your father in law to your husband [his son]. There is no tax implication in India as being an Indian resident, gift between close relatives is tax free. There is no tax implication to your husband as he is a US Citizen and as per gift tax the person giving the gift should be paying the applicable taxes. Since the person gifting is not US Citizen; this is not applicable." }, { "docid": "571913", "title": "", "text": "I am a firm believer in TD's e-series funds. No other bank in Canada has index funds with such low management fees. Index funds offer the flexibility to re-balance your portfolio every month without the need to pay commission fees. Currently I allocate 10% of my paycheck to be diversified between Canadian, US, and International e-series index funds. In terms of just being for beginners, this opinion is most likely based on the fact that an e-series portfolio is very easy to manage. But this doesn't mean that it is only for beginners. Sometimes the easiest solution is the best one! :)" }, { "docid": "55954", "title": "", "text": "(Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)" }, { "docid": "291695", "title": "", "text": "Transfer of Millions of USD in and out is not possible for Individuals. There are limits on how much money an individual Indian Ordinary Citizen can send or receive. If an corporate wants to send money, depending on the services offered, they would have to initiate a SWIFT transaction. It typically takes 2-3 days for settlement of International wire." }, { "docid": "478408", "title": "", "text": "\"My employer decided to pay my salary in India after I submit a form W-8BEN. This means that the wages / salary is deemed accrued for work from India. Hence your employer need not withhold and pay taxes on this wage in US. Is this payment taxable in the States since I am staying outside of States? Should I declare this income to IRS in case if I go back to the States later this year? No tax is due as the work is done outside on US. If you go back this would be similar to as you had gone first. Depending on your \"\"tax residency status\"\" you would have to declare all assets. If my US employer wires my US salary to my NRE account is that taxable in India? This is still taxable in India. It is advised that you have the funds transferred into a regular savings account. Please note you have to pay taxes in advance as per prescribed due dates in Sept, Dec, March. how does the Indian tax man identify if it is a taxable income and not just the regular remittance. This question is off topic here. Whether income taxes finds out about this is irrelevant. By law one is required to pay taxes on income earned in India.\"" }, { "docid": "417", "title": "", "text": "Depending on what state you live in in the United States, your Canadian brokerage may be able to sell products within the existing RRSP. I have an RRSP in Canada through TD Waterhouse and they infact just sent me a recent letter explaining that they are permitted to service my Canadian RRSP under the laws of Tennessee (where I live). The note went on to specifically state that they are not subject to the broker-dealer regulations of the US or the securities/regulations laws on the TN securities act. Furthermore, they state that Canadian RRSPs are not regulated under the securities laws of the US and the securities offered and sold to Canadian plans are exempt from registration with the SEC. When I call TD to do trades, I just ask for a Canada/US broker and that's who enters the sale for me. I declare my RRSP annually both to IRS under RRSP treaty and through FBAR reporting." }, { "docid": "163685", "title": "", "text": "For the first part of your question, I think the answer is a combination of three things: (1) Bigger companies have leverage to negotiate better deals due to volume. (2) Some of these companies are also taking bookings from outside the US for people traveling to the US (either directly or through affiliates). This means that they also have income in other currencies, so they may not actually be making as many wire transfers as you think. They simply keep a bank account in Europe, for example, in Euros to receive and send money in the Eurozone as needed. They balance the exchange on their books internally in this case, without actually sending funds through the international banking system. Similarly in other parts of the world. (3) These companies are not going to make a wire transfer for every transaction, in any case. They are going to transfer big sums of money to an account abroad to balance things on a longer-term basis (weekly, month, etc.) Then they will make individual payments to service providers out of the overseas account in between these larger, international transfers. For the second part of your question, I think there's probably no way for a new business to get the advantages of scale unless you've got significant capital backing your endeavor that would make it plausible that you'll be transferring in scale. I don't see any reason in principle that the new company could not establish bank accounts abroad and try to execute the plan outlined in #2 above except that it would require some set-up costs to do the proper paperwork in each country, probably to travel, and to initially fund the various accounts." } ]

[ { "docid": "274188", "title": "", "text": "I am an Israeli based citizen who represents and Indian company who sells its products in Israel. As an agent I am entitled to commission on sales on behalf the Indian company who advised that. Any commission paid to you will be applicable to TDS at 20.9% of the commission amount, the tax will be paid and a Tax paid certificate will be given to you. According to a Bilateral Double tax avoidance treaty if the tax has been deducted in India you will get credit for this tax in Israel." } ]

[ { "docid": "300209", "title": "", "text": "Eximcorp India Pvt Ltd showcases the products of leading International Wood and Wood product businesses in Australia, Chile, Europe, New Zealand and in Americas. From plantation grown Teak Logs and processed Wood Chips to Lumbers and Gluelam, Composite wood products: Plywood, Fiber Boards, Oriental Strand Board and Particle Board, We have the best of the Wood products range on this planet to distribute in Indian market." }, { "docid": "357797", "title": "", "text": "Indian PF is a social security scheme, and as per the US India DTAA Article 20, is not taxable by the US. The exact text says as under - This clearly states that any social security benefit paid by any of the two contracting states to a resident of the other contracting state is taxable only in the first mentioned state. In other words, US cannot tax Indian social security benefits (and vice versa). Therefore, you are liable for taxes only in India even though you have to declare to the US that you were given the social security (PF) benefit by India." }, { "docid": "229911", "title": "", "text": "Please find out whether you are considered to be a tax resident of the US from the date that you received the permanent immigrant visa or from the date that you first enter the US on that visa. If the former, and you received the visa after April 30, you might be a part-year resident of India for Indian Income Tax purposes for the current tax year. You need to convert your bank accounts including Fixed Deposits (the FDs that you mention) to NRO accounts as soon as possible. You will need to keep at least one NRO account open for a year or more to receive the final interest payments on your FDs as well as the proceeds of cashing in the FDs, not to mention any refunds of Indian Income Tax that may be due to you for last year or the current year. Once you are done with all these, follow the procedures outlined in this excellent answer by @Dheer to transfer the money to your US account. At this point, you can close the NRO account if you wish. As PeterK's comment says, it is not a good idea to bring a large sum of cash with you unless you are really really paranoid about banking channels. Note that if you insist on bringing cash (whether it is INR or USD) or negotiable instruments (checks or bank drafts) with you when you land in the US, these will have to be declared on entry if the total exceeds US$ 10K. There is no limit to how much you can bring with you as long as you declare it. Transfers of your own money from India to the US is not taxable income to you in the US, and income tax will already have been paid/withheld on that money in India, and so there is no income tax liability in India either on the sum transferred." }, { "docid": "70907", "title": "", "text": "AFAIU, you don't need pay any taxes for you amount in NRE account since this amount is already taxed. I also think, you do not need to pay taxes on the interest earned on NRE account. However, you need to disclose the amount in your Indian Bank(s), if at any point of time, exceed $10K (When converted from INR to $). This is FBAR. Sending money to non-NRE account would come under Indian Tax scanner. For instance, if your parents use that money to pay EMIs or any huge purchase, then that might cause an issue. Most of the times, these type of purchases go unnoticed. However, the party who is taking money, may ask for source, especially if its a financial institution or Govt bodies. Also, for non-NRE accounts, you need to pay taxes and on interest earned. Hope this helps!" }, { "docid": "55108", "title": "", "text": "From what I understand this is what you can do : You need to raise an invoice to your brother's company in USA Your brother makes a payment into your Indian company's bank account using wire transfer straight into a bank account in your company's name. Your brother wont have to pay taxes on the money that he pays you against an invoice as it would be an expense and would not be considered as profit for tax purposes. Once you have the money you can then file your income tax returns after deducting your own expenses etc in India. I hope this helps." }, { "docid": "54952", "title": "", "text": "A. Kindly avoid taking dollars in form of cash to india unless and until it is an emergency. Once the dollar value is in excess of $10,000, you need to declare the same with Indian customs at the destination. Even though it is not a cumbersome procedure, why unnecessarily undergo all sort of documentation and most importantly at all security checks, you will be asked questions on dollars and you need to keep answering. Finally safety issue is always there during the journey. B.There is no Tax on the amount you declare. You can bring in any amount. All you need is to declare the same. C. It is always better to do a wire transfer. D. Any transfer in excess of $14,000 from US, will atract gift tax as per IRS guidelines. You need to declare the same while filing your Income Tax in US and pay the gift tax accordingly. E. Once your fiance receives the money , any amount in excess of Rs 50,000 would be treated as individual income and he has to show the same under Income from other sources while filing the taxes. Taxes will be as per the slab he falls under. F.Only for blood relatives , this limit of 50,000 does not apply. G. Reg the Loan option, suggest do not opt for the same. Incase you want to go ahead, then pl ensure that you fully comply with IRS rules on Loans made to a foreign person from a US citizen or resident. The person lending the money must report the interest payment as income on his or her yearly tax return provided the loan has interest element. No deduction is allowed if the proceeds are used for personal or non-business purposes.In the case of no-interest loans, most people believe there is no taxable income because no interest is paid. The IRS views this seriously and the tax rules are astonishingly complex when it comes to no-interest loans. Even though no interest is paid to the lender, the IRS will treat the transaction as if the borrower paid interest at the applicable federal rate to the lender and the lender subsequently gifted the interest back to the borrower.The lender is taxed on the imaginary interest income and, depending on the amount, may also be liable for gift tax on the imaginary payment made back to the borrower. Hope the above claryfies your query. Since this involves taxation suggest you take an opinion from a Tax attorney and also ask your fiance to consult a Charted Accountant on the same. Regards" }, { "docid": "496385", "title": "", "text": "\"You are right in insisting upon a proper B2B contract in any business relationship. You wish to reduce your risk and be compensated fairly. In addition to the cost and complexity of international wire transfers, the US companies may also be considering the fact that as an international contractor in a relatively hard-to-reach jurisdiction, payments to you place the company at higher risk than payments to a domestic contractor. By insisting upon PayPal or similar transmitters, they are reducing their internal complexity and reducing their financial exposure to unfulfilled/disputed contract terms. Therefore, wire payments are \"\"hard\"\" in an internal business sense, as well as in a remittance transfer reporting sense. The internal business procedure will likely be the hardest to overcome--changing risk management is harder than filling out forms.\"" }, { "docid": "289120", "title": "", "text": "\"I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced. This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11. The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. \"\"On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock.\"\" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock. Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits. However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016. According to the IRS website \"\"When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received.\"\" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete. Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement \"\"A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received\"\" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date. However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016. Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments. To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes. They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones.\"" }, { "docid": "456636", "title": "", "text": "Current account offers a lot of benefits for sole proprietors. Think of it like bank account for a company. The bank provides a host of facilities for the company. A sole proprietor does not have enough value as that of a company for a bank but needs similar services. Thus Indian banks offer a toned down version of the account offered to a company. Current account offer very good overdraft ( withdrawing money even if balance is zero). This feature is very useful as business cycles and payment schedules can be different for each supplier/customer the sole proprietor does business with. Imagine the sole proprietor account has balance of zero on day 0. customer X made payment by cheque on day 1. Cheques will get credited only on Day 3 (Assume Day 2 is a national holiday or weekend). Sole proprietor gave a cheque to his supplier on day 0. The supplier deposited the cheque on Day 0 and the sole proprietor's bank will debit the the proprietor's account on day 1. As customer's cheque will get credited only day 3, the overdraft facility will let the proprietor borrow from the bank Interestingly, current accounts were offered long before Indian banks started offering customized accounts to corporate customers. The payment schedule mentioned in my example is based on a clearing system > 10 years ago. Systems have become much simpler now but banks have always managed to offer something significantly extra on lines similar to my example above to proprietor over a savings bank account" }, { "docid": "583666", "title": "", "text": "Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!" }, { "docid": "521843", "title": "", "text": "\"Probably not. In general, if you withdraw money from a 401k before age 59 1/2, you must pay a 10% penalty. There are some special cases. You can withdraw money to pay certain unreimbursed medical bills, if you are disabled, or to pay back taxes. You can also withdraw money if you are dead. See https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-Tax-on-Early-Distributions. There is also a provision that you can make penalty-free withdrawals as long as you take them regularly: \"\"Made as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments beginning after separation from service and made at least annually for the life or life expectancy of the participant or the joint lives or life expectancies of the participant and his or her designated beneficiary. (The payments under this exception, except in the case of death or disability, must continue for at least 5 years or until the employee reaches age 59½, whichever is the longer period.)\"\" See https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Sponsor/401(k)-Resource-Guide-Plan-Sponsors-General-Distribution-Rules. (I don't quite understand this rule. You can't take money out one time, but you can take money out multiple times. Oh well. I think the idea is supposed to be that you can take out money for an early retirement.)\"" }, { "docid": "235935", "title": "", "text": "For various reasons, if you can defer tax payment, it's good for you [when you can give uncle sam $x tomorrow, why give it today?]. Some reasons are, you may plan to return back to your country after x years and then you can pay tax at a lower bracket [e.g. convert 401k to Rollover-IRA then do Roth-conversion and pay lower tax bracket]. Paying now versus later is purely based on your anticipated future tax bracket. [if future bracket is same.. say 25% today and after say 20 years, 25%.. there is absolutely no difference between today payment or future payment of tax -- you can mathematically prove the returns are the same for Roth-IRA (or Roth-401k) versus IRA (or 401k)]. Having a bigger balance (in case of 401k compared to roth-401k) can also give you a sense of more security -- since there are provisions for hardship withdrawal (tax may be due)" }, { "docid": "376850", "title": "", "text": "Your federal taxes in US include the tax which Indian government wants back from you under the treaty with US government. Some countries have treaty with US where all the money person earns in US can be reclaimed at the end of the financial year i.e no money goes to the country of citizenship. However, Indian citizens working in US are not liable for 100% reclaim on their federal tax." }, { "docid": "317529", "title": "", "text": "\"My tax preparing agent is suggesting that since the stock brokers in India does not have any US state ITINS, it becomes complicated to file that income along with US taxes Why? Nothing to do with each other. You need to have ITIN (or, SSN more likely, since you're on H1b). What brokers have have nothing to do with you. You must report these gains on your US tax return, and beware of the PFIC rules when you do it. He says, I can file those taxes separately in India. You file Indian tax return in India, but it has nothing to do with the US. You'll have to deal with the tax treaty/foreign tax credits to co-ordinate. How complicated is it to include Indian capital gains along with US taxes? \"\"How complicated\"\" is really irrelevant. But in any case - there's no difference between Indian capital gains and American capital gains, unless PFIC/Trusts/Mutual funds are involved. Then it becomes complicated, but being complicated is not enough to not report it. If PIFC/Trusts/Mutual funds aren't involved, you just report this on Schedule D as usual. Did anybody face similar situation More or less every American living abroad. Also the financial years are different in India and US Irrelevant.\"" }, { "docid": "163685", "title": "", "text": "For the first part of your question, I think the answer is a combination of three things: (1) Bigger companies have leverage to negotiate better deals due to volume. (2) Some of these companies are also taking bookings from outside the US for people traveling to the US (either directly or through affiliates). This means that they also have income in other currencies, so they may not actually be making as many wire transfers as you think. They simply keep a bank account in Europe, for example, in Euros to receive and send money in the Eurozone as needed. They balance the exchange on their books internally in this case, without actually sending funds through the international banking system. Similarly in other parts of the world. (3) These companies are not going to make a wire transfer for every transaction, in any case. They are going to transfer big sums of money to an account abroad to balance things on a longer-term basis (weekly, month, etc.) Then they will make individual payments to service providers out of the overseas account in between these larger, international transfers. For the second part of your question, I think there's probably no way for a new business to get the advantages of scale unless you've got significant capital backing your endeavor that would make it plausible that you'll be transferring in scale. I don't see any reason in principle that the new company could not establish bank accounts abroad and try to execute the plan outlined in #2 above except that it would require some set-up costs to do the proper paperwork in each country, probably to travel, and to initially fund the various accounts." }, { "docid": "483664", "title": "", "text": "\"After reviewing the tax treaty between New Zealand and Australia, I think the issue is whether or not you have an interest in a \"\"permanent establishment\"\" in Australia where you do business. The bank is not relevant as it is merely the vehicle by which you collect payment and would only come into the picture if you had an income bearing account (which you have indicated you do not). Even if you work out of the offices of the Australian company, you do not have a financial interest in their offices and as such, would pay taxes on the income in New Zealand (see documentation below). https://www.ato.gov.au/business/international-tax-for-business/foreign-residents-doing-business-in-australia/tax-on-income-and-capital-gains/#permanentestablishment\"" }, { "docid": "120133", "title": "", "text": "I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail." }, { "docid": "5019", "title": "", "text": "Many a time even if the tax is deducted and paid by the company it does not reflect as a credit against your PAN for various reasons like, you not submitting it to your employer in time, errors of reconciliation, etc. Its advisable that you inform your company finance officer that you have received such a letter. Q1. The sure shot way of knowing that your company is depositing tax with government is to view your tax credit report. This was set-up in 2004 and gives the details of all credits against your PAN and the tax deducted against your PAN. It shows if the tax was TDS and which employer paid it, or if this was a self assessment, or TCS, etc. To view this report there are 2 options: Register directly at http://www.tin-nsdl.com/panregistration.asp. Follow the one time registration process and keep viewing the tax credits. Note it normally takes 2-3 months to reflect the data. The other alternative is that quite a few leading banks [Citi, SBI, etc] provide a direct access to this report from their internet banking frontend, provided your PAN is associated to your account. Q2. The only details you need to submit are the Form 16. This would have all the details of when the tax was paid and the BSR number required for reconciling. Q3. TDS is the liability of the employer. However if this has not been deducted or too little was deducted based on incorrect/incomplete information give by you, then its your liability. For example if you change jobs in a year, the tax deducted is always less and you have to pay the difference. Q4. If its established that the company was at fault for not deducting the tax or deducting and not paying it to government on time, there are enough provisions to penalize the company including putting the top management team behind bars." }, { "docid": "505692", "title": "", "text": "Assuming you are Resident Indian. As per Indian Income Tax As per section 208 every person whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000, shall pay his tax in advance in the form of “advance tax”. Thus, any taxpayer whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000 has to pay his tax in advance by the due dates prescribed in this regard. However, as per section 207, a resident senior citizen (i.e., an individual of the age of 60 years or above) not having any income from business or profession is not liable to pay advance tax. In other words, if a person satisfies the following conditions, he will not be liable to pay advance tax: Hence only self assessment tax need to be paid without any interest. Refer the full guideline on Income tax website" } ]

[ { "docid": "533825", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you can. See the instructions for line 29 of form 1040. Self employed health insurance premiums are an \"\"above the line\"\" deduction.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "438287", "title": "", "text": "\"See this question regarding the relationship between a HDHP (High Deductible Health Plan) and an HSA (Health Savings Account). In brief, to qualify for an HSA you must have a HDHP: HDHPs are plans with a minimum deductible of $1,200 for self-only coverage and $2,400 for self-and-family coverage. The maximum amount out-of-pocket limit for HDHPs is $5,950 for self-only coverage and $11,900 for self-and-family coverage. As mentioned by Stainsor, your insurance can either come from your employer, or it can be an individually purchased plan. The HSA can be bundled as part of a package with the insurance, or it can be an account you set up separately. Contributions you make to the HSA are tax deductible. You'll report the amount you contributed when you file your taxes the following year. E.g. in April 2012 you'll report (and deduct) the amount of HSA contributions you made for tax year 2011. I'm not sure what kind of trouble you'll get into if you have an HSA without having a qualified HDHP. To answer the main part of your question: Different HSAs may have slightly different features, but I've typically seen them provide the following ways to withdraw funds: Via a debit card issued with the account. You can use the debit card to pay for things like drugs at the pharmacy, or at a doctors' office that requires payment at the time of service. Via online bill pay. You can use this to pay bills from hospitals, doctors' offices, or other healthcare service providers that send you bills. Via paper checks. For doctors' offices that require payment at time of service but don't accept plastic. (Or if you prefer not to use online bill pay.) Via withdrawal at a teller window or ATM. You can use this to \"\"reimburse yourself\"\" for healthcare expenses that you paid out of pocket. The issue of documenting legitimate expenses and/or qualifying for the account with an HDHP is between you and the IRS. The bank at which your HSA is kept doesn't really care whether you comply with the tax laws.\"" }, { "docid": "171364", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; \"\"No action is not an alternative,\"\" McConnell was quoted as saying. \"\"We've got the insurance markets imploding all over the country, including in this state.\"\" Except that Republicans are actively sabotaging Obamacare. [Trump has made it clear the mandate will not be enforced](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-signs-executive-order-that-could-lift-affordable-care-acts-individual-mandate/2017/01/20/8c99e35e-df70-11e6-b2cf-b67fe3285cbc_story.html?utm_term=.11771cb5ed77). [With no mandate, healthy people drop from the program and premiums increase](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-09/obamacare-premiums-rise-as-insurers-fret-over-law-s-shaky-future). &gt; \"\"If my side is unable to agree on an adequate replacement, then some kind of action with regard to the private health insurance market must occur...\"\" I think Democrats should consider help after Republicans do three things: 1) Take steps to implement the law as it was passed. Until Republicans take ownership of the law, they will just sabotage it again and blame Democrats. 2) Officially admit that [the ACA was a compromise bill agreed upon by Democrats and Republicans over 31 meetings in the Senate Finance Committee](https://web.archive.org/web/20130111185729/http://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/index.cfm?PageNum_rs=1&amp;maxrows=100). The Republican opposition has been mainly political theater to deny a Democrat president a victory. 3) Senator McConnell himself must apologize for refusing to bring a vote on President Obama's Supreme Court nomination to the floor effectively stealing a Supreme Court seat. To make things right again, he should agree Democrats should block every Republican Supreme Court nomination until the balance is restored. Until I see these things, I have no reason to believe this suggestion of bipartisanship from Republicans is nothing more than an attempt to trick Democrats to not be as destructive and selfish as they have been for the past eight years.\"" }, { "docid": "232199", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business." }, { "docid": "171576", "title": "", "text": "\"It's a tough question, because there is society and individual to consider, and the society's effects on the individual. Currently, employers don't have to provide insurance, they do it to compete in the employee marketplace. Employers have an advantage over employees in that regard, because they can procure insurance at a lower cost that employees can, and they get tax breaks for doing so. Employers providing health insurance get a more stable relationship with their employees, because employees always hold great value in having an employee who provides good benefits. The company I work for provides good benefits, but suppose tomorrow they told me \"\"Hey Mutatron, we're not providing benefits anymore, but we'll bump your salary to what your benefits are worth, plus enough to compensate for the tax break we get.\"\" So now, everything is equal to what it was before, but I have to go out and find my own insurance, which is a hassle, but presumably because of the PPACA I can get a good value and carry this insurance with me wherever I go, and never have to mess with changing every time I change jobs. But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. This is the way it works now with the minimum wage. A recent report found that WalMart employees rely on welfare to the tune of [$2.66 billion a year](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net), while the company makes $15 billion in profit. So 18% of Walmart's profits are an indirect subsidy from the US taxpayer, which comes to about $48 per US citizen, or about $208 a year for the top 50% of wage earners. Even so, I think I'd prefer to get my whole compensation package in one shot, all else being equal. That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance.\"" }, { "docid": "153664", "title": "", "text": "I bought Health Insurance for myself after a period without it, and my premiums were not terrible. I was a 27 year old man, living in California, no preexisting conditions, and I paid approximately 90$ a month. This was for a standard Health Insurance plan. However, when I moved back to NY a little while later, insurance companies wanted almost $500/month for catastrophic coverage. So, from personal experience, my answer is that price varies widely by state. Different states have different regulations as to what Health Insurance Companies need to cover and at what price. In NY, Health Insurance companies can't charge different rates according to age. Also, in NY, there is a price spiral, where the price is so high, few people buy it, so they have to raise the price because not enough well people are in the pool, so fewer people buy it.... To test it out, go to an online insurance broker, like ehealthinsurace, and put in your proposed information, including that you haven't been covered for a period. This way you will know." }, { "docid": "406418", "title": "", "text": "\"The piece is a little misguided at best and poor journalism at worst. The problem lies in the difference between what's deductible for individuals and what's deductible for corporations. The short version of the story is that corporations can deduct a hell of a lot more things than individuals can. Individual deductions are spelled out in the Internal Revenue Code. Stuff like medical expenses (above 7.5% of your AGI), certain educational things, etc. For corporations, the basic rule is that they can deduct any \"\"ordinary and necessary\"\" business expenses. That includes operating, travel, interest, employee, etc. I wish that the article had cited specific sections of the Code if this was some kind of loophole or something, but alas, it appears that they didn't. That leads me to believe that these companies are deducting the portion not paid to the government as a business expense. ~~For what it's worth, I don't believe that a company can deduct those expenses for tax purposes unless it's to \"\"protect their business interests.\"\" My assumption (I don't have the time or desire to search case law right now) is that settlements with the US Government are considered to fall under that definition.~~ **EDIT** - See my comment [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/11dbzu/federal_regulators_have_lauded_a_series_of/c6ll7ez) for the relevant Treasury Regulation dealing with this.\"" }, { "docid": "51729", "title": "", "text": "\"It seems like if that were true, then if everyone were in one group, you'd get the biggest discount of all. My preference has been for single payer, but recently I saw a guy suggesting single-group, multi-payer, or SGMP. This was just a comment from a physician in a medical journal, and I don't have the link and haven't been able to find out anything more about it, but it seems intriguing. It had something to do with insurance companies bidding to provide coverage services. edit: [Here it is](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1211514#t=comments): &gt; JOEL SPALTER, MD | Physician - Infectious Diseases | Disclosure: None &gt; FAYETTEVILLE AR &gt; October 02, 2012 &gt; Single Group Multi-Payer &gt; True reform resulting in universal health insurance and access to care is achieved by state mandates for insurance with replacement of individual or group underwriting with underwriting by \"\"Dutch auction\"\" for a percentage of the single group consisting of all of the residents of a State – Single Group – Multi-Payer (SGMP). Each successful insurance company would be responsible for payment of the percentage of the total costs for medical services equal to the percentage of the population insured. This preserves the integrity of the bidding process. &gt; States are free to establish the public contribution to premiums. SGMP prevents exclusion of insurance for pre-existing conditions or due to genetic background, absent individual underwriting; guarantees maintenance of health care insurance independent of place, or even existence of employment; assures equality of access to providers due to a single established remuneration scale; and assures patients' choice of providers free from any empanelling by insurance companies. Market forces will govern providers' attempts to gain and hold market share. &gt; A single group eases statistical comparison, with EMR, of 50, State patterns of care.\"" }, { "docid": "184210", "title": "", "text": "Insurance is for events that are both and Unexpected and, for many people, catastrophic events are, for example, sickness, disability, death, car accidents, house fires, and burglaries, for which you may buy health, disability, life, auto, home, and renter's insurance. It may be catastrophic for a family relying on a very old earner for that earner to die, and you can buy life insurance up to a very old age, but the premiums will reflect the likelihood of someone of that age dying within the covered period. The more expected an event is, the more anything referred to as insurance is actually forced savings. Health insurance with no copays on regular checkups expects the insured to use them, so the cost of those checkups plus a profit for the insurance company is factored into the premiums ahead of time. A wooden pencil breaking may be unexpected. Regardless of foreseeability, no one buys insurance on wooden pencils, as the loss of a pencil is not catastrophic. What is catastrophic can be context dependent. Health-care needs are typically unforeseeable, as you don't know when you'll get sick. For a billionaire, needing health-care, while unforeseeable, the situation would not be catastrophic, and the billionaire can easily self-insure his or her health to the same extent as most caps offered by health insurance companies. If you're on a fixed budget buying a laptop, if it unexpectedly failed, that would be catastrophic to you, so budgeting in the cost of insurance or an extended warranty while buying your laptop would probably make sense. Especially if you need that $2000 laptop, spending an extra 17.5% would safeguard against you having to come out of pocket and depleting your savings to replace it, even though that brings you to a grand total of $2350 before taxes. However, if you're in that tight of a situation, I would strongly recommend you to find a less expensive option that would allow you to self-insure. If you found a used laptop for much less (I can even see Apple selling refurbished Macs for less than $1000) you might decide that your budget allows you to self-insure, and you could profit from being careful with your hardware and resolving to cover any issues with it yourself." }, { "docid": "19640", "title": "", "text": "Yup. I scrutinize the income statement I receive from my employer every year. What I make vs what the company actually invests in me as an employee is really astounding. Beyond my hourly wage, the company pays for my health insurance premium (all but $10/check), and pays for a medical flex-spending account. On top of this (I know this isn't taxes but it's still an expense and government sanctioned) if I do some dumbass thing to get myself hurt at work, they'd pay all medical bills since it happened on their property. We recently had a bit of a wake-up call this summer, as the board of directors warned everyone that the current medical plan our company provides to us is not sustainable, and will have to undergo changes (we're going to either start paying for our premiums, decrease our flex accounts, or charge smokers additional fees) beginning Jan 1st. Lots of people are complaining about this. I don't think they're aware of the horde of expenses and fees that the company swallows for them in other ways. There's property taxes, business income taxes, excise taxes, customs/duty taxes, state taxes... along with meeting the restrictions and standards of certain governmental agencies (like OSHA). I don't know how a small business owner could ever maintain control over all of this financial mess and be able to help their customers or other employees. There's OSHA, a profit-seeking (through citations) business now, instead of a partner and ally to businesses. A typical 'violation' is $70K, and a 'repeat' violation is $140K. Imagine running a small grocery store, and having to pay this fine because you accidentally had a piece of styrofoam lying on top of a cooler not built to withstand overhead weight. Or because someone wasn't wearing safety shoes in the store. You'd simply go out of business." }, { "docid": "265213", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Health insurers are abandoning the exchanges in droves and making huge hikes to premiums. One of the big reasons is that [Trump has made it clear the mandate will not be enforced](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-signs-executive-order-that-could-lift-affordable-care-acts-individual-mandate/2017/01/20/8c99e35e-df70-11e6-b2cf-b67fe3285cbc_story.html?utm_term=.11771cb5ed77). [With no mandate, healthy people drop from the program and premiums increase](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-09/obamacare-premiums-rise-as-insurers-fret-over-law-s-shaky-future). &gt; It's a death spiral. That's Republicans for you. They obstruct and sabotage the system and then blame everyone else when the system doesn't work." }, { "docid": "285502", "title": "", "text": "\"Equation: (M x 12) + MOOP = Worst case scenario cost Where M equals the monthly cost and MOOP is the maximum out of pocket amount. So, if a plan costs $500 a month and the maximum out of pocket amount is $12,000 - which in a worst case scenario you would pay (it's almost always over the deductible) ... ($500 x 12) + 12,000 = $18,000 Most people look at the deductible, but be aware this is incorrect in a worst case. The last one (maximum out of pocket) really hurts most people because they overlook it: Deductible vs. out-of-pocket maximum The difference between your deductible and an out-of-pocket maximum is subtle but important. The out-of-pocket maximum is typically higher than your deductible to account for things like co-pays and co-insurance. For example, if you hit your deductible of $2,500 but continue to go for office visits with a $25 co-pay, you’ll still have to pay that co-pay until you’ve spent your out-of-pocket maximum, at which time your insurance would take over and cover everything. New in 2016: embedded out-of-pocket maximums One change in 2016 is that, even with an aggregate deductible, one person cannot pay more than the individual out-of-pocket maximum within a family plan, even if the aggregate deductible is more than the individual out-of-pocket maximum, which is $6,850 for 2016. For instance, even if the overall aggregate deductible was $10,000, a single person in that family plan could not incur more than $6,850 in out-of-pocket expenses. (In 2017, the out-of-pocket maximum will increase to $7,150.) After they hit that number, insurance covers everything for that person, even as the rest of the family is still subject to the deductible. From your question: Thanks - not sure I totally follow you. My question is, essentially: \"\"Say a typical large employer X gives you 'healthcare' as a benefit on top of your salary. In fact, how much does that cost corporation X each year?\"\" ie, meaning, in the US, about how much does that typically cost a corporation X each year? That's a good question because they may qualify for tax advantages by offering to a number of employees and there may be other benefits if they encourage certain tests (like blood work and they waive the monthly fee). More than likely, using the above equation may be the maximum that they'll pay each year per employee and it might be less depending on the tax qualifications. You can read this answer of the question and it appears they are paying within the range of these premiums listed above this.\"" }, { "docid": "480400", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll assume that you would work as a regular (part-time) employee. In this case, you are technically a Grenzgänger. You will need a specific kind of Swiss permit (\"\"Grenzgängerbewilligung\"\") allowing you to work in Switzerland. Your employer typically takes care of this - they have more experience than you. You being non-EU might make matters a bit more complicated. Your employer will withhold 4.5% of your gross income as source taxes (\"\"Quellensteuer\"\"). When you do your tax declaration, your entire income will be taxed in Germany, since this is where you live. This will happen after your first year of work. Be prepared for a large tax bill (or think of this as an interest-free loan from Germany to you). However, due to the Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen (DBA), the 4.5% you already paid to Switzerland will be deducted from the taxes you are due in Germany. Judging from my experience, the tax authorities in Germany are not fluent in the DBA - particularly in areas far away from the Swiss border. I had to gently remind them to deduct the source taxes, explicitly referring to the DBA. The bill was revised without problems, but I strongly recommend making sure that your source taxes are correctly deducted from your German tax liability. Once your local German tax office understands your situation, you will be asked to make quarterly prepayments, which will be calculated in a way to minimize your later overall tax liability. Budget for these. You didn't ask, but I'll tell you anyway: social security will normally be handled by Switzerland as the country of employment - not the country of residence. Your employer will automatically deduct old age, unemployment and accident insurance and contribute to a pension plan, all in Switzerland. However... ... if you do a lot of your work in Germany (>25%), which certainly applies if you plan on mostly working remotely, your social security will be handled by your country of residence. This is a major pain for your employer, because now your Swiss employer needs to understand the German social security system, how much and to whom to co-pay and so forth. This is a major area of study, and your employer may not want to spend all this effort. My employer has looked at this and requires anyone living outside of Switzerland to limit working from home to less than 25%, because by extension, they would some day also need to do the same for employees living in France, Italy, Austria... or even the UK. They don't want to dig through half the EU states' social security regulations. Therefore, you would not be able to work remotely from Germany for my employer. This is actually a fairly recent development that only entered in force at the beginning of 2015 (before that, this was all a bit of a gray area). Your prospective employer may not be aware of all details. So you will need to think about whether you actively want to point them at this (possibly ruining your plans of working remotely), or not (and possibly getting major problems and post-payments years later). Finally, I think you can choose whether you want to have your health insurance in Switzerland or in Germany (unless your Swiss obligation to be insured is waived because of your part-time status). Some Swiss health insurers offer plans where they cooperate with German health insurers, so you can go to German doctors just like a German resident. Source: I have been a Grenzgänger from Germany into Switzerland off and on for over ten years now. I can't say anything about whether your German visa restricts you from working in Switzerland. You may want to ask about this at Expatriates.SE, but I'd much rather ask your local German authorities than random strangers on the internet.\"" }, { "docid": "32072", "title": "", "text": "I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee." }, { "docid": "530441", "title": "", "text": "There are a lot of moving parts, individual premiums and annual increases have little to do with employer premiums and annual increases and vice versa. Most people think of XYZ insurer as a single company with a single pool of insured folks. This common knowledge isn't accurate. Insurers pool their business segments separately. This means that Individual, small business, mid-size business, and large business are all different operating segments from the viewpoint of the insurer. It's possible to argue that because so many people are covered by employer plans that individual plans have a hard time accumulating the required critical mass of subscribers to keep increases reasonable. Age banded rating: Individual coverage and small group coverage is age rated, meaning every year you get older. In addition to your age increase, the premium table for your plan also receives an increase. Employers with 100+ eligible employees are composite rated (in general), meaning every employee costs the same amount. The 18 year old employee costs $500 per month, the 64 year old costs $500 per month. Generally, the contributions an employee pays to participate in the plan are also common among all ages. This means that on a micro level increases can be more incremental because the employer is abstracting the gross premium. Composite rating generally benefits older folks while age rating generally benefits younger folks. Employer Morale Incentive: Generally the cost to an employee covered by an employer plan isn't directly correlated to the gross premium, and increases to the contribution(s) aren't necessarily correlated to the increases the employer receives. Employers are incentivised by employee morale. It's pretty common for employers to shoulder a disproportionate amount of an increase to keep everyone happy. Employers may offset the increase by shopping some ancillary benefit like group life insurance, or bundling the dental program with the medical carrier. Remember, employees don't pay premiums they pay contributions and some employers are more generous than others. Employers are also better at budgeting for planned increases than individuals are. Regulators: In many of the states that are making the news because of their healthcare premium increases there simply isn't a regulator scrutinizing increases. California requires all individual and small group premiums to be filed with the state and increases must be justified with some sort of math and approved by a regulator. Without this kind of oversight insurers have only the risk of subscriber flight to adjust plan provisions and press harder during provider contract negotiations. Expiring Transitional Reinsurance Fee and Funds: One of the fees introduced by healthcare reform paid by insurers and self-insured employers established a pot of money that individual plans could tap to cope with the new costs of the previously uninsurable folks. This fee and corresponding pot of money is set to expire and can no longer be taken in to account by underwriters. Increased Treatment Availability: It's important that as new facilities go online, insurer costs will increase. If a little town gets a new cancer clinic, that pool will see more cancer treatment costs simply as a result of increased treatment availability. Consider that medical care inflation is running at about 4.9% annually as of the most recent CPI table, the rest of the increases will result from the performance of that specific risk pool. If that risk pool had a lot of cancer diagnoses, you're looking at a big increase. If that risk pool was under priced the prior year you will see an above average increase, etc." }, { "docid": "598356", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends. \"\"High net worth individuals\"\" is very subjective. Lets say a person is worth 1.5 million. High, but not super high. For one, they should have an umbrella policy. Until your net worth is above 300K, you really don't need an umbrella policy. They should insure their home and cars, but should probably have high deductibles. Health insurance is a must as a bad illness can wipe them out. They should have long term care insurance when they reach age 60. Now lets say a person is worth about 10 million. They might be able to self insure basic transportation and probably don't need long term care insurance. However, they may choose to carry the full coverage car insurance, or other lines, because it is a value. In conclusion insurance needs change based on a person's net worth and income. It is very hard to make a blanket statement without details of the makeup of one's net worth and how they earn their income. Having said all of that, a high net worth (HNW) individual may never be able to drop certain coverage. Lets say that a HNW owns a 50K condo, 1K square foot condo. Given that the outside structure is covered by the HOA the insurance on such a unit only covers the contents and liability. The contents could easily be floated by the HNW individual, but not the liability. It is probably a requirement, on their umbrella policy, that they carry the maximum liability protection on their vehicles and properties. In the case above they would carry a policy for the purposes of liability protection. This could also be true of their dependents. Say for example, their adult child receives some financial assistance from their parents (like college being paid for). The HNW individuals should have their child cover the maximum liability on the auto policy. According to this site: A person with a net worth of 1.5 million would be in the 90-95 percentile, a person with 10 million in the 99th. This article does a decent job of describing what constitutes a HNW person or household. Namely 1 million in investable assets, which is of course a bit different then net worth.\"" }, { "docid": "125621", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you can pay for chiropractic and dental through an HSA. If you do this, you are essentially paying for these things with before-tax money. Your savings depend on which tax bracket you are in; for example, if you are in the 15% bracket, you will essentially save 15% on these expenses by contributing the money into an HSA, and then paying out of that account, instead of paying directly with after-tax money. In order to be eligible to contribute to an HSA, you need to be enrolled in a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). If you don't know if your current health insurance plan is an HSA-eligible HDHP, you can ask your health insurance provider." }, { "docid": "253492", "title": "", "text": "The idea is that the premiums (or costs) associated with the plan are a business expense, you know that already. The distinction here is that employees don't pay premiums, they elect to contribute. The company sponsors a plan, the employees then choose to accept less salary in order to participate in the employer's plan. The idea is that you're foregoing income. Why is the employee not taxed on this cost? One major reason is that the employee has no say in, and often no idea, what the gross costs are (some find out if they ever receive COBRA election paperwork). There are more benefits than strict healthcare that are Section 125 eligible. The government has a vested interest in keeping the population healthy, and when the ERISA laws and Section 125 were written it was (and still is) a pretty low friction way to get health insurance out to more people. At this point, taking away the tax break from the employees would be a huge government take away from most of the population. Try to get a politician to take something away from taxpayers. Why doesn't the deduction exist in kind to people buying individual coverage? Ask your legislators. There are thousands of preferential tax treatment oddities, where some industry will get some sort of benefit or break. I'm not sure what leads you to think there needs to be some supremely logical reason for this oddity to exit." }, { "docid": "382908", "title": "", "text": "Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details." }, { "docid": "95559", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't classify your treatment as abuse. Medical billing has become more complex not less complex. You need to learn to ask even more questions regarding expenses, you probably need to see these price quotes in writing. You did several things correctly. Staying in-network generally is best because many plans have two deductible limits: In-network, and out-of-network. You need to make sure that the insurance company does credit you with having paid the new patient fee. That will qualify as an expense toward the deductible and your maximum out of pocket for the year. Some doctors offices don't send to insurance companies items that they know will not be covered, not remembering that these costs are critical under the High deductible plans with a health savings account. Doctors offices have problems determining how much the cost to you will be. It depends not just on the insurance company but also which type of plan you have, which sub-plan you have, and are you covered by more than one plan. Not to mention individual deductibles, family deductibles, and annual out-of-pocket amount. All this is wanted prior to the doctor seeing the patient. Most doctors offices will work with you, they know that each insurance plan treats each medical billing code differently, sometimes they make a mistake. Talk to them." } ]

[ { "docid": "390435", "title": "", "text": "If you itemize your deductions then the interest that you pay on your primary residence is tax deductible. Also realestate tax is also deductible. Both go on Schedule A. The car payment is not tax deductible. You will want to be careful about claiming business deduction for home or car. The IRS has very strict rules and if you have any personal use you can disqualify the deduction. For the car you often need to use the mileage reimbursement rates. If you use the car exclusively for work, then a lease may make more sense as you can expense the lease payment whereas with the car you need to follow the depreciation schedule. If you are looking to claim business expense of car or home, it would be a very good idea to get professional tax advice to ensure that you do not run afoul of the IRS." } ]

[ { "docid": "427884", "title": "", "text": "Leasing is not exactly a scam, but it doesn't seem to be the right product for you. The point of leasing over buying is that it turns the capital purchase of a car which needs to be depreciated for tax purposes into what is effectively a rental expense. Rent is an expense that can be deducted directly without depreciation. If you are not operating a business where you can take advantage of leasing's tax advantages, leasing is probably not for you. Because of the tax advantages, a lease can be more profitable for the car dealer. They can get a commission or finder's fee on the lease as well as the commission on the car sale. That extra profit comes from somewhere, presumably from you. If a business, you can then pass part of that to the government. As an individual, you lose that advantage. At this point, the best financial decision that you could make would be to buy out the lease on your current car. Lease prices are set based on the assumption that the car will have been abused during the course of the lease. If you are driving the car less than expected, its value is probably higher than the cost of buying out the lease. If you buy that car, you can drive it for years. Save up some money and buy your next car for cash rather than using financing. Of course, if you really want a new car and can afford it, you may not want to buy out the lease. That is of course your decision. You don't have to maximize your current financial position if buying a new car would return more satisfaction for the money in the long run. I would try to avoid financing for what is essentially a pleasure purchase though." }, { "docid": "304407", "title": "", "text": "(a) you give away your money - gift tax The person who receives the gift doesn't owe any tax. If you give it out in small amounts, there will be no gift tax. It could have tax and Estate issues for you depending on the size of the gift, the timing, and how much you give away in total. Of course if you give it away to a charity you could deduct the gift. (b) you loan someone some money - tax free?? It there is a loan, and and you collect interest; you will have to declare that interest as income. The IRS will expect that you charge a reasonable rate, otherwise the interest could be considered a gift. Not sure what a reasonable rate is with savings account earning 0.1% per year. (c) you pay back the debt you owe - tax free ?? tax deductible ?? The borrower can't deduct the interest they pay, unless it is a mortgage on the main home, or a business loan. I will admit that there may be a few other narrow categories of loans that would make it deductible for the borrower. If the loan/gift is for the down payment on a house, the lender for the rest of the mortgage will want to make sure that the gift/loan nature is correctly documented. The need to fully understand the obligations of the homeowner. If it is a loan between family members the IRS may want to see the paperwork surrounding a loan, to make sure it isn't really a gift. They don't look kindly on loans that are never paid back and no interest collected." }, { "docid": "110117", "title": "", "text": "1: Gambling losses not in excess of gambling winnings can be deducted on Schedule A, line 28. See Pub 17 (p 201). Line 28 catches lots of deductions, and gambling losses are one of them. See Schedule A instructions. 2: If the Mississippi state tax withheld was an income tax (which I assume it was), then it goes on Schedule A, line 5a. In the unlikely event it was not a state or local tax on income, but some sort of excise on gambling, then it may be deductible on line 8 as another deductible tax. It probably is not a personal property tax, which is generally levied against the value of things like cars and other movable property but not on receipts of cash; line 7 probably is not appropriate. The most likely result, without researching Mississippi SALT, is that it was an income tax. See Sched A Instructions for more on the differences between the types of taxes paid. Just to be clear, these statements hold if you are not engaging in poker as a profession. If you are engaging in poker as a business, which can be difficult to establish in the IRS' eyes, then you would use Schedule C and also report business and travel expenses. But the IRS is aware that people want to reduce their gambling income by the cost of hotels and flights to casinos, so it's a relatively high hurdle to be considered a professional poker player." }, { "docid": "378384", "title": "", "text": "\"Not sure what you are talking about. The house isn't part of a business so neither of you can deduct half of normal maintenance and repairs. It is just the cost of having a house. The only time this would be untrue is if the thing that you are buying for the house is part of a special deduction or rebate for that tax year. For instance the US has been running rebates and deductions on certain household items that reduce energy - namely insulation, windows, doors, and heating/cooling systems (much more but those are the normal things). And in actuality if your brother is using the entire house as a living quarters you should be charging him some sort of rent. The rent could be up to the current monthly market price of the home minus 50%. If it were my family I would probably charge them what I would pay for a 3% loan on the house minus 50%. Going back to the repairs... Really if these repairs are upgrades and not things caused by using the house and \"\"breaking\"\" or \"\"wearing\"\" things you should be paying half of this, as anything that contributes to the increased property value should be paid for equally if you both are expecting to take home 50% a piece once you sell it.\"" }, { "docid": "393629", "title": "", "text": "Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't." }, { "docid": "141738", "title": "", "text": "\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of in­come. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business ex­penses as an itemized deduction on Sched­ule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\"" }, { "docid": "272513", "title": "", "text": "House rent allowance:7500 House Rent can be tax free to the extent [less of] Medical allowance : 800 Can be tax free, if you provide medical bills. Conveyance Allowance : 1250 Is tax free. Apart from this, if you invest in any of the tax saving instruments, i.e. Specified Fixed Deposits, NSC, PPF, EPF, Tution Fees, ELSS, Home Loan Principal etc, you can get upto Rs 150,000 deductions. Additional Rs 50,000 if you invest into NPS. If you have a home loan, upto Rs 200,000 in interest can be deducted. So essentially if you invest rightly you need not pay any tax on the current salary, apart from the Rs 200 professional tax deducted." }, { "docid": "344955", "title": "", "text": "There are other answers here about how much you can deduct for a home office. What seems unique is the question of whether you can deduct it for both your LLC and for your employment. Unless your LLC owns the home, you cannot deduct the depreciation directly. Instead you have to charge your LLC rent for the time that you are using the space for the LLC. That rent must be declared as income on your personal tax return, and you can then offset some of it with the time you spend in that space working for your employer and depreciation for time it is being rented to your LLC. Using a strategy this complex may save you a few bucks on your return, but this is definitely an area where a tax professional is worth the expense making sure you get it right." }, { "docid": "97348", "title": "", "text": "\"While you'd need to pay tax if you realized a capital gain on the sale of your car, you generally can't deduct any loss arising from the sale of \"\"personal use property\"\". Cars are personal use property. Refer to Canada Revenue Agency – Personal-use property losses. Quote: [...] if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property. This is because if a property depreciates through personal use, the resulting loss on its disposition is a personal expense. There are some exceptions. Read up at the source links.\"" }, { "docid": "541809", "title": "", "text": "\"No, your business cannot deduct your non-business expenses. You can only deduct from your business income those reasonable expenses you paid in order to earn income for the business. Moreover, for there to be a tax benefit, your business generally has to have income (but I expect there are exceptions; HST input tax credits come to mind.) The employment income from your full-time job wouldn't count as business income for your corporation. The corporation has nothing to do with that income – it's earned personally, by you. With respect to restaurant bills: These fall under a category known as \"\"meals & entertainment\"\". Even if the expense can be considered reasonable and business-related (e.g. meeting customers or vendors) the Canada Revenue Agency decided that a business can only deduct half of those kinds of expenses for tax purposes. With respect to gasoline bills: You would need to keep a mileage and expense log. Only the portion of your automobile expenses that relate to the business can be deducted. Driving to and from your full-time job doesn't count. Of course, I'm not a tax professional. If you're going to have a corporation or side-business, you ought to consult with a tax professional. (A point on terminology: A business doesn't write off eligible business expenses — it deducts them from business income. Write off is an accounting term meaning to reduce the value of an asset to zero. e.g. If you damaged your car beyond repair, one could say \"\"the car is a write-off.\"\")\"" }, { "docid": "479050", "title": "", "text": "The hard and fast rule is to pay off high interest loans first, but each individual's situation is different so there are some things to consider. Student loan interest is tax deductible up to $2,500. Will your student loan interest exceed $2,500 for the year? If so I would try to pay down the student loan first to bring down the total interest for the year so that you get as much interest back as possible on your tax return. Also, it may be beneficial to pay off the car first to close that account so that you are only left with the 1 loan. Once you have the car loan payment out of the way you can dedicate that amount to paying off the student loan. I'm in almost the same situation as you. I currently have a mortgage and car payment. In 6 months my grace period will be over, and my student loan payments will start. I have $100k in student loan debt. So I will have a $1,100 mortgage payment, $1,100 student loan payment, and $700 car payment (car loan is 0%). I don't want to have 3 loans active so I will pay off my car loan in a 2-3 months to get that out of the way. Then I will pay down my student loan by paying $700 extra every month." }, { "docid": "292322", "title": "", "text": "\"If you have a huge disparity in incomes, \"\"maybe\"\". If you make roughly in the same ballpark, **Noooooo!** The ability to file separately and have one partner (the higher earner) itemize and claim all the home-related deductions while the other takes the standard deduction is one of the greatest (middle-class) loopholes in modern tax law. When married, even if filing separately, you have to both itemize or both take the standard deduction. You just need to take care that the person itemizing has provably contributed *at least* the amount they claim toward the house. So have one of you write the checks for the mortgage and property tax, and the other pay for everything else, and it'll probably come out roughly even over time. Going back to my first line, the US tax code seems to be designed around the stereotypical Donna Reed 1950s household, with a single earner. The closer you are to equal, the bigger the marriage tax **penalty** gets.\"" }, { "docid": "12822", "title": "", "text": "avoid corporation tax There aren't many avenues to save on corporation tax legally. The best option you can try is paying into a generous pension for yourself, which will save some corporation tax. Buying a house You can claim deduction for the mortgage payments, but profits on selling the house will require paying capital gains tax on the profit. You can rent it out, this will be decided between your mortgage provider and your company, but the rent will go towards as income. Buying a car Not worth it. You will have to pay Class 1A NI contribution for benefits in kind. Any sane accountant will ask you to buy the car yourself and expense the mileage. Any income generated from the cash you have is taxable. Even the interest being paid on your money is taxable." }, { "docid": "375423", "title": "", "text": "\"Even though you will meet the physical presence test, you cannot claim the FEIE because your tax home will remain the US. From the IRS: Your tax home is the general area of your main place of business, employment, or post of duty, regardless of where you maintain your family home. Your tax home is the place where you are permanently or indefinitely engaged to work as an employee or self-employed individual. Having a \"\"tax home\"\" in a given location does not necessarily mean that the given location is your residence or domicile for tax purposes. ... You are not considered to have a tax home in a foreign country for any period in which your abode is in the United States. However, your abode is not necessarily in the United States while you are temporarily in the United States. Your abode is also not necessarily in the United States merely because you maintain a dwelling in the United States, whether or not your spouse or dependents use the dwelling. ... The location of your tax home often depends on whether your assignment is temporary or indefinite. If you are temporarily absent from your tax home in the United States on business, you may be able to deduct your away from home expenses (for travel, meals, and lodging) but you would not qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If your new work assignment is for an indefinite period, your new place of employment becomes your tax home, and you would not be able to deduct any of the related expenses that you have in the general area of this new work assignment. If your new tax home is in a foreign country and you meet the other requirements, your earnings may qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If you expect your employment away from home in a single location to last, and it does last, for 1 year or less, it is temporary unless facts and circumstances indicate otherwise. If you expect it to last for more than 1 year, it is indefinite. If you expect your employment to last for 1 year or less, but at some later date you expect it to last longer than 1 year, it is temporary (in the absence of facts and circumstances indicating otherwise) until your expectation changes. For guidance on how to determine your tax home refer to Revenue Ruling 93-86. Your main place of business is in the US and this will not change, because your business isn't relocating. If you are intending to work remotely while you are abroad, you should get educated on the relevant laws on where you are going. Most countries don't take kindly to unauthorized work being performed by foreign visitors. And yes, even though you aren't generating income or involving anyone in their country, the authorities still well may disapprove of your working. My answer to a very similar question on Expatriates.\"" }, { "docid": "134494", "title": "", "text": "\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \"\"Percentage Method\"\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \"\"base amount\"\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \"\"base amount\"\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \"\"effective\"\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \"\"wage base\"\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \"\"marriage advantage\"\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \"\"pre-tax deduction\"\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\"" }, { "docid": "383039", "title": "", "text": "It's my understand that leasing is never the better overall deal, with the possible exception of a person who would otherwise buy a brand new car every 2 or 3 years, and does not drive a lot of miles. Note: in the case of a company car, Canadian taxes let you deduct the entire lease payment (which clearly has some principal in it) if you lease, while if you buy you can only deduct the interest, and must depreciate the car according to their schedule. This can make leasing more attractive to those buying a car through a corporation. I don't know if this applies in the US. The numbers you ran through in class presumably involved calculating the interest paid over the term of the loan. Can you not just redo the calculation using actual interest and lease numbers from a randomly chosen current car ad? I suspect if you do, you will discover leasing is still not the right choice." }, { "docid": "377621", "title": "", "text": "Your home doesn't belong to the partnership, it belongs to you. So you can (if qualified) deduct home office usage as a business expense on your individual tax return. Same goes to your partner. Similarly any other unreimbursed expense." }, { "docid": "215214", "title": "", "text": "Others have already made good points, so I'll just add a few more: You say that if you bought it, your mortgage, insurance, and taxes minus the rental income from the bottom floor would leave you with costs of 1/4 of your current rent. That means you're getting a fantastic deal on the purchase price. I suspect you may be underestimating some of those costs. So, get exact figures on the mortgage, insurance and taxes and do the math. If it is that good, go for it, just make sure to get that home inspection (in case there's major problems and they're trying to get out while the gettin's good) Also, some advice: Be prepared to cover that entire monthly cost for a few months. Units can stand empty for a while. Also, you may want to rent out slowly - a good tenent found after a couple months is much better than a bad tenent found quickly. Also, have some money set aside for maintenence. As a renter, you've never really had to think about that before, but as a homeowner you do. As a landlord, it's even more important - you can not fix something in your own home for a while if you needed to wait, but in a tenent unit, you have to fix it immediately. Finally, taxes: You do get to deduct interest, and so on, but it'll work a little differently than you think. You'll have to split it in half (if the units are the same size) and deduct half the interest as a normal homeowner deduction, the other half as a business expense. Same for PMI, insurance, and property taxes. If you do maintenance that effects both units, like fixing the roof, half will be deductible, the other half not. However, maintenance that only affects the tenant unit is fully deductible. You can claim depreciation, but only for half. So, your starting amount you can depreciate would be (purchase price - land value)/2. Same thing here - half is your home, the other half is a business. Note that some things you'd think of as maintenance costs actually can't be deducted, only depreciated over time. Take that leaky roof, for example. If you replaced it instead of repairing it, you could not deduct your replacement costs. It counts as an improvement, and gets added to your cost-basis, where you depreciate it along with (half!) the house. If your tenant's refrigerator went out, and you replaced it, you couldn't deduct that either. However you can depreciate all of it on another schedule (seperate from home depreciation). If you repaired it instead, you can deduct all of it immediately. Taxes suck." }, { "docid": "153377", "title": "", "text": "\"Hobby expenses are not tax deductible. Business expenses are, but only if it's a bona fide business. First they look at profitability: if you reported a net profit (i.e. paid taxes) in your first 3 years, they will believe you rant on Youtube for a living. Remember, by the time they get around to auditing you, you'll likely be well into, or through, your third year. There is an exception for farms. Other than that, if you lose money year after year, you better be able to show that you look, walk and quack like a business; and one with a reasonable business reason for delayed profitability. For instance Netflix's old business model of mailing DVDs had very high fixed infrastructure expense that took years to turn profitable, but was a very sensible model. They're fine with that. Pets.com swandived into oblivion but they earnestly tried. They're fine with that too. You can't mix all your activities. If you're an electrician specializing in IoT and smart homes, can you deduct a trip to the CES trade show, you bet. Blackhat conference, arguable. SES? No way. Now if you had a second business of a product-reco site which profited by ads and affiliate links, then SES would be fine to deduct from that business. But if this second business loses money every year, it's a hobby and not deductible at all. That person would want separate accounting books for the electrician and webmaster businesses. That's a basic \"\"duck test\"\" of a business vs. a hobby. You need to be able to show how each business gets income and pays expense separate from every other business and your personal life. It's a best-practice to give each business a separate checking account and checkbook. You don't need to risk tax penalties on a business-larva that may never pupate. You can amend your taxes up to 3 years after the proper filing date. I save my expense reciepts for each tax year, and if a business becomes justifiable, I go back and amend past years' tax forms, taking those deductions. IRS gives me a refund check, with interest!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "177908", "title": "", "text": "profit has nothing to do with the level of interest rates. Is this correct? In theory, yes. The difference that you're getting at is called net interest margin. As long as this stays constant, so does the bank's profit. According to this article: As long as the interest rate charged on loans doesn't decline faster than the interest rate received on deposit accounts, banks can continue to operate normally or even reduce their bad loan exposure by offering lower lending rates to already-proven borrowers. So banks may be able to acquire the same net interest margin with lower risk. However the article also mentions new research from a federal agency: Their findings show that net interest margins (NIMs) get worse during low-rate environments, defined as any time when a country's three-month sovereign bond yield is less than 1.25%. So in theory banks should remain profitable when interest rates are low, but this may not actually be the case." } ]

[ { "docid": "336011", "title": "", "text": "\"No. The more legs you add onto your trade, the more commissions you will pay entering and exiting the trade and the more opportunity for slippage. So lets head the other direction. Can we make a simple, risk-free option trade, with as few legs as possible? The (not really) surprising answer is \"\"yes\"\", but there is no free lunch, as you will see. According to financial theory any riskless position will earn the risk free rate, which right now is almost nothing, nada, 0%. Let's test this out with a little example. In theory, a riskless position can be constructed from buying a stock, selling a call option, and buying a put option. This combination should earn the risk free rate. Selling the call option means you get money now but agree to let someone else have the stock at an agreed contract price if the price goes up. Buying the put option means you pay money now but can sell the stock to someone at a pre-agreed contract price if you want to do so, which would only be when the price declines below the contract price. To start our risk free trade, buy Google stock, GOOG, at the Oct 3 Close: 495.52 x 100sh = $49,552 The example has 100 shares for compatibility with the options contracts which require 100 share blocks. we will sell a call and buy a put @ contract price of $500 for Jan 19,2013. Therefore we will receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013, unless the options clearing system fails, because of say, global financial collapse, or war with Aztec spacecraft. According to google finance, if we had sold a call today at the close we would receive the bid, which is 89.00/share, or $8,900 total. And if we had bought a put today at the close we would pay the ask, which is 91.90/share, or $9190 total. So, to receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013 we could pay $49,552 for the GOOG stock, minus $8,900 for the money we received selling the call option, plus a payment of $9190 for the put option we need to protect the value. The total is $49,842. If we pay $49,842 today, plus execute the option strategy shown, we would have $50,000 on Jan 19,2013. This is a profit of $158, the options commissions are going to be around $20-$30, so in total the profit is around $120 after commissions. On the other hand, ~$50,000 in a bank CD for 12 months at 1.1% will yield $550 in similarly risk-free interest. Given that it is difficult to actually make these trades simultaneously, in practice, with the prices jumping all around, I would say if you really want a low risk option trade then a bank CD looks like the safer bet. This isn't to say you can't find another combination of stock and contract price that does better than a bank CD -- but I doubt it will ever be better by very much and still difficult to monitor and align the trades in practice.\"" }, { "docid": "285033", "title": "", "text": "\"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called \"\"Dealer Cash\"\" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked. According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00. No where near 20%. Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00. One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve. This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy. This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds. Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases. The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months). Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit. Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual. Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values. A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%. Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual. Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense. What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment. Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400. So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the \"\"Capitalized Cost\"\" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment. That is the depreciation. Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount. So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment. For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish. This is not completely accurate but you can use it to make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the heck do they make money at that, well its simple. First in 2008 the Fed made all the \"\"Captive\"\" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before. So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money. In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and securitize loans even for super prime credit. Those days are essentially over. Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does. Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them. So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate. This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so. When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash. First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract. Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle? If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work. Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break. Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly. So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid, using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies? Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the new cars and the new car financing. While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate. The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit. They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range. Well that is a hell of a lot of profit. 'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them. This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them. Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread. You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership. When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up. Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far.\"" }, { "docid": "265551", "title": "", "text": "That's not what he's saying at all. Basically most of his argument (4 of 6 points) is the connection between bond prices and equity prices. It's not particularly interesting but it definitely doesn't always apply either. If bond yields fall, then so too should equity earnings yields if spreads remain relatively constant, i.e. higher equity prices. Additionally, if bond yields are low, then any future equity growth gets capitalized at a much higher value because discount rates are much lower. Again, not particularly insightful. The two interesting comments were about oil and cash as a % of assets at financial institutions. Both of these are likely linked to falling or low rates above, because banks can't invest profitably at low rates and hence hold cash and equivalents instead, and oil prices are more likely to fall in a low or falling inflation environment (implied by the low rates or Fed tightening). Really, I think hes's saying something more obvious but not necessarily trivial, which is if one asset class goes up, so too is another related one." }, { "docid": "156873", "title": "", "text": "\"With the scenario that you laid out (ie. 5% and 10% loans), it makes no sense at all. The problem is, when you're in trouble the rates are never 5% or 10%. Getting behind on credit cards sucks and is really hard to recover from. The problem with multiple accounts is that as the banks tack on fees and raise your interest rate to the default rate (usually 30%) when you give them any excuse (late payment, over the limit, etc). The banks will also cut your credit lines as you make payments, making it more likely that you will bump over the limit and be back in \"\"default\"\" status. One payment, even at a slightly higher rate is preferable when you're deep in the hole because you can actually pay enough to hit principal. If you have assets like a house, you'll get a much better rate as well. In a scenario where you're paying 22-25% interest, your minimum payment will be $150-200 a month, and that is mostly interest and penalty. \"\"One big loan\"\" will usually result in a smaller payment, and you don't end up in a situation where the banks are jockeying for position so they get paid first. The danger of consolidation is that you'll stop triggering defaults and keep making your payments, so your credit score will improve. Then the vultures will start circling and offering you more credit cards. EDIT: Mea Culpa. I wrote this based on experiences of close friends whom I've helped out over the years, not realizing how the law changed in 2009. Back around 2004, a single late payment would trigger universal default on most cards, jacking all rates up to 30% and slashing credit lines, resulting in over the limit and other fees. Credit card banks generally apply payments (in order, to interest on penalties, penalties, interest on principal, principal) in a way that makes it very difficult to pay down principal for people deep in debt. They would also offer \"\"payment plans\"\" to entice you to pay Bank B vs. Bank A, which would trigger overlimit fees from Bank A. Another change is that minimum payments were generally 2% of statement balance, which often didn't cover the monthly finance charge. The new law changed that, resulting in a payment of 1% of balance + accrued interest. Under the old regime, consolidation made it less likely that various circumstances would trigger default, and gave the struggling debtor one throat to choke. With the new rules, there are definitely a smaller number of scenarios where consolidation actually makes sense.\"" }, { "docid": "486159", "title": "", "text": "Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss." }, { "docid": "400646", "title": "", "text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\"" }, { "docid": "322517", "title": "", "text": "Banks don't care that you are responsible cardholder. They care to make money. Interest rates are basically 0% by government policy and the banks charge their responsible cardholders 20% interest rates. Think about that for one second, and realize they really do not care about your ability to avoid paying interest, they only need you to 'slip up' one month during your entire lifetime to make a profit from you. It is in their interest for you to get into a spending habit, from 0% promo rates, so that eventually a frivolous purchase or life changing event causes a balance to stay on the card for over one month." }, { "docid": "404352", "title": "", "text": "I'd prefer having it (more or less) fluent at any time, if possible... And the Swiss National Bank (SNB) will do their darndest to make this a costly option. That's exactly the point of negative interest rates. They don't want to help you saving money. So you will have to choose what to give up: liquidity, or profitability. But for now, you still have alternatives. The way you described it one could think that all banks will soon start to charge all their clients. That's just a distortion of facts. If you are happy with a (close to) 0 income, you might consider opening multiple bank accounts. Many banks charge the negative interest only from certain thresholds (i.e. CHF 100k). Since you're clearly a Swiss resident, that's easy to do for you. If you don't want to give up making an income, then you have to sacrifice liquidity. There simply aren't any short term (less than 2-3 years) instruments in Swiss Franc that are both safe and yielding a positive income. Which means that you will have to take much more risk then you had with a savings account. Ask your advisor for an investment proposal, but also consider bank independent advisors." }, { "docid": "58433", "title": "", "text": "Another factor not mentioned are the rent prices in the area you are looking to live. I'd recommend buying a house of which the total monthly costs (mortgage, insurance, repairs, etc) are equal to or less than renting a house in the same area. If you can't find a property for sale that meets this requirement, you might actually be better off keep on renting, at least for a while, because you risk paying too much for your living expenses. A second point is, if possible, to buy when the mortgage interest rates are low, and then go for a mortgage with fixed interest and fixed repayments. While such a mortgage will be more more expensive than one with variable interest, and house prices are higher when mortgage rates are lower, future inflation is almost a certainty. And if your interest rate was fixed, and you are confident that you'll be able to negotiate salary raises in pace with the inflation, then inflation will gradually whittle down the rate between the mortgage payment and your income. Conversely, if interest rates are historically high, with no lowering in sight, then a variable loan might be more interesting. And do shop around for mortgages, there are many banks out there, the competition between them is heavy, and many banks, especially the smaller banks, will often be willing to give you a mortgage at better conditions than their competitors." }, { "docid": "10558", "title": "", "text": "\"At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, \"\"agents\"\") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets.\"" }, { "docid": "475580", "title": "", "text": "\"Money market accounts, insured in the same way as other deposits, are strange hybrids of traditional bank deposits and bond mutual funds. Because of the high inflation of the 1970s, banks were starved of deposits and could not produce loans at sufficient rates. For this reason, they desired a way to fund loans, and Congress enacted the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act which permitted a new form of account that retained the functionality of a deposit account, such as checking and now electronic transfers, yet transferred the risk to the account thus most of the profit. This allowed banks to fund each others' new loans through packaging them into asset backed securities to be held in these special accounts. As an added \"\"protection\"\", they are not permitted to carry a market value less than what's owed to depositors and are forcibly liquidated and paid in such event. This is a rare occurrence because of the nature of the assets held: credit assets such as commercial paper, mortgages, and corporate bonds. This is the opposite case of deposits because so long as a bank can maintain payments on its liabilities and satisfy a few other regulatory requirements, non-regulation satisfying assets could theoretically carry a zero balance, meaning that a bank could owe depositors more than what could be paid by liquidating all assets. Money market accounts will typically pay a higher rate because of their structure. While inflation is low and immediate term interest rates set by the central bank are also low, the net figure will not appear high, but the ratio will be fantastic, usually something like 3x. The one downside to money market accounts is that withdrawals are restricted by frequency. This is not such a problem as before since brokerages are now issuing debit cards tied to brokerage accounts, and excess money can be \"\"swept\"\" into money market accounts, bypassing the regulatory restriction. In short, money market accounts are currently a far better choice than traditional checking accounts but pay less than savings accounts.\"" }, { "docid": "337793", "title": "", "text": "Real estate is not an investment but pure speculation. Rental income may make it look like an investment but if you ask some experienced investor you would be told to stay away from real estate unless it is for your own use. If you believe otherwise then please read on : Another strong reason not to buy real estate right now is the low interest rates. You should be selling real estate when the interest rates are so low not buying it. You buy real estate when the interest rate cycle peaks like you would see in Russia in months to come with 17% central bank rate right now and if it goes up a little more that is when it is time to start looking for a property in Russia. This thread sums it up nicely." }, { "docid": "369996", "title": "", "text": "\"You want to know if you should pay cash or use a credit card like cash? There are so many benefits to the card, like purchase protection, cash back, and postponed payments, that there needs to be a really good reason to pay cash. If you are concerned about the 10% threshold, ask your credit card company to raise your limit. If you are indifferent, let the merchant decide for you by asking for a discount if you pay cash. The biggest reason is that credit cards, when handled shrewdly, make your money work for you by keeping it in less liquid / higher interest investments like inflation-adjusted T-bills. You will still be able to access it by using the credit card to float large expenses without liquidating at a loss. Investment Accounts like Schwab One are great for this since you can \"\"borrow\"\" cash at a low interest rate against your securities, until your security sale clears.\"" }, { "docid": "575241", "title": "", "text": "Part 1 Quite a few [or rather most] countries allow USD account. So there is no conversion. Just to illustrare; In India its allowed to have a USD account. The funds can be transfered as USD and withdrawn as USD, the interest is in USD. There no conversion at any point in time. Typically the rates for CD on USD account was Central Bank regulated rate of 5%, recently this was deregulated, and some banks offer around 7% interest. Why is the rate high on USD in India? - There is a trade deficit which means India gets less USD and has to pay More USD to buy stuff [Oil and other essential items]. - The balance is typically borrowed say from IMF or other countries etc. - Allowing Banks to offer high interest rate is one way to attract more USD into the country in short term. [because somepoint in time they may take back the USD out of India] So why isn't everyone jumping and making USD investiments in India? - The Non-Residents who eventually plan to come back have invested in USD in India. - There is a risk of regulation changes, ie if the Central Bank / Country comes up pressure for Forex Reserves, they may make it difficut to take back the USD. IE they may impose charges / taxes or force conversion on such accounts. - The KYC norms make it difficult for Indian Bank to attract US citizens [except Non Resident Indians] - Certain countries would have explicit regulations to prevent Other Nationals from investing in such products as they may lead to volatility [ie all of them suddenly pull out the funds] - There would be no insurance to foreign nationals. Part 2 The FDIC insurance is not the reason for lower rates. Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes. The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid. Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury. So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail]. Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well. Part 3 Check out the regulations" }, { "docid": "285064", "title": "", "text": "Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse." }, { "docid": "75326", "title": "", "text": "Good job. Assuming that you are also contributing to retirement, you are bound to be a wealthy person. I'm not really sure how Australia works as far as retirement, but I am pretty sure you are taking care of that too. Given your time frame (more than 5 years) I would consider investing at least a portion of the money. If I was you, I would tend to make that amount significant, say 75% in mutual funds, 25% in your high interest savings. The ratio you choose is up to you, but I would be heavier in the investment than savings side. As the time for home purchase approaches, you may want more in savings and less in investments. You may want to look at a mutual fund with a low beta. Beta is a measure of the price volatility. I did a google search on low beta funds, and came up with a number of good articles that explains this further. Having a fund with a low beta insulates you, a bit, from radical swings in the market allowing you to count more on the money being there when needed. One way to get to the proper ratio, is to contribute all new money to the mutual fund until it is in proper balance. This way you don't lower your interest rate for a month. Given your time frame, salary, and sense of responsibility you may be able to do the 100% down plan. Again, good work!" }, { "docid": "305539", "title": "", "text": "\"When you say that the problem is \"\"high supply but no demand\"\" you are actually correct. Here's why: The phrase \"\"borrow/spend less, save more\"\" isn't an absolute law. It's more of a cautionary tale. Obviously, spending is an integral part of an economy: it accounts for at least 50% of every transaction! But the aphorism is getting at something other than admonishing people to not spend. The point of the saying is that interest rates should reflect savings rates. What it comes down to is the how the law of supply and demand applies to the relationship between savings and interest rates. Consider this thought experiment: in a world where everybody saves 50% of their income, what would happen to interest rates? Banks would have a glut of savings, relative to the population. Assuming demand remains constant, interest rates would go down: the price of borrowing goes down as the supply of money to be borrowed increases. Thus a corollary of the law of supply and demand is that as savings increase, interest rates tend to go down. So, as savings increase, the economic environment encourages capital improvements. Businesses can borrow at lower rates and increase long-term productive capacity. This is what the federal reserve has attempted to do by lowering the Fed Funds rate to near zero and by Operation Twist: increase economic activity through low borrowing costs. So, what's the problem? When interest rates are artificially low there are no savings to support the production later in time. A company that borrows at a 1% rate created by the feds can build a factory to make widgets, but it will have a hard time selling that widget to a population with a negative net worth. However, if the 1% rate is \"\"natural\"\", then the company should be fine: the savings of the population should support the production from his widget factory. For about 30 years we have experienced a credit boom in this country that was not created by excess savings. This trend couldn't continue forever. Look around you. At the end of the day, an economy is simply a group of people getting together to buy and sell stuff and services. Right now there is a lot of debt, and little cash. Who will be doing the buying?\"" }, { "docid": "105687", "title": "", "text": "Why don't you just put your down payment on one of your credit cards? (Note: I'm not actually suggesting that you do this. Please read on.) There are a few reasons why you wouldn't (or couldn't) do this: The interest rates on the cards you have is very high. You don't have enough of a credit limit on any one of your cards for the down payment. These two reasons highlight the answer to your question. Credit card companies charge very high interest rates. These high rates allow them to make money even when some of their customers default. They know that not everyone will pay them back, so they make sure to make a hefty profit on those who do. Secondly, credit card limits are often much lower than the amounts of car and home loans. This limits the risk to the credit card company. Sure, you have $100,000 in total credit limit, but this is split among nine different companies. When a bank offers a traditional loan for a large sum of money at relatively low interest, they need to be able to limit their risk somehow. They do this by ensuring that their customers actually have the ability to pay them back." }, { "docid": "550768", "title": "", "text": "In Canada, when doing a debit transaction there can be the option to select which account the transaction is to be performed that would be where you'd have the choice to select a savings account. Some banks may offer interest on a chequing account if certain conditions are met. I remember seeing once that there was a minimum balance of $1,000 at all times and a few other things that may make it less than worthwhile for the low rate offered. Another possibility is to see if your bank will automatically transfer funds from savings to main if needed. I've had this happen a few times where money would be transferred in so I could have a purchase or cheque go through." } ]

[ { "docid": "177137", "title": "", "text": "I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost." } ]

[ { "docid": "105687", "title": "", "text": "Why don't you just put your down payment on one of your credit cards? (Note: I'm not actually suggesting that you do this. Please read on.) There are a few reasons why you wouldn't (or couldn't) do this: The interest rates on the cards you have is very high. You don't have enough of a credit limit on any one of your cards for the down payment. These two reasons highlight the answer to your question. Credit card companies charge very high interest rates. These high rates allow them to make money even when some of their customers default. They know that not everyone will pay them back, so they make sure to make a hefty profit on those who do. Secondly, credit card limits are often much lower than the amounts of car and home loans. This limits the risk to the credit card company. Sure, you have $100,000 in total credit limit, but this is split among nine different companies. When a bank offers a traditional loan for a large sum of money at relatively low interest, they need to be able to limit their risk somehow. They do this by ensuring that their customers actually have the ability to pay them back." }, { "docid": "575241", "title": "", "text": "Part 1 Quite a few [or rather most] countries allow USD account. So there is no conversion. Just to illustrare; In India its allowed to have a USD account. The funds can be transfered as USD and withdrawn as USD, the interest is in USD. There no conversion at any point in time. Typically the rates for CD on USD account was Central Bank regulated rate of 5%, recently this was deregulated, and some banks offer around 7% interest. Why is the rate high on USD in India? - There is a trade deficit which means India gets less USD and has to pay More USD to buy stuff [Oil and other essential items]. - The balance is typically borrowed say from IMF or other countries etc. - Allowing Banks to offer high interest rate is one way to attract more USD into the country in short term. [because somepoint in time they may take back the USD out of India] So why isn't everyone jumping and making USD investiments in India? - The Non-Residents who eventually plan to come back have invested in USD in India. - There is a risk of regulation changes, ie if the Central Bank / Country comes up pressure for Forex Reserves, they may make it difficut to take back the USD. IE they may impose charges / taxes or force conversion on such accounts. - The KYC norms make it difficult for Indian Bank to attract US citizens [except Non Resident Indians] - Certain countries would have explicit regulations to prevent Other Nationals from investing in such products as they may lead to volatility [ie all of them suddenly pull out the funds] - There would be no insurance to foreign nationals. Part 2 The FDIC insurance is not the reason for lower rates. Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes. The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid. Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury. So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail]. Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well. Part 3 Check out the regulations" }, { "docid": "495717", "title": "", "text": "\"Sorry in advance, but this will be long. Also, it sounds like your friend is a tool. I hope this \"\"friend\"\" is not also your financial advisor... they would be encouraging you to make a very poor investment decision. They also don't know how to do financial math. For what it's worth, I am not wrong. I have correctly answered a set of changing questions as you have asked them... Your friend is answering based on a third, completely different investment model, which you proposed in the edit to your last post. If that's what you meant all along, then you should have been more clear in the questions you were asking. Please let me layout the following: How the previous questions//investment proposals were built How to analyze this current proposal What your other option is Why the other option is best in a 'real world' market The First Question My understanding of the initial proposal was to take out a $10,000 loan, invest the proceeds, and expect to not have any money of your own tied up in this. Because that OP did not specify that this is an interest-only loan (you still haven't in any of your questions), the bank will require you to make payments back to them each month that include principal and interest. Your \"\"friend\"\" is talking about the total interest paid being the only cost of a loan. While that is (almost) true, regardless of what your friend says, significantly more cash is involved in making sure that all the payments are made on time---unless you set up an interest-only loan. But with the set up laid out in this post, and with the assumptions I specified there, the principal payments must be included because the borrower has to pay back the bank and isn't not tying up any of their own money. In that case, my initial analysis is correct--your breakeven is in the low teens for an annual required return. The Second Proposal Your second proposal... before any edits... refined things a little bit, to try to capture the any possible returns by not selling something. As I indicated there, (with what was an exaggerating assumption), the lack of clarity makes for an outlandish required return. The Second Proposal...with edits, or the one proposed above I will get to the one proposed above in a second, but first let me highlight a few problems with your friend's analysis. Simple interest: the only place (in the US at least) that will lend with simple interest is student loans. Any loan that you actually take out will be compound interest. Not an interest only loan: your \"\"friend\"\" is not calculating interest correctly. Since this isn't an interest-only loan, the principal balance will reduce every time you make a payment, by ~$320-$340 each month. This substantially reduces the total interest paid, to $272.79 over the total 24 months. \"\"Returns\"\": I don't know what country, or what business your friend works in, but \"\"returns\"\" are a very ambiguous concept. Investopedia defines returns as gains or losses. (I wish I could inhabit the lala land that your friend lives in when returns are always positive). TheFreeDictionary.com defines a return for finance as \"\"The change in the value of a portfolio over an evaluation period, including any distributions made from the portfolio during that period.\"\" When you have not made it clear that any other money is being used in this investment plan (as was the case in scheme #1 and scheme #2a,) the loan still has to be paid. So, clearly the principal must be included in the return calculations. How to evaluate this proposed investment scheme Key dimensions: Loan ($8,000 ... 24 months ... 0.27% monthly rate... monthly compounding... no loan origination fees) Monthly payment (PMT in Excel yields $344.70). Investment capital (starting = $8,000) Monthly Return (Investment yields... we hope it's positive!) Your monthly contribution from your salary Taxes = 10%. Transaction Fees = $20 Go and lookup how to build an amortization table for a loan in Excel. Your life will be infinitely better for it. Now, you get this loan set up and invested into something... (it costs $20 to buy the assets). So you've got $7980 chugging away earning interest. I calculate that your break even, with you paying in $344.70 of your own money each month is 1.81% annually, or 3.42% over the 24 month life of this scheme. That is using monthly compound interest for the payments, because that's what the real world would use, and using monthly compounding of the investments' returns. Your total interest expense would be $272.79. This seems feasible. But let's talk about what your other option is, given that you're ready to spend $344.70 each month on an investment. Your other option I understand the appeal of getting $8,000... right away... to invest in something. But the risk behind this is that if the market goes down (and markets do) you're stuck paying a fixed amount for your loan that is now worth less money. Your other option is to take your $344.70, and invest it step-by-step. (You would want to skip a month or two buying assets in the market, so that you can lessen transaction costs). This has two advantages: (1) you save yourself $272 in interest. (2) When the market goes down, you still win. With this strategy, you still win when the market goes down because of what is commonly called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". When the market is up, your investments are also up. When the market goes down, your previous investments decrease in value but you can invest new money at the lower rates. Why the step-by-step, invest your own money strategy is better At low rates (when you're looking for your break-even), the step-by-step model outperforms the loan. At higher rates of return (~4% + per year), you get the benefit of having the borrowed money earning more gains. In fact, for every continuous (meaning set... not changing month-to-month) interest rate that you can dream up that is greater than about 4% per year, the borrowed money earns more. At 10% per year, the borrowed money will earn about $500 more over the 2 years than your step by step investment would. BUT I recognize that you might feel like the market will always go up. That's what everyone thinks. And that's alright. But have one really bad month, or a couple of just-not-great-months, and your fixed 'loan' portfolio will underperform. Have a few really bad months, and your portfolio could be substantially reduced in value... but you would still be paying the same amount for it each month. And if that happened (say your assets declined -3% in 3 of the 24 months...) You'd be losing money relative to the step-by-step portfolio.\"" }, { "docid": "265551", "title": "", "text": "That's not what he's saying at all. Basically most of his argument (4 of 6 points) is the connection between bond prices and equity prices. It's not particularly interesting but it definitely doesn't always apply either. If bond yields fall, then so too should equity earnings yields if spreads remain relatively constant, i.e. higher equity prices. Additionally, if bond yields are low, then any future equity growth gets capitalized at a much higher value because discount rates are much lower. Again, not particularly insightful. The two interesting comments were about oil and cash as a % of assets at financial institutions. Both of these are likely linked to falling or low rates above, because banks can't invest profitably at low rates and hence hold cash and equivalents instead, and oil prices are more likely to fall in a low or falling inflation environment (implied by the low rates or Fed tightening). Really, I think hes's saying something more obvious but not necessarily trivial, which is if one asset class goes up, so too is another related one." }, { "docid": "285033", "title": "", "text": "\"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called \"\"Dealer Cash\"\" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked. According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00. No where near 20%. Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00. One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve. This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy. This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds. Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases. The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months). Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit. Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual. Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values. A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%. Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual. Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense. What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment. Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400. So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the \"\"Capitalized Cost\"\" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment. That is the depreciation. Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount. So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment. For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish. This is not completely accurate but you can use it to make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the heck do they make money at that, well its simple. First in 2008 the Fed made all the \"\"Captive\"\" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before. So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money. In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and securitize loans even for super prime credit. Those days are essentially over. Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does. Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them. So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate. This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so. When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash. First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract. Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle? If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work. Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break. Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly. So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid, using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies? Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the new cars and the new car financing. While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate. The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit. They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range. Well that is a hell of a lot of profit. 'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them. This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them. Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread. You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership. When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up. Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far.\"" }, { "docid": "184776", "title": "", "text": "When we speak about a product or service, we generally refer to its value. Currency, while neither a product or service, has its own value. As the value of currency goes down, the price of products bought by that currency will go up. You could consider the price of a product or service the value of the product multiplied by the value of the currency. For your first example, we compare two cars, one bought in 1990, and one bought in 2015. Each car has the same features (AC, radio, ABS, etc). We can say that, when these products were new, each had the same value. However, we can deduce that since the 1990 car cost $100, and the 2015 car cost $400, that there has been 75% inflation over 25 years. Comparing prices over time helps identify the inflation (or devaluation of currency) that an economy is experiencing. In regards to your second question, you can say that there was 7% inflation over five years (total). Keep in mind that these are absolute cumulative values. It doesn't mean that there was a 7% increase year over year (that would be 35% inflation over five years), but simply that the absolute value of the dollar has changed 7% over those five years. The sum of the percentages over those five years will be less than 7%, because inflation is measured yearly, but the total cumulative change is 7% from the original value. To put that in perspective, say that you have $100 in 2010, with an expected 7% inflation by 2015, which means that your $100 will be worth $93 in 2015. This means that the yearly inflation would be about 1.5% for five years, resulting in a total of 7% inflation over five years. Note that you still have a hundred dollar bill in your pocket that you've saved for five years, but now that money can buy less product. For example, if you say that $100 buys 50 gallons of gasoline ($2/gallon) in 2010, you will only be able to afford 46.5 gallons with that same bill in 2015 ($2.15/gallon). As you can see, the 7% inflation caused a 7% increase in gasoline prices. In other words, if the value of the car remained the same, its actual price would go up, because the value stayed the same. However, it's more likely that the car's value will decrease significantly in those five years (perhaps as much as 50% or more in some cases), but its price would be higher than it would have been without inflation. If the car's value had dropped 50% (so $50 in original year prices), then it would have a higher price (50 value * 1.07 currency ratio = $53.50). Note that even though its value has decreased by half, its price has not decreased by 50%, because it was hoisted up by inflation. For your final question, the purpose of a loan is so that the loaner will make a profit from the transaction. Consider your prior example where there was 7% inflation over five years. That means that a loan for $100 in 2010 would only be worth $93 in 2015. Interest is how loans combat this loss of value (as well as to earn some profit), so if the loaner expects 7% inflation over five years, they'll charge some higher interest (say 8-10%, or even more), so that when you pay them back on time, they'll come out ahead, or they might use more advanced schemes, like adjustable rates, etc. So, interest rates will naturally be lower when forecasted inflation is lower, and higher when forecasted inflation is higher. The best time to get a loan is when interest rates are low-- if you get locked into a high interest loan and inflation stalls, they will make more money off of you (because the currency has more value), while if inflation skyrockets, your loan will be worth less to loaner. However, they're usually really good about predicting inflation, so it would take an incredible amount of inflation to actually come out on top of a loan." }, { "docid": "130850", "title": "", "text": "Very good answers as to how 0% loans are typically done. In addition, many are either tied to a specific large item purchase, or credit cards with a no interest period. On credit card transactions the bank is getting a fee from the retailer, who in turn is giving you a hidden charge to cover that fee. In the case of a large purchase item like a car, the retailer is again quite likely paying a fee to cover what would be that interest, something they are willing to do to make the sale. They will typically be less prone to deal as low a price in negotiation if you were not making that deal, or at times they may offer either a rebate or special low to zero finance rates, but you don't get both." }, { "docid": "232491", "title": "", "text": "\"Your house doesn't need to multiply in order to earn a return. Your house can provide shelter. That is not money, but is an economic good and can also save you money (if you would otherwise pay rent). This is the primary form of return on the investment for many houses. It is similar for other large capital investments - like industrial robots, washing machines, or automobiles. The value of money depends on: As long as the size and velocity of the money supply changes about as much as the overall economic activity changes, everything is pretty much good. A little more and you will see the money lose value (inflation); a little less and the money will gain value (deflation). As long as the value of inflation or deflation remains very low, the specifics matter relatively little. Prices (including wages, the price of work) do a good job of adjusting when there is inflation or deflation. The main problem is that people tend to use money as a unit of account, e.g. you owe $100,000 on your mortgage, I have $500 in the bank. Changing the value of those numbers makes it really hard to plan for the future! Imagine if prices and wages fell in half: it would be twice as hard to pay off your mortgage. Or if the bank expected massive inflation in the future: they would want to charge you a lot more interest! Presently, inflation is the norm because the government entities, who help adjust how much money there will be (through monetary policy - interest rates and the like - ask about it if you're interested), will generally gradually increase the supply of money a little bit more quickly than the economy in general. They may also be worried that outright deflation over the long term will lead to people postponing purchases (to get more for their money later), harming overall economic activity, so they tend to err on the slightly positive side. The value of money, however, has not really \"\"ordinarily decreased\"\" until the modern era (the 1930s or so). During much of history, a relatively low fixed amount of valuable commodities (gold) served as money. When the economy grew, and the same amount of money represented more economic activity, the money became more valuable, and deflation ensued. This could have the unfortunate effect of deterring investment, because rich jerks with lots of money could see their riches increase just by holding on to those riches instead of doing anything productive with them. And changes in the supply of gold wreaked havoc with the money supply whenever there was some event like a gold rush: Because precious metals were at the base of the monetary system, rushes increased the money supply which resulted in inflation. Soaring gold output from the California and Australia gold rushes is linked with a thirty percent increase in wholesale prices between 1850 and 1855. Likewise, right at the end of the nineteenth century a surge in gold production reversed a decades-long deflationary trend and is often credited with aiding indebted farmers and helping to end the Populist Party’s strength and its call for a bimetallic (gold and silver) money standard. -- The California Gold Rush Today, there is way too little gold production to represent all the growth in world economic activity - but we don't have a gold standard anymore, so gold is valuable on its own merits, because people want to buy it using money, and its price is free to fluctuate. When it gets more valuable, and people pay more for it, mines will go through more effort to locate, extract and refine it because it will be more profitable. That's how most commodities work. For more information on these tidbits of history, some in-depth articles on:\"" }, { "docid": "232811", "title": "", "text": "\"One key point that other answers haven't covered is that many credit cards have a provision where if you pay it off every month, you get a grace period on the interest. Interest doesn't accrue at all unless you rollover a non-zero balance. But if you do, you pay interest on the average balance, not the rolled-over balance, for the entire month. You have to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with your credit history? Are you trying to maximize your \"\"buying power\"\" (really, leverage)? Or are you trying to make sure that you get the best terms on a moderately sized loan (house mortgage, car note)? As JohnFx and losthorse already noted, it's in the banker's best interest to maximize the profit they make off of you. Of course, that is not in your best interest. Keeping a credit card balance from month to month definitely feeds the greedy nature of the financing beast. And makes them willing to take more risks, because the returns are also higher. But those returns cost you. If you are planning to get sensible loans in the future, that you can comfortably afford, you won't need a maxed credit score. You won't get the largest loan amounts, but because you are doing the sensible thing and making a large down payment, the risk is also very low and you'll find lenders willing to give you a low interest rate. Because even though the reward is lower than the compulsive purchaser who pays an order of magnitude more in financing fees, the return/risk ratio is still very favorable to the bank. Don't play the game that maximizes their return. That happens when you have a loan of maximum size, high interest rate, and struggle to make payments, end up missing a couple and paying late fees, or request forbearance which compounds the interest. Play to minimize risk.\"" }, { "docid": "327366", "title": "", "text": "There is one massive catch in this which I found out when I went to Nationwide to ask for a loan. I've got a credit card which they kept increasing my credit limit, it's now at something ridiculous - nearly £10,000 but they keep increasing it. I never use that card, when I went to Nationwide though they said they couldn't give me a loan because I had £10,000 credit already and if I reduced this credit this would affect my credit rating and they could potentially give me a loan. I then realised what MBNA had craftily done. I have two cards with this bank, one with really low interest and the other with really high interest (and a high credit limit) - even though the other card has a zero balance loan companies still see it as money I could potentially go and spend, it doesn't matter to them that I've not spent any money on that card in about 12 months, to them it's the fact that they could give me a loan and then I could go and spend another £10,000 on that card (as you can see extremely risky). Of course this means that what MBNA are craftily doing is giving me such a high credit, knowing full well that I'm not going to use it, but it also prevents their competitors from offering me a loan, even at a lower rate, because I've already got too much credit available. So yes there is a catch to giving you a high credit limit on your cards and it's to prevent you from either leaving that bank or getting a lower interest rate loan out to clear the debt." }, { "docid": "591694", "title": "", "text": "\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"" }, { "docid": "370121", "title": "", "text": "I'm going to make an educated guess on #1. Money markets invest in bonds with a very short time to maturity. An MMA at a bank will be invested in government bonds. Yields on these bonds are really low right now. Thus the yield on that MMA is going to be pretty low. When you make a deposit in a savings account, the bank uses some of that money to lend back out to its customers in the form of car loans, mortgages, etc. These rates are higher, so the bank is willing to pay you a bit more than the yield MMA so they can use your money for these loans. For #2, your time window is short, so there aren't really a lot of options for you. Keeping your money where it is will actually cost you money in fees. You can do as I suggested in my comment above: close the current savings account that's hitting you with fees and open a (free) high yield savings account. You might get 1.1%. If you average $60k in the account over the next 6 months you'll earn $200-250 after taxes. You didn't ask about CDs, but lately shorter term CDs are paying less than savings accounts. Going out to a year will get you just above the rate on a high yield savings account; two years just a little more. These are outside your goal window, so they aren't an option for you." }, { "docid": "428941", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; 1). How is a loan an asset? I'm the bank and I have 100$. I loan Jimmy 20$. With interest I expect him to pay back 25$. My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! If you *extend* a loan to someone, the loan is an asset to you and a liability to them. It's a liability to them because they *owe* you the loan + interest back. It's an *asset* to you because you expect to retrieve the full loan principal AND interest back. There is no difference, cash flow wise, between spending $100 on a machine that makes fidget spinners and earns you $110 back ($10 profit) and extending a loan to Billy at 10% interest (you'll get $110 back, $10 profit). &gt; My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! Why not? I have $100 cash. I loan it out to Billy at 10% interest. Billy is creditworthy and reliable, and certain collateral is in place. I'm worth, essentially, a discounted cash flow of $110 (which as long as my required return is less than 10%, means I'm worth *more* than $100). &gt; I gave away 20$. I'm worth 80$ right? No. That assumes you spent $20 and won't get *any* of it back. It's the same as ordering a $20 pizza and eating it all. Now, the *cash* you have on your *balance sheet* would be $80, but you'd have a loan outstanding as an asset at $20, which is a net 0 movement in equity on the other side. &gt; Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Well, yes and no. On one hand, you are certainly *worth* more than $80 in your scenario. However, banks have some stringent regulations preventing banks from being overly risky. &gt; Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? No. '08 happened from a culmination of many different events, including risky and predatory loan origination, conflicts of interest in credit rating agencies, and low Fed rates, among other issues, including several \"\"domino effect\"\" secondary issues. &gt; Is the risk of default accounted for? Theoretically, the risk of default is accounted for in two areas: 1. The interest rate extended to the debtor. 2. A provision for loan losses. &gt; \"\" because default risk is not transferred with the asset.\"\" In what context was this seen? No one would willingly sell an asset but hold on to the risk (or they'd charge a high price, at least, for that). Student loans are a special case. In the U.S., they are generally *non-cancellable.* They survive everything, including bankruptcy. They don't have collateral. Basically, they're going to follow the person around, regardless of situation, INCLUDING simply not paying. This makes default risk (or rather loss risk) lower. A large portion of loans come from the federal government, which means to a pretty high degree, they are guaranteed by the government. This also makes loss risk lower. The government can garnish wages and all sorts of unpleasant things to get the money back. Even if losses are realized, taxes can (and will) make up the difference. Private loans have a bit less leeway in these regards, but they still are immune to bankruptcy currently. As such, while they don't have all the tools of the government, they're still essentially invincible.\"" }, { "docid": "22268", "title": "", "text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\"" }, { "docid": "522007", "title": "", "text": "The partition is more or less ok, the specific products are questionable. Partition. It's usually advised to keep 2-3 monthly income liquid. In your case, 40-45 kEUR is ca. 24-27 kEUR netto, i.e. 2000-2250 a month, thus, the range is 4-7 kEUR, as you are strongly risk-averse then 7k is still ok. Then they propose you to invest 60% in low-risk, but illiquid and 15% in middle or high risk which is also ok. However, it doesn't have to be real estate, but could be. Specifics. Be aware that a lot (most?) of the banks (including local banks, they are, however, less aggressive) often sell the products that promise high commissions to them (often with a part flowing directly to your client advisor). Especially now, when the interest rates are low, they stand under extra pressure. You should rather switch to passively managed funds with low fees. If you stick up to the actively managed funds with their fees, you should choose them yourself." }, { "docid": "133919", "title": "", "text": "In case you didn't see over the past few years, especially in banks, falling stock prices often lead to ratings downgrades. The logic is that a bank who's stock price is low, or falling, is suffering from a decrease in their ability to tap the equity markets in times of need. With less ability to tap the equity markets in times of need, this means it is less likely the bank can raise funds to pay off debt, and thus, makes their debt more risky. It's unfair for me to imply a 100% causal relationship here, because that's not the case, but each of the markets interact with each other in some way. You will at least notice that, whether leading or trailing, companies that have a decreasing stock price also often have a decreasing credit rating. You'll also notice that stocks which slip under $5 often times get put on credit watch. The logic could go any which way around the circle, but a company that cuts its dividend may lose some investors who were in it for the dividend. This can cause stock price to fall. Credit agencies, depending on the situation, may approve of companies that cut their dividend (more cash to pay off debt), or, may indicate the dividend cut is not enough to make up for the company's falling profits. In the absence of full information, a cut in the dividend is often seen as a sign of weakness or a sign of tough times for the company in the future. Companies which have changes in dividend are looked at as less stable, more unpredictable, blah blah blah. Again, I'm not implying a 100% causal relationship here, but, each of these markets work with each other somehow, and a bank which cuts its dividend may be expecting lower profitability, slower growth, need the funds to cover lawsuit payouts or settlements with insert-regulatory-agency, or any number of other situations." }, { "docid": "175019", "title": "", "text": "You are neglecting a few very important things around real estate transactions in Belgium So in the end a 300K building may cost you more than 340K, let's take some unexpected costs into account and use 350K for remainder of calculation. Even worse if it's newly built (which I doubt) the first percentage is 21% (VAT) instead of 10%. All these costs can be checked on the useful site www.hoeveelkostmijnhuis.be Now, aside from that most banks will and actually have to demand you pay part of all this yourself. So you can't do 5*60K (or 5*70K now). Mostly banks will only finance up to about 90% of the value of the building, so 90% of 300K, which is 270K (5*54K), the other 80K (5*16K) you have to pay yourselves. But it could be the bank goes as low as 80%. Another part to complicate the loan is how much you can pay a month. Since the mortgage crisis they're very strict on this. There are lots of banks that will not allow you to make monthly payments of more than 33% of your monthly income when you are going to live there. This is a nuisance even when buying one house, you want to buy 2. Odds seem low they'll accept high monthly payments because you either need an additional loan or need to pay rent, so don't count on a 5y deal. Now this is all based on a single loan, it will probably be a bit different with multiple loans. However, it is unlikely any bank will accept this, even if all loans are with the same bank. You need to consider the basics of a real-estate loan: A bank trusts you can pay it off and if not they can seize the real-estate hoping to regain their initial investment. It's very hard to seize a complete asset if only one out of 5 loan-takers defected. You could maybe do this with another less restrictive/higher risk type of loan but rates will be a lot higher (think 5-6% instead of 1.5%). And don't underestimate the running costs: for that price and 5 rooms in that city you're likely looking at an older building. Expect lots of cost for maintenance and keeping the building according to code. Also expect costs for repairs (you rent to students...). You'll also have to pay quite a bit of money on insurances and of course on real estate taxes (which are average in Ghent). Also factor in that currently there is not a housing shortage for Ghent students so you might not always have a guaranteed occupation. Also take into account responsibility: if a fire breaks out or the house collapses or a gas leak occurs, you might be sued. It doesn't matter if you're at fault, it's costly and a big nuisance. Simply because you didn't think of any of this: don't do this. It's better to invest in real estate funds. But if you still think you can do better then all the landlords Ghent is riddled with, don't do it as a personal investment. Create a BVBA, put some investment in here (like 10-20K each), approach a bank with a serious business plan to get the rest of the money as a loan (towards a single entity - your BVBA) and get things going. When the money comes in you can either give yourselves a salary or pay out profits on the shares. You may be confused about how rich you can become because we as a nation tend to overestimate the profitability of real estate. It's really not that much better than other investments (otherwise everybody would only invest in real estate funds). There are a few things that skew our vision however:" }, { "docid": "275410", "title": "", "text": "\"TARP was ~$475 billion of loans to institutions. Loans that are to be paid back, with interest (albeit very low interest). A significant percentage of the TARP loans have been (or will be) paid back. So, the final price tag of the TARP was only a few $billion (pretty low considering the scale of the program). There is ~$10 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding. That's a much higher price tag than TARP. Secondly, paying off the mortgages = no repayment to the government as there was with TARP. The initial price tag of your plan would be ~$10 trillion, instead of a few $billion. Furthermore how does a government with >$15 trillion in debt already come up with an extra ~$10 trillion to pay off people's mortgages? Should the government go deeper into debt? Print more money and trigger inflation? (Note: Some people like to talk about a \"\"secret bailout\"\" by the Fed, implying that the true cost of TARP was much higher than claimed by the government. The \"\"secret bailout\"\" was a series of short-term low/no interest loans to banks. Because they were loans, which were paid back, my point still stands.) Some other issues to consider: Remember that the principal balance of your mortgage is only a small portion of your payments to the bank. Over 30 years, you pay a lot of $$$ in interest to the bank (that's how banks make a profit). Banks are expecting that revenue, and it is factored into their financial projections. If those revenue streams suddenly disappeared, I expect it would majorly screw the up the financial industry. Many people bought houses during the real estate boom, when housing prices were inflated far beyond the \"\"real\"\" value of the house. Is it right to overpay for these houses? This rewards the banks for accepting the inflated value during the appraisal process. (Loan modification forces banks to accept the \"\"real\"\" value of the house.) The financial crisis was triggered by people buying houses they could not afford. Should they be rewarded with a free house for making poor financial decisions?\"" }, { "docid": "555947", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be \"\"other than house debt\"\" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low. By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "380071", "title": "", "text": "\"Banks make less profit when \"\"long\"\" rates are low compared to \"\"short\"\" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) \"\"short term\"\" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "255171", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Umm actually asking to be refinanced at a lower rate IS asking them to forgive/give up part of the mortgage. Either my knowledge of finance is wrong or how interest rates work is wrong if that statement is true. Here is why your statement is not true: * The interest rate is money the bank makes on the loan. For example, say you buy a home valued at $250,000, put 10% down and your interest rate is 5% for 30 years. Well now you've got a mortgage ($225,000) that you pay $1,207.85 monthly. Now expand this out to 30 years, which means you'll make 360 payments for a total balance of $434,825.5. So even though you have a mortgage of $225,000 and your home is only valued at $250,000 due to the interest rate on that loan, you will be giving the bank $209,825.5 in profit for that $225,000 loan. Refinancing the loan at a lower rate is not debt forgiveness or a write off. &gt;Peoples greed in getting themselves into upside down mortgages are why we have problems, not the banks not helping them out enough. Actually it's the bank's greed which is wanting to keep the homeowner at the higher interest rate because it will make them more money over the long run. If the bank was to reduce the interest rate on the loan, they would be reducing their potential profits. And now you know why I support non profit banks." }, { "docid": "275410", "title": "", "text": "\"TARP was ~$475 billion of loans to institutions. Loans that are to be paid back, with interest (albeit very low interest). A significant percentage of the TARP loans have been (or will be) paid back. So, the final price tag of the TARP was only a few $billion (pretty low considering the scale of the program). There is ~$10 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding. That's a much higher price tag than TARP. Secondly, paying off the mortgages = no repayment to the government as there was with TARP. The initial price tag of your plan would be ~$10 trillion, instead of a few $billion. Furthermore how does a government with >$15 trillion in debt already come up with an extra ~$10 trillion to pay off people's mortgages? Should the government go deeper into debt? Print more money and trigger inflation? (Note: Some people like to talk about a \"\"secret bailout\"\" by the Fed, implying that the true cost of TARP was much higher than claimed by the government. The \"\"secret bailout\"\" was a series of short-term low/no interest loans to banks. Because they were loans, which were paid back, my point still stands.) Some other issues to consider: Remember that the principal balance of your mortgage is only a small portion of your payments to the bank. Over 30 years, you pay a lot of $$$ in interest to the bank (that's how banks make a profit). Banks are expecting that revenue, and it is factored into their financial projections. If those revenue streams suddenly disappeared, I expect it would majorly screw the up the financial industry. Many people bought houses during the real estate boom, when housing prices were inflated far beyond the \"\"real\"\" value of the house. Is it right to overpay for these houses? This rewards the banks for accepting the inflated value during the appraisal process. (Loan modification forces banks to accept the \"\"real\"\" value of the house.) The financial crisis was triggered by people buying houses they could not afford. Should they be rewarded with a free house for making poor financial decisions?\"" }, { "docid": "10558", "title": "", "text": "\"At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, \"\"agents\"\") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets.\"" }, { "docid": "591694", "title": "", "text": "\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"" }, { "docid": "391605", "title": "", "text": "\"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called \"\"spending\"\".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about \"\"investing the money\"\", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term.\"" }, { "docid": "577201", "title": "", "text": "As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend." }, { "docid": "147806", "title": "", "text": "\"This model would work fine under a couple of assumptions: that market interest rates never change, and that the borrower will surely make all the payments as agreed. But neither of those assumptions are realistic. Suppose Alice loans $1,000,000 to Bob at 4% under the terms you describe. Bob chooses to make interest-only payments of $40,000 per year. Some time later, prevailing interest rates go up to 10%. Now Alice would really like Bob to repay the entire principal as quickly as possible, because that money could be earning her $100,000 per year instead of only $40,000, but under the contract she has no way to force Bob to do so. And Bob has no incentive to repay any of the principal, because he can earn more interest on it than he has to pay to Alice. So Alice is not going to be very happy about this. You might say, but at least Alice is only losing \"\"potential\"\" money; she's still turning a profit of $10,000 per year, since her bank only charges her 3% interest. Ah, but you're assuming that Alice can get a bank loan with a rate of 3% fixed forever. The bank doesn't want to make such a loan either, for exactly the same reasons. So in practice, any loan like this would be expected to have a variable interest rate. There's a flip side, too. Suppose instead that market rates drop to 1%. Now Alice would like Bob to repay the principal as slowly as possible, because she's earning 4% on that money, which is better than any other options available to her. But Bob now has every incentive to repay it as fast as he can - or even to refinance by taking out another loan at, say, 2%, and using the proceeds to repay the entire principal to Alice. (This risk still applies with most traditional loans, since the borrower usually always has the right to pay early, but some loans include a \"\"prepayment penalty\"\" in such cases to help compensate the lender.) Thus, when Bob has all the power to decide when to pay, Alice is sure to lose no matter which way interest rates move. A loan with a fixed term helps insulate Alice against this risk. She may be able to make a guess about the likelihood of interest rates going up to 10% in the next 15 or 30 years, and increase Bob's fixed rate to account for this; that's much easier than trying to account for the possibility of interest rates going up to 10% ever. (And if she does have to try to account for this, she's probably going to have to set the interest rate extremely high; so Bob might accept a fixed term of repayment in exchange for a more reasonable rate.) Even if we suppose that Alice has done the best possible credit check and that Bob is a perfectly trustworthy fellow who would never dream of defaulting on his loan, catastrophes do happen. Maybe Bob is robbed of all his money by an evil accountant, or has a mid-life crisis and spends it all on opera tickets. Whatever, Bob is now bankrupt and Alice is never going to get her principal back, nor any further interest payments either. Even if the loan is secured by some collateral, there's still a risk since the collateral might lose value. Alice has some chance of estimating the risk of this happening in the next 15 or 30 years, and can set the interest rate to compensate for it. But it is harder for her to estimate the risk of this happening ever, and if she tries, she'll have to set the rate so high that Bob might prefer a fixed term and a lower rate. (There's a side issue as to what happens if Bob dies with the loan still outstanding. If it's an unsecured loan, typically Alice can try to collect the principal from Bob's estate, but if there isn't enough, too bad for Alice; she can't force Bob's heirs to continue making payments. If it's a secured loan, Alice may be able to have Bob's heirs continue paying or else she seizes the collateral; but she still has the risk of the collateral losing value.)\"" }, { "docid": "327177", "title": "", "text": "Seems like a bad deal to me. But before I get to that, a couple of points on your expenses: Onward. You value a property by calculating its CAP rate. This is what you're calculating, except it does NOT include interest like you did -- that's a loan to you, and has no bearing on whether the unit itself is a good investment. It also includes estimations of variable expenses like maintenance and lack of income from vacancies. People argue vociferously on exactly how much to calculate for those. Maintenance will vary by age of the building and how damaging your tenets are. Vacancies vary based on how desirable the location is, how well you've done the maintenance, and how low the rent is. Doing the math based on your numbers, with just the fixed expenses: 8400 rent - 2400 management fee - 100 insurance = 5900/year income. 5900/150000 = 0.0393 = 3.9% CAP rate. And that's not even counting the variable expenses yet! So, what's a good CAP rate? Generally, 10% CAP rate is a good deal, and higher is a great deal. Below that you have to start to get cautious. Some places are worth a lower rate, for instance when the property is new and in a good location. You can do 8% on these. Below 6% CAP rate is usually a really bad investment. So, unless you're confident you can at least double the rent right off the bat, this is a terrible deal. Another way to think about it You're looking to buy with your finances in just about the best position possible -- a huge down payment and really low interest. Plus you haven't accounted for maintenance, taxes (if any), and vacancies. And still you'd make only a measly 1.2% profit? Would you buy a bond that only pays out 1.2%? No? What about a bond that only pays 1.2%, but also from time to time can force YOU to pay into IT a much larger amount every month?" }, { "docid": "58433", "title": "", "text": "Another factor not mentioned are the rent prices in the area you are looking to live. I'd recommend buying a house of which the total monthly costs (mortgage, insurance, repairs, etc) are equal to or less than renting a house in the same area. If you can't find a property for sale that meets this requirement, you might actually be better off keep on renting, at least for a while, because you risk paying too much for your living expenses. A second point is, if possible, to buy when the mortgage interest rates are low, and then go for a mortgage with fixed interest and fixed repayments. While such a mortgage will be more more expensive than one with variable interest, and house prices are higher when mortgage rates are lower, future inflation is almost a certainty. And if your interest rate was fixed, and you are confident that you'll be able to negotiate salary raises in pace with the inflation, then inflation will gradually whittle down the rate between the mortgage payment and your income. Conversely, if interest rates are historically high, with no lowering in sight, then a variable loan might be more interesting. And do shop around for mortgages, there are many banks out there, the competition between them is heavy, and many banks, especially the smaller banks, will often be willing to give you a mortgage at better conditions than their competitors." }, { "docid": "444637", "title": "", "text": "Putting debt out long means to borrow a sum of money paid back over a longer period of time than you could reasonably pay it back. It should be important to note that this advice only applies for fixed rate loans (meaning your rate can't change for the life of the loan without you explicitly changing it). The logic is that if you can borrow money when interest rates are really low, there is a good chance you can find an investment that has a return higher than the interest rate on the loan. It also means that when/if interest rates go up in the future, a simple savings account may even have a greater return than your loans interest. The advice suggests to borrow over a long period so you are paying less interest per payment, and gives you time to find a proper investment without having to pay too much interest during that time." }, { "docid": "484843", "title": "", "text": "\"... interest rates will go up. When that happens prices will be kept down. (if you can only afford $1,500/month payments and the interest portion of the mortgage goes up then you have less to spend on the house) There are also millions of houses that are foreclosed or in some process of foreclosure that are being kept off the market. That \"\"shadow inventory\"\" being kept off the market is keeping supply artificially low. At some point the shadow inventory will be brought to market and as supply increases it will hold prices down. ... [housing prices could drop another 20% or more](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577348083297932466.html)... and it could take a decde or more before the housing market works through the effects of the great recession. btw, I just refinanced again. It was easier this time than any of the other times I've refinanced. This time I got 2.875% for 10 years... I'll save over 20 grand of interest over the next 10 years. The banks are loaning money out, and at incredibly low interest rates.\"" }, { "docid": "156873", "title": "", "text": "\"With the scenario that you laid out (ie. 5% and 10% loans), it makes no sense at all. The problem is, when you're in trouble the rates are never 5% or 10%. Getting behind on credit cards sucks and is really hard to recover from. The problem with multiple accounts is that as the banks tack on fees and raise your interest rate to the default rate (usually 30%) when you give them any excuse (late payment, over the limit, etc). The banks will also cut your credit lines as you make payments, making it more likely that you will bump over the limit and be back in \"\"default\"\" status. One payment, even at a slightly higher rate is preferable when you're deep in the hole because you can actually pay enough to hit principal. If you have assets like a house, you'll get a much better rate as well. In a scenario where you're paying 22-25% interest, your minimum payment will be $150-200 a month, and that is mostly interest and penalty. \"\"One big loan\"\" will usually result in a smaller payment, and you don't end up in a situation where the banks are jockeying for position so they get paid first. The danger of consolidation is that you'll stop triggering defaults and keep making your payments, so your credit score will improve. Then the vultures will start circling and offering you more credit cards. EDIT: Mea Culpa. I wrote this based on experiences of close friends whom I've helped out over the years, not realizing how the law changed in 2009. Back around 2004, a single late payment would trigger universal default on most cards, jacking all rates up to 30% and slashing credit lines, resulting in over the limit and other fees. Credit card banks generally apply payments (in order, to interest on penalties, penalties, interest on principal, principal) in a way that makes it very difficult to pay down principal for people deep in debt. They would also offer \"\"payment plans\"\" to entice you to pay Bank B vs. Bank A, which would trigger overlimit fees from Bank A. Another change is that minimum payments were generally 2% of statement balance, which often didn't cover the monthly finance charge. The new law changed that, resulting in a payment of 1% of balance + accrued interest. Under the old regime, consolidation made it less likely that various circumstances would trigger default, and gave the struggling debtor one throat to choke. With the new rules, there are definitely a smaller number of scenarios where consolidation actually makes sense.\"" }, { "docid": "370121", "title": "", "text": "I'm going to make an educated guess on #1. Money markets invest in bonds with a very short time to maturity. An MMA at a bank will be invested in government bonds. Yields on these bonds are really low right now. Thus the yield on that MMA is going to be pretty low. When you make a deposit in a savings account, the bank uses some of that money to lend back out to its customers in the form of car loans, mortgages, etc. These rates are higher, so the bank is willing to pay you a bit more than the yield MMA so they can use your money for these loans. For #2, your time window is short, so there aren't really a lot of options for you. Keeping your money where it is will actually cost you money in fees. You can do as I suggested in my comment above: close the current savings account that's hitting you with fees and open a (free) high yield savings account. You might get 1.1%. If you average $60k in the account over the next 6 months you'll earn $200-250 after taxes. You didn't ask about CDs, but lately shorter term CDs are paying less than savings accounts. Going out to a year will get you just above the rate on a high yield savings account; two years just a little more. These are outside your goal window, so they aren't an option for you." }, { "docid": "338606", "title": "", "text": "Before doing anything else: you want a lawyer involved right from the beginning, to make sure that something reasonable happens with the house if one of you dies or leaves. Seriously, you'll both be safer and happier if it's all explicit. How much you should put on the house is not the right question. Houses don't sell instantly, and while you can access some of their stored value by borrowing against them that too can take some time to arrange. You need to have enough operating capital for normal finances, plus an emergency reserve to cover unexpectedly being out of work or sudden medical expenses. There are suggestions for how much that should be in answers to other questions. After that, the question is whether you should really be buying a house at all. It isn't always a better option than renting and (again as discussed in answers to other questions) there are ongoing costs in time and upkeep and taxes and insurance. If you're just thinking about the financials, it may be better to continue to rent and to invest the savings in the market. The time to buy a house is when you have the money and a reliable income, plan not to move for at least five years, really want the advantages of more elbow room and the freedom to alter the place to suit your needs (which will absorb more money)... As far as how much to put down vs. finance: you really want a down payment of at least 20%. Anything less than that, and the bank will insist you pay for mortgage insurance, which is a significant expense. Whether you want to pay more than that out of your savings depends on how low an interest rate you can get (this is a good time in that regard) versus how much return you are getting on your investments, combined with how long you want the mortgage to run and how large a mortgage payment you're comfortable committing to. If you've got a good investment plan in progress and can get a mortgage which charges a lower interest rate than your investments can reasonably be expected to pay you, putting less down and taking a larger mortgage is one of the safer forms of leveraged investing... IF you're comfortable with that. If the larger mortgage hanging over you is going to make you uncomfortable, this might not be a good answer for you. It's a judgement call. I waited until i'd been in out of school about 25 years before I was ready to buy a house. Since i'd been careful with my money over that time, I had enough in investments that I could have bought the house for cash. Or I could have gone the other way and financed 80% of it for maximum leverage. I decided that what I was comfortable with was financing 50%. You'll have to work thru the numbers and decide what you are comfortable with. But I say again, if buying shared property you need a lawyer involved. It may be absolutely the right thing to do ... but you want to make sure everything is fully spelled out... and you'll also want appropriate terms written into your wills. (Being married would carry some automatic assumptions about joint ownership and survivor rights... but even then it's safer to make it all explicit.) Edit: Yes, making a larger down payment may let you negotiate a lower interest rate on the loan. You'll have to find out what each bank is willing to offer you, or work with a mortgage broker who can explore those options for you." }, { "docid": "576632", "title": "", "text": "\"If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in \"\"betting on the outcome of an horse race\"\" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process.\"" }, { "docid": "555947", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be \"\"other than house debt\"\" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low. By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?\"" }, { "docid": "400646", "title": "", "text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\"" }, { "docid": "60282", "title": "", "text": "\"Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car ? In my opinion, it depends on a lot of factors. If you have nothing to pay, and are not planning to invest in something that cost a lot soon (I.E an house, etc). Then I see no problem in put \"\"that much down on the car\"\". Remember that the more you pay at first, the less you will pay interest on. However, if you are planning on buying something big soon, then you might want to pay less and keep moneys for your future investment. I would honestly not finance a car with the garage as I find their interest rate to high. Possibilities depends a lot of your bank accounts, but what I would personally do is pay it cash using my credit margin with the bank which is only 2.8% interest rate. Garage where I live rarely finance under 7% interest rate. You may not have a credit margin, but maybe you could get a loan with the bank instead ? Many bank keep an history of your loan which will get you a better credit name when trying to buy an home later. On the other side, having a good credit name is not really useful in a garage. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I don't think it is possible to give a real answer to this as it change a lot around the world. However, I would recommend to simply compare with the interest rate asked when being loan by the bank.\"" }, { "docid": "232491", "title": "", "text": "\"Your house doesn't need to multiply in order to earn a return. Your house can provide shelter. That is not money, but is an economic good and can also save you money (if you would otherwise pay rent). This is the primary form of return on the investment for many houses. It is similar for other large capital investments - like industrial robots, washing machines, or automobiles. The value of money depends on: As long as the size and velocity of the money supply changes about as much as the overall economic activity changes, everything is pretty much good. A little more and you will see the money lose value (inflation); a little less and the money will gain value (deflation). As long as the value of inflation or deflation remains very low, the specifics matter relatively little. Prices (including wages, the price of work) do a good job of adjusting when there is inflation or deflation. The main problem is that people tend to use money as a unit of account, e.g. you owe $100,000 on your mortgage, I have $500 in the bank. Changing the value of those numbers makes it really hard to plan for the future! Imagine if prices and wages fell in half: it would be twice as hard to pay off your mortgage. Or if the bank expected massive inflation in the future: they would want to charge you a lot more interest! Presently, inflation is the norm because the government entities, who help adjust how much money there will be (through monetary policy - interest rates and the like - ask about it if you're interested), will generally gradually increase the supply of money a little bit more quickly than the economy in general. They may also be worried that outright deflation over the long term will lead to people postponing purchases (to get more for their money later), harming overall economic activity, so they tend to err on the slightly positive side. The value of money, however, has not really \"\"ordinarily decreased\"\" until the modern era (the 1930s or so). During much of history, a relatively low fixed amount of valuable commodities (gold) served as money. When the economy grew, and the same amount of money represented more economic activity, the money became more valuable, and deflation ensued. This could have the unfortunate effect of deterring investment, because rich jerks with lots of money could see their riches increase just by holding on to those riches instead of doing anything productive with them. And changes in the supply of gold wreaked havoc with the money supply whenever there was some event like a gold rush: Because precious metals were at the base of the monetary system, rushes increased the money supply which resulted in inflation. Soaring gold output from the California and Australia gold rushes is linked with a thirty percent increase in wholesale prices between 1850 and 1855. Likewise, right at the end of the nineteenth century a surge in gold production reversed a decades-long deflationary trend and is often credited with aiding indebted farmers and helping to end the Populist Party’s strength and its call for a bimetallic (gold and silver) money standard. -- The California Gold Rush Today, there is way too little gold production to represent all the growth in world economic activity - but we don't have a gold standard anymore, so gold is valuable on its own merits, because people want to buy it using money, and its price is free to fluctuate. When it gets more valuable, and people pay more for it, mines will go through more effort to locate, extract and refine it because it will be more profitable. That's how most commodities work. For more information on these tidbits of history, some in-depth articles on:\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "512914", "title": "", "text": "Stock price is an indicator about the health of the company. Increased profits (for example) will drive the stock price up; excessive debt (for example) will drive it down. The stock price has a profound effect on the company overall: for example, a declining share price will make it hard to secure credit, attract further investors, build partnerships, etc. Also, employees are often holding options or in a stock purchase plan, so a declining share price can severely dampen morale. In an extreme case, if share prices plummet too far, the company can be pressured to reverse-split the shares, and (eventually) take the company private. This recently happened to Playboy." } ]

[ { "docid": "249320", "title": "", "text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time." }, { "docid": "435023", "title": "", "text": "It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case. Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question. A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized. By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth. Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets." }, { "docid": "239998", "title": "", "text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch." }, { "docid": "450184", "title": "", "text": "\"Depends. The short answer is yes; HSBC, for instance, based in New York, is listed on both the LSE and NYSE. Toyota's listed on the TSE and NYSE. There are many ways to do this; both of the above examples are the result of a corporation owning a subsidiary in a foreign country by the same name (a holding company), which sells its own stock on the local market. The home corporation owns the majority holdings of the subsidiary, and issues its own stock on its \"\"home country's\"\" exchange. It is also possible for the same company to list shares of the same \"\"pool\"\" of stock on two different exchanges (the foreign exchange usually lists the stock in the corporation's home currency and the share prices are near-identical), or for a company to sell different portions of itself on different exchanges. However, these are much rarer; for tax liability and other cost purposes it's usually easier to keep American monies in America and Japanese monies in Japan by setting up two \"\"copies\"\" of yourself with one owning the other, and move money around between companies as necessary. Shares of one issue of one company's stock, on one exchange, are the same price regardless of where in the world you place a buy order from. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll pay the same actual value of currency for the stock. First off, you buy the stock in the listed currency, which means buying dollars (or Yen or Euros or GBP) with both a fluctuating exchange rate between currencies and a broker's fee (one of those cost savings that make it a good idea to charter subsidiaries; could you imagine millions a day in car sales moving from American dealers to Toyota of Japan, converted from USD to Yen, with a FOREX commission to be paid?). Second, you'll pay the stock broker a commission, and he may charge different rates for different exchanges that are cheaper or more costly for him to do business in (he might need a trader on the floor at each exchange or contract with a foreign broker for a cut of the commission).\"" }, { "docid": "135216", "title": "", "text": "\"The market capitalization of a stock is the number of shares outstanding (of each stock class), times the price of last trade (of each stock class). In a liquid market (where there are lots of buyers and sellers at all price points), this represents the price that is between what people are bidding for the stock and what people are asking for the stock. If you offer any small amount more than the last price, there will be a seller, and if you ask any small amount less than the last price, there will be a buyer, at least for a small amount of stock. Thus, in a liquid market, everyone who owns the stock doesn't want to sell at least some of their stock for a bit less than the last trade price, and everyone who doesn't have the stock doesn't want to buy some of the stock for a bit more than the last trade price. With those assumptions, and a low-friction trading environment, we can say that the last trade value is a good midpoint of what people think one share is worth. If we then multiply it by the number of shares, we get an approximation of what the company is worth. In no way, shape or form does it not mean that there is 32 billion more invested in the company, or even used to purchase stock. There are situations where a 32 billion market cap swing could mean 32 billion more money was invested in the company: the company issues a pile of new shares, and takes in the resulting money. People are completely neutral about this gathering in of cash in exchange for dilluting shares. So the share price remains unchanged, the company gains 32 billion dollars, and there are now more shares outstanding. Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of \"\"invested in\"\"; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being. Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders. The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers. Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off.\"" }, { "docid": "227284", "title": "", "text": "Are you really talking about share price, or share value? Because what about stock splits? Market Cap stays the same, but the price per share is lowered. This is so that the stock is more liquid and accessible to a greater number of investors. This encourages people to invest in the stock though. I can't really think of any reasons why a company would want to lower their share value or discourage people from investing unless they are trying to reacquire shares. Returning value to the shareholders is the #1 priority of any publicly traded company." }, { "docid": "200054", "title": "", "text": "When you sell the stock your income is from the difference of prices between when you bought the stock and when you sold it. There's no interest there. The interest is in two places: the underlying company assets (which you own, whether you want it or not), and in the distribution of the income to the owners (the dividends). You can calculate which portion of the interest income constitutes your dividend by allocating the portions of your dividend in the proportions of the company income. That would (very roughly and unreliably, of course) give you an estimate what portion of your dividend income derives from the interest. Underlying assets include all the profits of the company that haven't been distributed through dividends, but rather reinvested back into the business. These may or may not be reflected in the market price of the company. Bottom line is that there's no direct correlation between the income from the sale of the stake of ownership and the company income from interest, if any correlation at all exists. Why would you care about interest income of Salesforce? Its not a bank or a lender, they may have some interest income, but that's definitely not the main income source of the company. If you want to know how much interest income exactly the company had, you'll have to dig deep inside the quarterly and annual reports, and even then I'm not sure if you'll find it as a separate item for a company that's not in the lending business." }, { "docid": "209754", "title": "", "text": "\"The value of a stock ultimately is related to the valuation of a corporation. As part of the valuation, you can estimate the cash flows (discounted to present time) of the expected cash flows from owning a share. This stock value is the so-called \"\"fundamental\"\" value of a stock. What you are really asking is, how is the stock's market price and the fundamental value related? And by asking this, you have implicitly assumed they are not the same. The reason that the fundamental value and market price can diverge is that simply, most shareholders will not continue holding the stock for the lifespan of a company (indeed some companies have been around for centuries). This means that without dividends or buybacks or liquidations or mergers/acquisitions, a typical shareholder cannot reasonably expect to recoup their share of the company's equity. In this case, the chief price driver is the aggregate expectation of buyers and sellers in the marketplace, not fundamental evaluation of the company's balance sheet. Now obviously some expectations are based on fundamentals and expert opinions can differ, but even when all the experts agree roughly on the numbers, it may be that the market price is quite a ways away from their estimates. An interesting example is given in this survey of behavioral finance. It concerns Palm, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 3Com. When Palm went public, its shares went for such a high price, they were significantly higher than 3Com's shares. This mispricing persisted for several weeks. Note that this facet of pricing is often given short shrift in standard explanations of the stock market. It seems despite decades of academic research (and Nobel prizes being handed out to behavioral economists), the knowledge has been slow to trickle down to laymen, although any observant person will realize something is amiss with the standard explanations. For example, before 2012, the last time Apple paid out dividends was 1995. Are we really to believe that people were pumping up Apple's stock price from 1995 to 2012 because they were waiting for dividends, or hoping for a merger or liquidation? It doesn't seem plausible to me, especially since after Apple announced dividends that year, Apple stock ended up taking a deep dive, despite Wall Street analysts stating the company was doing better than ever. That the stock price reflects expectations of the future cash flows from the stock is a thinly-disguised form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and there's a lot of evidence contrary to the EMH (see references in the previously-linked survey). If you believe what happened in Apple's case was just a rational re-evaluation of Apple stock, then I think you must be a hard-core EMH advocate. Basically (and this is elaborated at length in the survey above), fundamentals and market pricing can become decoupled. This is because there are frictions in the marketplace making it difficult for people to take advantage of the mispricing. In some cases, this can go on for extended periods of time, possibly even years. Part of the friction is caused by strong beliefs by market participants which can often shift pressure to supply or demand. Two popular sayings on Wall Street are, \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right. You have to be right at the right time.\"\" and \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right, if the market disagrees with you.\"\" They suggest that you can make the right decision with where to put your money, but being \"\"right\"\" isn't what drives prices. The market does what it does, and it's subject to the whims of its participants.\"" }, { "docid": "319568", "title": "", "text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"" }, { "docid": "3750", "title": "", "text": "\"The implication is market irrationality is stronger than market rationality. Aka nothing makes sense when TSLA climbs to $400 or when CMG rises to $750. I wouldn't say there is a systematic flaw in valuation. I think there is just a lot of ignorance. Markets are more open to household investors than ever before. You used to go to your broker and ask him what's up and he'd give you the inside scoop since you pay them money. Now you go onto marketwatch and get some random nobody's opinion on everything and make stock selections based on that. But eventually the chickens come home to roost and things will correct itself. Big players will jump ship and cause signals to other traders to jump ship. The public can pump stocks up pretty high but it doesn't just go to infinity. Eventually someone will stop and say, \"\"wtf is going on\"\" and start selling. Stocks are sold on a basis of a limit order book so it's real prices that people are paying. People don't care about prices currently because most don't have any finance knowledge but want to invest their own money. They just hear about Tesla doing something amazing (from some clickbait article or news outlet) and can't stop thinking about buying Tesla. They go to Chipotle and think \"\"wow this place is so good and hip, they must be a great investment\"\". The markets have been filled with more subjective analysis than ever before especially with so much low quality information at your fingertips. Equally ignorant people startin blogs about investment and personal finance being shepherds for other ignorant people. In the end they all lose. People who exclaim \"\"this stock is going up to $250 easily\"\" with literally zero quantitative analysis or even a baseline reference point to back it up are prime examples of this. Ignorance of markets and cheap money almost always lead to market runs that end catastrophically. Dot com bubble, 1929 market crash, 2008, it's always the same. People who have no business taking loans out or buying on margin or leveraging positions with debt only to get fucked over once things are brought back down to Earth. After 2 runs of QE, we now have cheap money and with everyone being a crier for their personal investment strategy, we now also have rampant ignorance. I don't expect things to last but no one can call the bottom or the top, or else you'd be very very rich. Have a safe portfolio, don't try to time the markets. Have a strategy that hedges against unexpected change, don't try to gamble on this change. Because it's ultimately impossible to predict the movement of every single person on this earth that invests their money into markets. So don't try. Just be prepared. ---- To expand further into valuation theory: at the end of the day, people invest their money to make more money. It's as simple as that. If your money doesn't grow in an investment vehicle, it's ultimately a shit investment. But no one values intrinsic value of a company's equity before they decide whether or not $380 for TSLA is a good/bad deal. As a result, stocks can be pumped up way higher and people still see the gains on their stocks through capital gains fueled by other optimistic investors. Non-zero sum goes both ways. People can make shitloads of money on stock without an equitable loser--people can also lose shitloads on stock without any real winner emerging from the rubble. When this bubble bursts, lots and lots of people will lose money on TSLA when people's expectations become rational and they stop paying $300 a share for a negative or 70 PE ratio. It's insane what multipliers people will pay for these companies without even realizing the implication--if you buy a share of a company with a PE ratio of 70, you just paid 70 times their earnings for a share. In an ideal world where they released every single penny of earnings as dividends, it would take you 70 periods to reclaim your money on that share. This obviously doesn't take into account capital gains, but capital gains aren't supposed to be this irrational to where a stock can be pumped up into 70x PE ratio in the first place. It's a whole messed up web of confusion and irrationality and eventually something will catalyze a reaction. Imagine a market where everyone just agreed to pump up a single stock to infinity and everyone just rakes in shitloads of money. Would this work? Of course not. It's literally a pyramid scheme that relies on future generations to constantly inject capital--no real value is being created by this scheme. It requires constantly more future generations to continue adding money into the scheme and will crash once people stop pumping money into it. The same thing will happen here. Everyone \"\"agreed\"\" to pump up TSLA (in a sense) but eventually people will realize this is stupid as shit and the pyramid will come tumbling down because there is nothing they receive from this scheme other than the money from other people. It's essentially moving money around, making 0 use of it, until people stop pumping money into the system and everyone realizes that nothing of real value had been produced through the use of this money. Ultimately the only thing that creates real value is the money that is returned to shareholders from an outside party--the company you're invested in. Real value is not created when people exchange stock and money. So why do these transactions create higher values in equity? The basis of equity valuation states that dividends are the only way for companies to raise the price of their stock, going off the traditional Dividend Discount Model. And theoretically, that's the only logical explanation. Buying and trading stock does nothing for the company, minus T Stock they might own. Ultimately the only party creating real value is the underlying company. If they aren't creating real value, then their stock should not be increasing, period. The way they create value is by efficiently utilizing assets to generate returns on investment which can be returned to investors through dividends. Dividends can only be increased (while maintaining an equitable payout ratio) by generating more net income that can increase the actual pool of money that can be allocated back to investors. TSLA does not do this. TSLA regularly loses money and overpromises. There is no logical explanation for any of this except that everyone is irrational. Obviously theory is not the same as in practice but the theory is important here because it's really the basis for any investment at all. At the end of the day, a share of stock is the right to a share of the company's equity. People own equity in companies because companies generate money that it returns back to its owners. That's what a company does. That's what an owner does. If you own shares of a company, you're an owner. And if your company does not return more money back to you YoY, then why are you invested in them? Ultimately, you're riding a capital gains wave that will eventually subside once market irrationality succumbs to rationality. And it always does because the real value always catches up to the fake value that is caused by pumping and dumping stocks.\"" }, { "docid": "532171", "title": "", "text": "\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"" }, { "docid": "535605", "title": "", "text": "You have a lot of different questions in your post - I am only responding to the request for how to value the ESPP. When valuing an ESPP, don't think about what you might sell the shares for in the future, think about what the market would charge you for that option today. In general, an option is worth much less than the underlying share itself. For the simplest example, assume you work at a public company, and your exercise price for your options is $.30, and you can only exercise those options until the end of today, and the cost of the shares on the public stock exchange is also $.30. You have the same 'strike price' as everyone else in the market, making your option worth nothing. In truth, holding that right to a specific strike price into the future does give you value, because it means you can realize the upside in share price gains, without risking any money on share losses. So, how do you value the options? If it's a public company with an active options market, you can easily compare your $.30 strike price with the value of call options in the market that have a $.30 strike price. That becomes the value to you of the option (caveat: it is unlikely you can find an exact match for the terms of your vesting period, but you should be able to find a good starting point). If it's a public company without an active options market, you will have to do a bit of estimation. If a current share is worth $.25 (so, close to your strike price), then your option is worth a little bit, but not much. Compare other shares in your industry / company size to get examples of the relative value between an option and a share. If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt." }, { "docid": "188232", "title": "", "text": "\"Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves \"\"dividend investors\"\"? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends. Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad.\"" }, { "docid": "341652", "title": "", "text": "\"No, the stock market is not there for speculation on corporate memorabilia. At its base, it is there for investing in a business, the point of the investment being, of course, to make money. A (successful) business earns money, and that makes it valuable to its owners since that money can be distributed to them. Shares of stock are pieces of business ownership, and so are valuable. If you knew that the business would have profit of $10,000,000 every year, and would distribute that to the owners of each of its 10,000,000 shares each year, you would know to that each share would receive $1 each year. How much would such a share be worth to you? If you could instead put money in a bank and get 5% a year back, to get $1 a year back you would have to put $20 into the bank. So maybe that share of stock is worth about $20 to you. If somebody offers to sell you such a share for $18, you might buy it; for $23, maybe you pass up the offer. But business is uncertain, and how much profit the business will make is uncertain and will vary through time. So how much is a share of a real business worth? This is a much harder call, and people use many different ways to come up with how much they should pay for a share. Some people probably just think something like \"\"Apple is a good company making money, I'll buy a share at whatever price it is being offered at right now.\"\" Others look at every number available, build models of the company and the economy and the risks, all to estimate what a share might be worth, more or less. There is no indisputable value for a share of a successful business. So, what effect does a company's earnings have on the price of its stock? You can only say that for some of the people who might buy or sell shares, higher earnings will, all other thing being equal, have them be willing to spend more to buy it or demand more when selling it. But how much more is not quantifiable but depends on each person's approach to the problem. Higher earnings would tend to raise the price of the stock. Yet there are other factors, such as people who had expected even higher earnings, whose actions would tend to lower the price, and people who are OK with the earnings now, but suspect trouble for the business is appearing on the horizon, whose actions would also tend to lower the price. This is why people say that a stock's price is determined by supply and demand.\"" }, { "docid": "586984", "title": "", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions." }, { "docid": "407505", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"" }, { "docid": "307602", "title": "", "text": "\"I finally found it! Johnson Controls International PLC FORM 8-K/A (Amended Current report filing) Filed 10/03/16 for the Period Ending 09/02/16 from http://investors.johnsoncontrols.com/financial-information/johnson-sec-filings, says on page II-6: (my emphasis for the relevant paragraph) On September 2, 2016, Johnson Controls and Tyco completed their combination pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), dated as of January 24, 2016, as amended by Amendment No. 1, dated as of July 1, 2016, by and among Johnson Controls, Tyco and certain other parties named therein, including Jagara Merger Sub LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco (“Merger Sub”). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, on September 2, 2016, Merger Sub merged with and into Johnson Controls with Johnson Controls being the surviving corporation in the merger and a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of Tyco (the “merger”). Following the merger, Tyco changed its name to “Johnson Controls International plc.” Immediately prior to the merger and in connection therewith, Tyco shareholders received 0.955 ordinary shares of Tyco (which shares are now referred to as “combined company ordinary shares”) for each Tyco ordinary share they held by virtue of a 0.955-for-one share consolidation. In the merger, each outstanding share of common stock, par value $1.00 per share, of Johnson Controls (“Johnson Controls common stock”) (other than shares held by Johnson Controls, Tyco and certain of their subsidiaries) was converted into the right to receive either the cash consideration or the share consideration (each as described below), at the election of the holder, subject to proration procedures described in the Merger Agreement and applicable withholding taxes. The election to receive the cash consideration was undersubscribed. As a result, holders of shares of Johnson Controls common stock that elected to receive the share consideration and holders of shares of Johnson Controls common stock that made no election (or failed to properly make an election) became entitled to receive, for each such share of Johnson Controls common stock, $5.7293 in cash, without interest, and 0.8357 combined company ordinary shares, subject to applicable withholding taxes. Holders of shares of Johnson Controls common stock that elected to receive the cash consideration became entitled to receive, for each such share of Johnson Controls common stock, $34.88 in cash, without interest, subject to applicable withholding taxes. In the merger, Johnson Controls shareholders received, in the aggregate, approximately $3.864 billion in cash. Immediately after the closing of, and giving effect to, the merger, former Johnson Controls shareholders owned approximately 56% of the issued and outstanding combined company ordinary shares and former Tyco stockholders owned approximately 44% of the issued and outstanding combined company ordinary shares. This answers what actually happened in the transaction; as far as my cost basis in the new JCI, it's a little more obscure; on page II-7 it says: For pro forma purposes, the valuation of consideration transferred is based on, amongst other things, the adjusted share price of Johnson Controls on September 2, 2016 of $47.67 per share and on page II-8: Johnson Controls adjusted share price as of September 2, 2016 (2): $47.67 (2) Amount equals Johnson Control closing share price and market capitalization at September 2, 2016 ($45.45 and $29,012 million, respectively) adjusted for the Tyco $3,864 million cash contribution used to purchase 110.8 million shares of Johnson Controls stock for $34.88 per share. and both agree with the information posted at http://www.secinfo.com/dpdtb.w6n.2n.htm#1stPage (R66 Merger Transaction Fair Value of Consideration Transferred (Details)) which I can't seem to find on an \"\"official\"\" website but it purports to post from the SEC EDGAR database. So for each share of JCI, it had a fair value of $47.67 prior to the acquisition, and transformed into $5.7293 in cash, plus 0.8357 of \"\"new\"\" JCI shares with a basis of $47.67 - $5.7293 = $41.9407. Stated in terms of \"\"new\"\" JCI shares, this is $50.1863 (=$41.9407/0.8357) per \"\"new\"\" JCI share. (I'm not really 100% sure of this calculation though.) I also found JCI's Form 8937 which states Fair market value generally is the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the facts. U.S. federal income tax law does not specifically prescribe how former JCI shareholders should determine the fair market value of the Tyco ordinary shares received in the merger. One possible method of determining the fair market value of one Tyco ordinary share is to use the average of the high and low trading prices on the date of the merger, which was $45.69. Other methods for determining the fair market value of Tyco ordinary shares are possible. Former JCI shareholders are not bound by the approach described above and may, in consultation with their tax advisors, use another approach. as well as similar text on the IRS website: One possible method of determining the fair market value of one Tyco ordinary share is to use the average of the high and low trading prices on the date of the merger, which was $45.69. Using this figure, former JCI shareholders that elected to receive shares in the merger would receive cash and Tyco ordinary shares worth approximately $43.91 per share of JCI common stock exchanged in the merger (assuming no cash received in lieu of fractional shares).\"" }, { "docid": "431814", "title": "", "text": "If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight: Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)" }, { "docid": "421039", "title": "", "text": "Unissued capital is only a token restriction. When a company is incorporated a maximum number of shares is specified in the legal documentation. Most companies will make this an extremely large number so they never face that limitation. See here. You wouldn't necessarily expect the stock price to change. The reason a company issues new stock is as a way to raise capital. Although new stock is issued, the cash raised by the sale becomes an Asset on the company's balance sheet. There's a good worked example in this Wikipedia article. Following a rights issue the Liabilities of the company will increase to account for the increase in owner's equity, but the Assets will also increase by the same amount with the cash received. Whether the stock price changes will depend upon what price the stock is issued at and on the market's opinions about the company's growth potential now it has new capital to invest. If the new stock is issued at the same price as the current market price, there's no particular reason to expect the share price to change. Again Wikipedia has more detail. When new stock is issued it is usually offered to existing shareholders first, in proportion to their current holding. If the shareholder decides to purchase the new stock in full then their position won't be diluted. If they opt not to buy the new stock, they will now own a smaller percentage of the company as their stocks will make up a smaller part of the now larger number of shares." } ]

[ { "docid": "566553", "title": "", "text": "The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc." } ]

[ { "docid": "167322", "title": "", "text": "\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"" }, { "docid": "435023", "title": "", "text": "It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case. Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question. A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized. By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth. Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets." }, { "docid": "54257", "title": "", "text": "\"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your \"\"aye\"\" or \"\"nay\"\" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share). We can say, however, that a fall to \"\"effectively zero\"\" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded \"\"over the counter\"\" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough).\"" }, { "docid": "139094", "title": "", "text": "\"They are similar in the sense that they are transferring money from the company to shareholders, but that's about it. There is different tax treatment, yes, but that's because they are fundamentally different. Dividends transfer money equally to all shareholders, but that also reduces the value of each share by the same amount, since it's cash out the door, which drops the value of the company. Shareholders are taxed on dividends at the capital gains tax rate. A buyback returns the cash to shareholders who decide to sell. Other shareholders get a secondary benefit of now owning a slightly larger portion of the company since there are fewer shares outstanding. Shareholders only pay tax if they sell shares for a gain. It that means when company buyback their stock, the stock price will definitely go up? Not necessarily. It depends on the price that the company buys back the shares for and what the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of that cash is - meaning what else could the company have done with the cash that would have been better? Buybacks often happen in mature companies with undervalued stock prices and fewer opportunities for further investment. If a company has an intrinsic value of $10 a share but its stock is trading at $8 a share, then it can instantly get a 25% \"\"return\"\" by buying back stock. I use the term \"\"return\"\" loosely since the company does not actually profit from the buyback, but from the shareholder's perspective the company is worth more per share.\"" }, { "docid": "58290", "title": "", "text": "The original poster's concern is valid. Sometimes, market orders do get executed at seemingly ridiculous prices. In addition to Victor's reasons for using a market order, sometimes a seller does not care how low the price is. For example, after a company goes broke, its stock continues to trade for a while. This allows shareholders to realize their losses for tax purposes, and allows short-sellers to close out their positions. A shareholder who is trying to realize a 10 dollar per share loss for tax purposes probably does not care whether he gets 10 cents per share or 0.001 cents per share, so a sell-at-market order makes sense." }, { "docid": "25817", "title": "", "text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"" }, { "docid": "586984", "title": "", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions." }, { "docid": "427859", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"" }, { "docid": "78138", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on many factors, but generally, the bid/ask spread will give you an idea. There are typically two ways to buy (or sell) a security: With a limit order, you would place a buy for 100 shares at $30-. Then it's easy, in the worst case you will get your 100 shares at $30 each exactly. You may get lucky and have the price fall, then you will pay less than $30. Of course if the price immediately goes up to say $35, nobody will sell at the $30 you want, so your broker will happily sit on his hands and rake in the commission while waiting on what is now a hail Mary ask. With a market order, you have the problem you mention: The ticker says $30, but say after you buy the first 5 shares at $30 the price shoots up and the rest are $32 each - you have now paid on average $31.9 per share. This could happen because there is a limit order for 5 at $30 and 200 at $32 (you would have filled only part of that 200). You would be able to see these in the order book (sometimes shown as bid/ask spread or market depth). However, the order book is not law. Just because there's an ask for 10k shares at $35 each for your $30 X stock, doesn't mean that by the time the price comes up to $35, the offer will still be up. The guy (or algorithm) who put it up may see the price going up and decide he now wants $40 each for his 10k shares. Also, people aren't obligated to put in their order: Maybe there's a trader who intends to trade a large volume when the price hits a certain level, like a limit order, but he elected to not put in a limit order and instead watch the ticker and react in real time. Then you will see a huge order suddenly come in out of nowhere. So while the order book is informative, what you are asking is actually fundamentally impossible to know fully, unless you can read the minds of every interested trader. As others said, in \"\"normal\"\" securities (meaning traded at a major exchange, especially those in the S&P500) you simply can't move the price, the market is too deep. You would need millions of dollars to budge the price, and if you had that much money, you wouldn't be asking here on a QA site, you would have a professional financial advisor (or even a team) that specializes in distributing your large transaction over a longer time to minimize the effect on the market. With crazier stocks, such as OTC and especially worthless penny stocks with market caps of $1 mil or less, what you say is a real problem (you can end up paying multiples of the last ticker if not careful) and you do have to be careful about it. Which is why you shouldn't trade penny stocks unless you know what you're doing (and if you're asking this question here, you don't).\"" }, { "docid": "339854", "title": "", "text": "Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability." }, { "docid": "583203", "title": "", "text": "You did something that you shouldn't have done; you bought a dividend. Most mutual fund companies have educational materials on their sites that recommend against making new investments in mutual funds in the last two months of the year because most mutual funds distribute their earnings (dividends, capital gains etc) to their shareholders in December, and the share price of the funds goes down in the amount of the per share distribution. These distributions can be taken in cash or can be re-invested in the fund; you most likely chose the latter option (it is often the default choice if you ignored all this because you are a newbie). For those who choose to reinvest, the number of shares in the mutual fund increases, but since the price of the shares has decreased, the net amount remains the same. You own more shares at a lower price than the day before when the price was higher but the total value of your account is the same (ignoring normal market fluctuations in the price of the actual stocks held by the fund. Regardless of whether you take the distributions as cash or re-invest in the fund, that money is taxable income to you (unless the fund is owned inside a 401k or IRA or other tax-deferred investment program). You bought 56 shares at a price of $17.857 per share (net cost $1000). The fund distributed its earnings shortly thereafter and gave you 71.333-56= 15.333 additional shares. The new share price is $14.11. So, the total value of your investment is $1012, but the amount that you have invested in the account is the original $1000 plus the amount of the distribution which is (roughly) $14.11 x 15.333 = $216. Your total investment of $1216 is now worth $1012 only, and so you have actually lost money. Besides, you owe income tax on that $216 dividend that you received. Do you see why the mutual fund companies recommend against making new investments late in the year? If you had waited till after the mutual fund had made its distribution, you could have bought $1000/14.11 = 70.871 shares and wouldn't have owed tax on that distribution that you just bought by making the investment just before the distribution was made. See also my answer to this recent question about investing in mutual funds." }, { "docid": "532171", "title": "", "text": "\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"" }, { "docid": "431814", "title": "", "text": "If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight: Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)" }, { "docid": "428315", "title": "", "text": "Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all." }, { "docid": "135216", "title": "", "text": "\"The market capitalization of a stock is the number of shares outstanding (of each stock class), times the price of last trade (of each stock class). In a liquid market (where there are lots of buyers and sellers at all price points), this represents the price that is between what people are bidding for the stock and what people are asking for the stock. If you offer any small amount more than the last price, there will be a seller, and if you ask any small amount less than the last price, there will be a buyer, at least for a small amount of stock. Thus, in a liquid market, everyone who owns the stock doesn't want to sell at least some of their stock for a bit less than the last trade price, and everyone who doesn't have the stock doesn't want to buy some of the stock for a bit more than the last trade price. With those assumptions, and a low-friction trading environment, we can say that the last trade value is a good midpoint of what people think one share is worth. If we then multiply it by the number of shares, we get an approximation of what the company is worth. In no way, shape or form does it not mean that there is 32 billion more invested in the company, or even used to purchase stock. There are situations where a 32 billion market cap swing could mean 32 billion more money was invested in the company: the company issues a pile of new shares, and takes in the resulting money. People are completely neutral about this gathering in of cash in exchange for dilluting shares. So the share price remains unchanged, the company gains 32 billion dollars, and there are now more shares outstanding. Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of \"\"invested in\"\"; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being. Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders. The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers. Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off.\"" }, { "docid": "239998", "title": "", "text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch." }, { "docid": "105343", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "301547", "title": "", "text": "\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"" }, { "docid": "450184", "title": "", "text": "\"Depends. The short answer is yes; HSBC, for instance, based in New York, is listed on both the LSE and NYSE. Toyota's listed on the TSE and NYSE. There are many ways to do this; both of the above examples are the result of a corporation owning a subsidiary in a foreign country by the same name (a holding company), which sells its own stock on the local market. The home corporation owns the majority holdings of the subsidiary, and issues its own stock on its \"\"home country's\"\" exchange. It is also possible for the same company to list shares of the same \"\"pool\"\" of stock on two different exchanges (the foreign exchange usually lists the stock in the corporation's home currency and the share prices are near-identical), or for a company to sell different portions of itself on different exchanges. However, these are much rarer; for tax liability and other cost purposes it's usually easier to keep American monies in America and Japanese monies in Japan by setting up two \"\"copies\"\" of yourself with one owning the other, and move money around between companies as necessary. Shares of one issue of one company's stock, on one exchange, are the same price regardless of where in the world you place a buy order from. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll pay the same actual value of currency for the stock. First off, you buy the stock in the listed currency, which means buying dollars (or Yen or Euros or GBP) with both a fluctuating exchange rate between currencies and a broker's fee (one of those cost savings that make it a good idea to charter subsidiaries; could you imagine millions a day in car sales moving from American dealers to Toyota of Japan, converted from USD to Yen, with a FOREX commission to be paid?). Second, you'll pay the stock broker a commission, and he may charge different rates for different exchanges that are cheaper or more costly for him to do business in (he might need a trader on the floor at each exchange or contract with a foreign broker for a cut of the commission).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "454089", "title": "", "text": "Shareholders get to vote for the board, the board appoints the CEO. This makes the CEO care, which in turn makes everybody else working in the company care. Also, if the company wants to borrow money a good share price, as sign of a healthy company, gives them more favorable conditions from lenders. And some more points others already made." } ]

[ { "docid": "532171", "title": "", "text": "\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"" }, { "docid": "105343", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "200054", "title": "", "text": "When you sell the stock your income is from the difference of prices between when you bought the stock and when you sold it. There's no interest there. The interest is in two places: the underlying company assets (which you own, whether you want it or not), and in the distribution of the income to the owners (the dividends). You can calculate which portion of the interest income constitutes your dividend by allocating the portions of your dividend in the proportions of the company income. That would (very roughly and unreliably, of course) give you an estimate what portion of your dividend income derives from the interest. Underlying assets include all the profits of the company that haven't been distributed through dividends, but rather reinvested back into the business. These may or may not be reflected in the market price of the company. Bottom line is that there's no direct correlation between the income from the sale of the stake of ownership and the company income from interest, if any correlation at all exists. Why would you care about interest income of Salesforce? Its not a bank or a lender, they may have some interest income, but that's definitely not the main income source of the company. If you want to know how much interest income exactly the company had, you'll have to dig deep inside the quarterly and annual reports, and even then I'm not sure if you'll find it as a separate item for a company that's not in the lending business." }, { "docid": "27416", "title": "", "text": "\"For the first and last questions, I can do this multiple ways. For the middle question, I'll just make up values. If you want different ones, you will have to redo the math. I am going to assume that you participate in the merger exchange, swapping your share for their offer. If you own one share, it depends how they handle fractional shares. Your original one share of ABC can be worth either one share of XYZ or 1.05 shares of XYZ. If you get one share, you typically get an additional $.80 cash to make up for the fractional share. You might ask why you don't just get $20 cash and one share of XYZ. Consider the case where you own twenty shares of ABC. Then you'd own twenty-one shares of XYZ and $384. No need for fractional shares. Beyond all this though, the share value of XYZ is not set autocratically. The shares might be worth $16, $40, or $2 after the merger. If both stocks are perfectly valued and the market is aware of that value, then it will depend partially on the number of shares of each. For example, if we assume there are 10,000 shares of ABC and 50,000 shares of XYZ (including the shares paid for ABC), then their initial market values are $320,000 for ABC and $800,000 for XYZ. XYZ is paying $360,000, so its value drops to $440,000. But it is gaining ABC, which is worth $320,000. Net value now is $760,000 or $15.20 per share. This has assumed that the shares transferred from XYZ to the shareholders of ABC were already included in the market value. This may mean that the stock price was previously $20 or so with almost 40,000 shares in circulation. Then they issued new shares, diluting the value down to $16. We could start at 50,000 shares at $16 and end up with 60,000 to 60,050 shares at $13.332 to $13.333 per share. Then XYZ is really only paying $326,658.31 for ABC. That's a premium of only $6,658.31 for ABC and gives a final stock value of $13.222 per share. The problem though is that in reality, there is no equivalent of perfect value. So I say again that the market value might be $15.20 (the theoretic answer that best fits the question given the example quantities of shares), $13, $20, or something else. It will depend on how the market perceives the deal. Is the combined company worth more or less than the sum of its parts? And beyond this, you will have $19.20 to $20 in cash in addition to your XYZ share (or 1.05 shares). Assuming 1.05 shares, that would be $15.96 plus the $19.20--that's $35.16 total in theory or anything from $19.20 up in practice. With the givens, the only thing of which you can be sure is the $19.20 cash. The value of the stock is up in the air. If XYZ is only privately traded, this is still true. The stock is worth the price that someone will pay for it. The \"\"someone\"\" is just more limited with privately traded stocks.\"" }, { "docid": "209754", "title": "", "text": "\"The value of a stock ultimately is related to the valuation of a corporation. As part of the valuation, you can estimate the cash flows (discounted to present time) of the expected cash flows from owning a share. This stock value is the so-called \"\"fundamental\"\" value of a stock. What you are really asking is, how is the stock's market price and the fundamental value related? And by asking this, you have implicitly assumed they are not the same. The reason that the fundamental value and market price can diverge is that simply, most shareholders will not continue holding the stock for the lifespan of a company (indeed some companies have been around for centuries). This means that without dividends or buybacks or liquidations or mergers/acquisitions, a typical shareholder cannot reasonably expect to recoup their share of the company's equity. In this case, the chief price driver is the aggregate expectation of buyers and sellers in the marketplace, not fundamental evaluation of the company's balance sheet. Now obviously some expectations are based on fundamentals and expert opinions can differ, but even when all the experts agree roughly on the numbers, it may be that the market price is quite a ways away from their estimates. An interesting example is given in this survey of behavioral finance. It concerns Palm, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 3Com. When Palm went public, its shares went for such a high price, they were significantly higher than 3Com's shares. This mispricing persisted for several weeks. Note that this facet of pricing is often given short shrift in standard explanations of the stock market. It seems despite decades of academic research (and Nobel prizes being handed out to behavioral economists), the knowledge has been slow to trickle down to laymen, although any observant person will realize something is amiss with the standard explanations. For example, before 2012, the last time Apple paid out dividends was 1995. Are we really to believe that people were pumping up Apple's stock price from 1995 to 2012 because they were waiting for dividends, or hoping for a merger or liquidation? It doesn't seem plausible to me, especially since after Apple announced dividends that year, Apple stock ended up taking a deep dive, despite Wall Street analysts stating the company was doing better than ever. That the stock price reflects expectations of the future cash flows from the stock is a thinly-disguised form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and there's a lot of evidence contrary to the EMH (see references in the previously-linked survey). If you believe what happened in Apple's case was just a rational re-evaluation of Apple stock, then I think you must be a hard-core EMH advocate. Basically (and this is elaborated at length in the survey above), fundamentals and market pricing can become decoupled. This is because there are frictions in the marketplace making it difficult for people to take advantage of the mispricing. In some cases, this can go on for extended periods of time, possibly even years. Part of the friction is caused by strong beliefs by market participants which can often shift pressure to supply or demand. Two popular sayings on Wall Street are, \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right. You have to be right at the right time.\"\" and \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right, if the market disagrees with you.\"\" They suggest that you can make the right decision with where to put your money, but being \"\"right\"\" isn't what drives prices. The market does what it does, and it's subject to the whims of its participants.\"" }, { "docid": "58009", "title": "", "text": "\"Stock price is determined by the buyers and sellers, correct? Correct! \"\"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it\"\"-Publius Syrus What causes people to buy or sell? Is it news? earnings? stock analysis and techniques? All of these things influence investors' perception of how much a stock is worth. If AMZN makes a lot of money one quarter, then the price might go up. But maybe public perception of AMZN changes because of a large scandal. This could cause the share price to decline even with the favorable earnings report. Why do these 'good' or 'bad' news make people want to buy/sell a stock? People invest to make money. If it looks like a company is going to take a turn for the worst, people will sell. If it looks like the company has a bright, cash-laden future in front of them, people will buy. News is one of the many factors people use to determine how well a company will do. Theoretically could a bunch of people short AMZN and drive down the price regardless of how well it is doing? Say investors wanted to boycott AMZN in order to drive down the cost and get some cheap shares. This is pretty silly, but say for the sake of the argument that everyone who owned AMZN decided to sell their shares and no other investor was willing to buy the shares for less than $0.01, then AMZN shares would be \"\"worth\"\" $0.01 in that aspect. That is extremely unlikely to happen, though, for two reasons:\"" }, { "docid": "431814", "title": "", "text": "If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight: Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)" }, { "docid": "13732", "title": "", "text": "\"Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission? The buyer doesn't get a commission. The buyer pays a commission. So normally a buyer would say, \"\"I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.\"\" The broker would then charge the buyer a commission. Assuming 4%, the commission would be So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000. The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission. In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission. So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission. The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140. Total paid to the seller is $1860. Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction. That's a reasonable outlook. A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller. In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker. In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter). Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one. As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock. The broker still expects a commission. But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission. So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer). The broker has more work to do than normal. They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation. In most purchases, you just say something like \"\"I want to offer $20 a share\"\" or \"\"I want to purchase at the market price.\"\" In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share. And they may do that multiple times. Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price. And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested. Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day. Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price. If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission. However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO. Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97. I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible. And once they do that, they're out of the picture. Your broker will still be your broker later. So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day. The broker doesn't care much either way. They want you to buy and sell something. The IPO or something else. They don't care much as to what. The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return. If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that. All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result. They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day. But it might not. These numbers may not be accurate. Obviously the $20 stock price is made up. But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate. Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage. The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year). The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission. If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission.\"" }, { "docid": "123263", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"" }, { "docid": "428315", "title": "", "text": "Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all." }, { "docid": "197047", "title": "", "text": "Ok you're looking at this in a very confusing way. First, as said by CapitalNumb3rs, the dividend yield is the dividends paid in the year as a percent of the stock price. Given this fact then if the stock price moves down and the dividend stays the same then the yield increases. Company's don't usually pay out on a yield basis, that's mostly just a calculation to measure how strong a dividend is. This could mean either A. The stock is underpriced and will rise which will lower the yield to a more normal level or B. the company is not doing as well and eventually the dividends will decrease to a point where the yield again looks more normal. Second off let's look at it in a more realistic way that still takes into account your assumptions: **YEAR 1** 1. Instead of assuming buying 35% let's put this into a share amount. Let's say there are 1,000,000 shares so you just bought 350k shares for $700k. You paid a price of $2/share. Let's assume the market decides that's a fair price and it stays that way through the end of year 1. This gives us a market capitalization of $2 million. 2. The dividend paid out at year 1 is $60k so you could calculate on a per share basis which would be a dividend of $60k / 1 million shares or a $0.06 dividend per share. Our stock price is still at $2.00 so our yield comes out to $0.06 / $2.00 or 3.0% **YEAR 2** Assuming no additional shares issued there are still a total of 1 million shares outstanding. You owned 350k and now want to purchase another 50k (5% of outstanding share float). The market price you are able to purchase the 50k shares at has now changed which means that share price is now valued at $1.50 / share. We have a dividend paid out at $100k, which comes out to a dividend per share of $0.10. We have a share value of $1.50 and the $0.10 dividend per share giving us a new yield of 6.66%. **CONCLUSION:** There are many factors that can cause a company's stock price to fluctuate, some of it is hype based but some of it is a result of material changes. In your case the stock went down 25%. In most scenarios where a stock would have that much decline it would likely either not have been paying a dividend in the first place or would maybe not be paying one for much longer. Most companies that pay dividends are larger and more mature companies with a steady, healthy and predictable cash flow. Also most companies that are that size would not trade a stock under $3.00, I know this is just an example but the scenario is definitely a bit extreme in terms of the price drop and dividend increase. Again the yield is just a calculation that depends on the dividend that is usually planned in advance and the stock price that can fluctuate for many reasons. I hope this made everything more clear and let me know if you have any other questions." }, { "docid": "146628", "title": "", "text": "\"I would differentiate between pricing and valuation a bit more: Valuation is the result of investment analysis and the result of coming up with a fair value for a company and its shares; this is done usually by equity analysts. I have never heard about pricing a security in this context. Pricing would indicate that the price of a product or security is \"\"set\"\" by someone (i.e. a car manufacturer sets the prices of its new cars). The price of a security however is not set by an analyst or an institution, it is solely set by the stock market (perhaps based on the valuations of different analysts). There is only one exception to this: pricing an IPO before its shares are actually traded on an exchange. In this case the underwriting banks set the price (based on the valuation) at which the shares are distributed.\"" }, { "docid": "578625", "title": "", "text": "In market cap weighted index there is fairly heavy concentration in the largest stocks. The top 10 stocks typically account for about 20% of the S&P 500 index. In Equal Weight this bias towards large caps is removed. The Market Cap method would be good when large stocks drive the markets. However if the markets are getting driven by Mid Caps and Small caps, the equal weight wins. Historically most big companies start out small and grow big fast in a short span of time. Thus if we were to do Market cap one would have purchased smaller number of shares of the said company as its cap/weight would have been small and when it becomes big we would have purchased the shares at a higher price. However if we were to do equal weight, then as the company grows big one would have more share at a cheaper price and would result in better returns. There is a nice article on this, also gives the comparision of the returns over a period of 10 years, where equal weight index has done good. It does not mean that it would continue. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/08/index-debate.asp#axzz1RRDCnFre" }, { "docid": "200928", "title": "", "text": "Ignoring taxes, a share repurchase has exactly the same effect on the company and the shareholders' wealth as a cash dividend. In either case, the company is disbursing cash to its shareholders; in the former, in exchange for shares which shareholders happen to be selling on the market at the time; in the latter, equally to all shareholders. For those shareholders who do not happen to be selling their shares, a share repurchase by a company is equivalent to a shareholder's reinvestment of a cash dividend in additional shares of the same company. The only difference is the total number of shares left outstanding. Your shares after a share buyback represent ownership of a greater fraction of the company, since in effect the company is buying out other shareholders on your behalf. Theoretically, a share buyback leaves the price of the stock unchanged, whereas a cash dividend tends to reduce the price of the stock by exactly the amount of the dividend, (notwithstanding underlying earnings.) This is because a share buyback concentrates your ownership in the company, but at the same time, the company as a whole is devalued by the exact amount of cash disbursed to buy back shares. Taxwise, a share buyback generally allows you to treat your share of the company's profits as capital gains---and quite possibly defer taxes on it as long as you own the stock. You usually have to pay taxes on dividends at the time they are paid. However, dividends are sometimes seen as instilling discipline in management, because it's a very public and obvious sign of distress for a company to cut its dividend, whereas a share repurchase plan can often be quietly withdrawn without drawing that much attention. A third alternative to a dividend or a share repurchase is for the company to find profitable projects to reinvest its earnings in, and attempt to grow the company as a whole (in the hopes of even greater earnings in the future) rather than distribute current earnings back to shareholders. (A company may alse use its earnings to pay down or repurchase debt, as well.) As to your second question, the SEC has certain rules that regulate the timing and price of share repurchases on the open market." }, { "docid": "384267", "title": "", "text": "Stocks in the Weimar hyperinflation are discussed in When Money Dies. I don't own a copy of the book but here is a link to a blog post about it. Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights Basically, the stock market did very well (i.e. the US dollar value of stocks increased quite a lot. Of course, the price of everything increased if measured in marks.) Quote from the article: Bottom line: In marks, stocks had an amazing run. Even in USD they had a nice runup. It makes sense that the stock market would skyrocket because (a) if money has no value, then people will want to replace money with tangible things like goods, and since a stock represents a share in the factories and things which a company owns, it makes sense that you would want them and (b) if money has no value anyway, why not gamble with it? I would be interested to hear what happened in other hyperinflations." }, { "docid": "78138", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on many factors, but generally, the bid/ask spread will give you an idea. There are typically two ways to buy (or sell) a security: With a limit order, you would place a buy for 100 shares at $30-. Then it's easy, in the worst case you will get your 100 shares at $30 each exactly. You may get lucky and have the price fall, then you will pay less than $30. Of course if the price immediately goes up to say $35, nobody will sell at the $30 you want, so your broker will happily sit on his hands and rake in the commission while waiting on what is now a hail Mary ask. With a market order, you have the problem you mention: The ticker says $30, but say after you buy the first 5 shares at $30 the price shoots up and the rest are $32 each - you have now paid on average $31.9 per share. This could happen because there is a limit order for 5 at $30 and 200 at $32 (you would have filled only part of that 200). You would be able to see these in the order book (sometimes shown as bid/ask spread or market depth). However, the order book is not law. Just because there's an ask for 10k shares at $35 each for your $30 X stock, doesn't mean that by the time the price comes up to $35, the offer will still be up. The guy (or algorithm) who put it up may see the price going up and decide he now wants $40 each for his 10k shares. Also, people aren't obligated to put in their order: Maybe there's a trader who intends to trade a large volume when the price hits a certain level, like a limit order, but he elected to not put in a limit order and instead watch the ticker and react in real time. Then you will see a huge order suddenly come in out of nowhere. So while the order book is informative, what you are asking is actually fundamentally impossible to know fully, unless you can read the minds of every interested trader. As others said, in \"\"normal\"\" securities (meaning traded at a major exchange, especially those in the S&P500) you simply can't move the price, the market is too deep. You would need millions of dollars to budge the price, and if you had that much money, you wouldn't be asking here on a QA site, you would have a professional financial advisor (or even a team) that specializes in distributing your large transaction over a longer time to minimize the effect on the market. With crazier stocks, such as OTC and especially worthless penny stocks with market caps of $1 mil or less, what you say is a real problem (you can end up paying multiples of the last ticker if not careful) and you do have to be careful about it. Which is why you shouldn't trade penny stocks unless you know what you're doing (and if you're asking this question here, you don't).\"" }, { "docid": "262925", "title": "", "text": "\"It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing. For a simple example, consider three resource companies: \"\"Oil Ltd.\"\" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; \"\"Oil and Iron Inc.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and \"\"Iron and Copper Ltd.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying \"\"value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs\"\". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years. In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market. In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple.\"" }, { "docid": "399345", "title": "", "text": "A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't. A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything. The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash. It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low." }, { "docid": "576136", "title": "", "text": "When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble..." } ]

[ { "docid": "12560", "title": "", "text": "Fiduciary They are obligated by the rules of the exchanges they are listed with. Furthermore, there is a strong chance that people running the company also have stock, so it personally benefits them to create higher prices. Finally, maybe they don't care about the prices directly, but by being a good company with a good product or service, they are desirable and that is expressed as a higher stock price. Not every action is because it will raise the stock price, but because it is good for business which happens to make the stock more valuable." } ]

[ { "docid": "384267", "title": "", "text": "Stocks in the Weimar hyperinflation are discussed in When Money Dies. I don't own a copy of the book but here is a link to a blog post about it. Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights Basically, the stock market did very well (i.e. the US dollar value of stocks increased quite a lot. Of course, the price of everything increased if measured in marks.) Quote from the article: Bottom line: In marks, stocks had an amazing run. Even in USD they had a nice runup. It makes sense that the stock market would skyrocket because (a) if money has no value, then people will want to replace money with tangible things like goods, and since a stock represents a share in the factories and things which a company owns, it makes sense that you would want them and (b) if money has no value anyway, why not gamble with it? I would be interested to hear what happened in other hyperinflations." }, { "docid": "186849", "title": "", "text": "Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important." }, { "docid": "306782", "title": "", "text": "\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"" }, { "docid": "339854", "title": "", "text": "Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability." }, { "docid": "106740", "title": "", "text": "\"TL;DR; There is no silver bullet. You have to decide how much to invest and when on your own. Averaging down definition: DEFINITION of 'Average Down' The process of buying additional shares in a company at lower prices than you originally purchased. This brings the average price you've paid for all your shares down. BREAKING DOWN 'Average Down' Sometimes this is a good strategy, other times it's better to sell off a beaten down stock rather than buying more shares. So let us tackle your questions: At what percentage drop of the stock price should I buy more shares. (Ex: should I wait for the price to fall by 5% or 10% to buy more.) It depends on the behaviour of the security and the issuer. Is it near its historical minimum? How healthy is the issuer? There is no set percentage. You can maximize your gains or your losses if the security does not rebound. Investopedia: The strategy is often favored by investors who have a long-term investment horizon and a contrarian approach to investing. A contrarian approach refers to a style of investing that is against, or contrary, to the prevailing investment trend. (...) On the other side of the coin are the investors and traders who generally have shorter-term investment horizons and view a stock decline as a portent of things to come. These investors are also likely to espouse trading in the direction of the prevailing trend, rather than against it. They may view buying into a stock decline as akin to trying to \"\"catch a falling knife.\"\" Your second question: How many additional shares should I buy. (Ex: Initially I bought 10 shares, should I buy 5,10 or 20.) That depends on your portfolio allocation before and after averaging down and your investor profile (risk apettite). Take care when putting more money on a falling security, if your portfolio allocation shifts too much. That may expose you to risks you shouldn't be taking. You are assuming a risk for example, if the market bears down like 2008: Averaging down or doubling up works well when the stock eventually rebounds because it has the effect of magnifying gains, but if the stock continues to decline, losses are also magnified. In such cases, the investor may rue the decision to average down rather than either exiting the position or failing to add to the initial holding. One of the pitfalls of averaging down is when the security does not rebound, and you become too attached to be able to cut your losses and move on. Also if you are bullish on a position, be careful not to slip the I down and add a T on said position. Invest with your head, not your heart.\"" }, { "docid": "54257", "title": "", "text": "\"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your \"\"aye\"\" or \"\"nay\"\" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share). We can say, however, that a fall to \"\"effectively zero\"\" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded \"\"over the counter\"\" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough).\"" }, { "docid": "139094", "title": "", "text": "\"They are similar in the sense that they are transferring money from the company to shareholders, but that's about it. There is different tax treatment, yes, but that's because they are fundamentally different. Dividends transfer money equally to all shareholders, but that also reduces the value of each share by the same amount, since it's cash out the door, which drops the value of the company. Shareholders are taxed on dividends at the capital gains tax rate. A buyback returns the cash to shareholders who decide to sell. Other shareholders get a secondary benefit of now owning a slightly larger portion of the company since there are fewer shares outstanding. Shareholders only pay tax if they sell shares for a gain. It that means when company buyback their stock, the stock price will definitely go up? Not necessarily. It depends on the price that the company buys back the shares for and what the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of that cash is - meaning what else could the company have done with the cash that would have been better? Buybacks often happen in mature companies with undervalued stock prices and fewer opportunities for further investment. If a company has an intrinsic value of $10 a share but its stock is trading at $8 a share, then it can instantly get a 25% \"\"return\"\" by buying back stock. I use the term \"\"return\"\" loosely since the company does not actually profit from the buyback, but from the shareholder's perspective the company is worth more per share.\"" }, { "docid": "25195", "title": "", "text": "\"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down). If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not \"\"stealing\"\", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it.\"" }, { "docid": "501153", "title": "", "text": "\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"" }, { "docid": "586984", "title": "", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions." }, { "docid": "235391", "title": "", "text": "\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "554996", "title": "", "text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"" }, { "docid": "25817", "title": "", "text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"" }, { "docid": "583708", "title": "", "text": "It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for? The only way to (on average) make good buy and sell decisions is to know about investing and trading (buy some books, I have 12), understand the businesses you propose to invest in and understand their market(s) (which may also mean understanding national and international economics somewhat)." }, { "docid": "234040", "title": "", "text": "\"Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it \"\"should\"\": A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months. This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share). Only then would the stock be worth buying? Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market. Why? Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars). Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted. The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)\"" }, { "docid": "287227", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you have to go back to [this HBR article](https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity) to really understand: TLDR: Buybacks boost CEO pay and hurt the long term value of companies. But I'm not convinced that they're \"\"the root of inequality\"\" \"\"Consider the 449 companies in the S&amp;P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012. During that period those companies used 54% of their earnings—a total of $2.4 trillion—to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of their earnings. That left very little for investments in productive capabilities or higher incomes for employees.\"\" \"\"Why are such massive resources being devoted to stock repurchases? Corporate executives give several reasons, which I will discuss later. But none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay, and in the short term buybacks drive up stock prices. \"\" \"\"Trillions of dollars that could have been spent on innovation and job creation in the U.S. economy over the past three decades have instead been used to buy back shares for what is effectively stock-price manipulation.\"\" \"\" Most are now done on the open market, and my research shows that they often come at the expense of investment in productive capabilities and, consequently, aren’t great for long-term shareholders.\"\" \"\"Research by the Academic-Industry Research Network, a nonprofit I cofounded and lead, shows that companies that do buybacks never resell the shares at higher prices.\"\" \"\"Many academics have warned that if U.S. companies don’t start investing much more in research and manufacturing capabilities, they cannot expect to remain competitive in a range of advanced technology industries. \"\" Specific examples: \"\"Pharmaceutical drugs. In response to complaints that U.S. drug prices are at least twice those in any other country, Pfizer and other U.S. pharmaceutical companies have argued that the profits from these high prices—enabled by a generous intellectual-property regime and lax price regulation—permit more R&amp;D to be done in the United States than elsewhere. Yet from 2003 through 2012, Pfizer funneled an amount equal to 71% of its profits into buybacks, and an amount equal to 75% of its profits into dividends. In other words, it spent more on buybacks and dividends than it earned and tapped its capital reserves to help fund them. The reality is, Americans pay high drug prices so that major pharmaceutical companies can boost their stock prices and pad executive pay.\"\" \"\"Nanotechnology. Intel executives have long lobbied the U.S. government to increase spending on nanotechnology research. In 2005, Intel’s then-CEO, Craig R. Barrett, argued that “it will take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia, industry, and state and federal governments to ensure that America continues to be the world leader in information technology.” Yet from 2001, when the U.S. government launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), through 2013 Intel’s expenditures on buybacks were almost four times the total NNI budget.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "427859", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"" }, { "docid": "301547", "title": "", "text": "\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"" }, { "docid": "578625", "title": "", "text": "In market cap weighted index there is fairly heavy concentration in the largest stocks. The top 10 stocks typically account for about 20% of the S&P 500 index. In Equal Weight this bias towards large caps is removed. The Market Cap method would be good when large stocks drive the markets. However if the markets are getting driven by Mid Caps and Small caps, the equal weight wins. Historically most big companies start out small and grow big fast in a short span of time. Thus if we were to do Market cap one would have purchased smaller number of shares of the said company as its cap/weight would have been small and when it becomes big we would have purchased the shares at a higher price. However if we were to do equal weight, then as the company grows big one would have more share at a cheaper price and would result in better returns. There is a nice article on this, also gives the comparision of the returns over a period of 10 years, where equal weight index has done good. It does not mean that it would continue. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/08/index-debate.asp#axzz1RRDCnFre" } ]

[ { "docid": "534870", "title": "", "text": "Why do companies exist? Well, the corporate charter describes why the company exists. Usually the purpose is to enrich the shareholders. The owners of a company want to make money, in other words. There are a number of ways that a shareholder can make money off a stock: As such, maintaining the stock price and dividend payouts are generally the number one concern for any company in the long term. Most of the company's business is going to be directed towards making the company more valuable for a future buyout, or more valuable in terms of what it can pay its shareholders directly. Note that the company doesn't always need to be worried about the specifics of the day-to-day moves of the stock. If it keeps the finances in line - solid profits, margins, earnings growth and the like - and can credibly tell people that it's generally a valuable business, it can usually shrug off any medium-term blips as market craziness. Some companies are more explicitly long-term about things than others (e.g. Berkshire Hathaway basically tells people that it doesn't care all that much about what happens in the short term). Of course, companies are abstractions, and they're run by people. To make the people running the company worry about the stock price, you give them stock. Or stock options, or something like that. A major executive at a big company is likely to have a significant amount of stock. If the company does well, he does well; if it does poorly, he does poorly. Despite a few limitations, this is really a powerful incentive. If a company is losing a lot of money, or if its profits are falling so it's just losing a lot of its value as a business, the owners (stockholders) tend to get upset, and may vote in new management, or launch some sort of shareholder lawsuit. And, as previously noted, to raise funds, a company can also issue new shares to the market as a secondary offering as well (and they can issue fewer shares if the price is high - meaning that whatever the company is worth afterward, the existing owners own proportionally more of it)." } ]

[ { "docid": "200928", "title": "", "text": "Ignoring taxes, a share repurchase has exactly the same effect on the company and the shareholders' wealth as a cash dividend. In either case, the company is disbursing cash to its shareholders; in the former, in exchange for shares which shareholders happen to be selling on the market at the time; in the latter, equally to all shareholders. For those shareholders who do not happen to be selling their shares, a share repurchase by a company is equivalent to a shareholder's reinvestment of a cash dividend in additional shares of the same company. The only difference is the total number of shares left outstanding. Your shares after a share buyback represent ownership of a greater fraction of the company, since in effect the company is buying out other shareholders on your behalf. Theoretically, a share buyback leaves the price of the stock unchanged, whereas a cash dividend tends to reduce the price of the stock by exactly the amount of the dividend, (notwithstanding underlying earnings.) This is because a share buyback concentrates your ownership in the company, but at the same time, the company as a whole is devalued by the exact amount of cash disbursed to buy back shares. Taxwise, a share buyback generally allows you to treat your share of the company's profits as capital gains---and quite possibly defer taxes on it as long as you own the stock. You usually have to pay taxes on dividends at the time they are paid. However, dividends are sometimes seen as instilling discipline in management, because it's a very public and obvious sign of distress for a company to cut its dividend, whereas a share repurchase plan can often be quietly withdrawn without drawing that much attention. A third alternative to a dividend or a share repurchase is for the company to find profitable projects to reinvest its earnings in, and attempt to grow the company as a whole (in the hopes of even greater earnings in the future) rather than distribute current earnings back to shareholders. (A company may alse use its earnings to pay down or repurchase debt, as well.) As to your second question, the SEC has certain rules that regulate the timing and price of share repurchases on the open market." }, { "docid": "235391", "title": "", "text": "\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "167322", "title": "", "text": "\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"" }, { "docid": "262925", "title": "", "text": "\"It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing. For a simple example, consider three resource companies: \"\"Oil Ltd.\"\" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; \"\"Oil and Iron Inc.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and \"\"Iron and Copper Ltd.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying \"\"value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs\"\". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years. In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market. In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple.\"" }, { "docid": "407505", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"" }, { "docid": "226063", "title": "", "text": "\"The share price on its own has little relevance without looking at variations. In your case, if the stock went from 2.80 to 0.33, you should care only about the 88% drop in value, not what it means in pre-split dollar values. You are correct that you can \"\"un-split\"\" to give you an idea of what would have been the dollar value but that should not give you any more information than the variation of 88% would. As for your title question, you should read the chart as if no split occurred as for most intents and purposes it should not affect stock price other than the obvious split.\"" }, { "docid": "435023", "title": "", "text": "It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case. Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question. A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized. By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth. Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets." }, { "docid": "499154", "title": "", "text": "\"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price. However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock. That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock. If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, \"\"Friends and Family\"\" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (\"\"fixed price method\"\"), or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data compiled by the bookrunner (\"\"book building\"\"). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of \"\"initial underpricing\"\" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO \"\"mania\"\" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (\"\"syndicate\"\") arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that \"\"theglobe.com\"\" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially.\"" }, { "docid": "450184", "title": "", "text": "\"Depends. The short answer is yes; HSBC, for instance, based in New York, is listed on both the LSE and NYSE. Toyota's listed on the TSE and NYSE. There are many ways to do this; both of the above examples are the result of a corporation owning a subsidiary in a foreign country by the same name (a holding company), which sells its own stock on the local market. The home corporation owns the majority holdings of the subsidiary, and issues its own stock on its \"\"home country's\"\" exchange. It is also possible for the same company to list shares of the same \"\"pool\"\" of stock on two different exchanges (the foreign exchange usually lists the stock in the corporation's home currency and the share prices are near-identical), or for a company to sell different portions of itself on different exchanges. However, these are much rarer; for tax liability and other cost purposes it's usually easier to keep American monies in America and Japanese monies in Japan by setting up two \"\"copies\"\" of yourself with one owning the other, and move money around between companies as necessary. Shares of one issue of one company's stock, on one exchange, are the same price regardless of where in the world you place a buy order from. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll pay the same actual value of currency for the stock. First off, you buy the stock in the listed currency, which means buying dollars (or Yen or Euros or GBP) with both a fluctuating exchange rate between currencies and a broker's fee (one of those cost savings that make it a good idea to charter subsidiaries; could you imagine millions a day in car sales moving from American dealers to Toyota of Japan, converted from USD to Yen, with a FOREX commission to be paid?). Second, you'll pay the stock broker a commission, and he may charge different rates for different exchanges that are cheaper or more costly for him to do business in (he might need a trader on the floor at each exchange or contract with a foreign broker for a cut of the commission).\"" }, { "docid": "1034", "title": "", "text": "\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \"\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\"\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \"\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\"\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\"" }, { "docid": "501153", "title": "", "text": "\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"" }, { "docid": "533712", "title": "", "text": "Not directly Nintendo, but: A company would want its share price to be high if it wants to sell its stock, e.g. on IPO or on subsequent offerings. However, if they want to buy back some shares, it would be in their interest to get more stock for the buck. There may of course be derivative values associated with a high share price, e.g. if they bet on the price or have agreements with investors for particular milestones to be reached. Employees might hold shares and be motivated by share price increases, so a decrease may not be desired, unless they are into some kind of insider trading (buy low, sell high). And last, over-valued share prices may undermine trust in a company, and failing to inform shareholders sufficiently may be outright illegal. Besides those reasons related to law, funding, sales, public relations and company image, companies should be pretty much independent from their own share prices, in contrast to share distribution." }, { "docid": "428315", "title": "", "text": "Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all." }, { "docid": "525390", "title": "", "text": "\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \"\"call\"\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \"\"call options\"\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\"" }, { "docid": "542764", "title": "", "text": "\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\"" }, { "docid": "319568", "title": "", "text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"" }, { "docid": "105343", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "139094", "title": "", "text": "\"They are similar in the sense that they are transferring money from the company to shareholders, but that's about it. There is different tax treatment, yes, but that's because they are fundamentally different. Dividends transfer money equally to all shareholders, but that also reduces the value of each share by the same amount, since it's cash out the door, which drops the value of the company. Shareholders are taxed on dividends at the capital gains tax rate. A buyback returns the cash to shareholders who decide to sell. Other shareholders get a secondary benefit of now owning a slightly larger portion of the company since there are fewer shares outstanding. Shareholders only pay tax if they sell shares for a gain. It that means when company buyback their stock, the stock price will definitely go up? Not necessarily. It depends on the price that the company buys back the shares for and what the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of that cash is - meaning what else could the company have done with the cash that would have been better? Buybacks often happen in mature companies with undervalued stock prices and fewer opportunities for further investment. If a company has an intrinsic value of $10 a share but its stock is trading at $8 a share, then it can instantly get a 25% \"\"return\"\" by buying back stock. I use the term \"\"return\"\" loosely since the company does not actually profit from the buyback, but from the shareholder's perspective the company is worth more per share.\"" }, { "docid": "245867", "title": "", "text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees." } ]

[ { "docid": "565453", "title": "", "text": "The fact you are asking this question, the number of up votes, uncovers the real cause of the banking crisis. Answers which mention that shareholders will fire a public company board are on the bottom. It is obvious that a company owners are interested in company value. And should have direct and easy impact on a directors board if management doesn't increase shareholders wealth. With large number of passive shareholders and current stock market system that impact is very limited. Hence your question. So bank directors, upper management aren't that interested in company value. They are mostly interested in theirs bonuses, their wealth increase, not shareholders. And that's the real problem of capitalism. Public companies slowly drift to function like companies in former socialistic countries. These is no owner, everything is owned by a nation." } ]

[ { "docid": "139094", "title": "", "text": "\"They are similar in the sense that they are transferring money from the company to shareholders, but that's about it. There is different tax treatment, yes, but that's because they are fundamentally different. Dividends transfer money equally to all shareholders, but that also reduces the value of each share by the same amount, since it's cash out the door, which drops the value of the company. Shareholders are taxed on dividends at the capital gains tax rate. A buyback returns the cash to shareholders who decide to sell. Other shareholders get a secondary benefit of now owning a slightly larger portion of the company since there are fewer shares outstanding. Shareholders only pay tax if they sell shares for a gain. It that means when company buyback their stock, the stock price will definitely go up? Not necessarily. It depends on the price that the company buys back the shares for and what the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of that cash is - meaning what else could the company have done with the cash that would have been better? Buybacks often happen in mature companies with undervalued stock prices and fewer opportunities for further investment. If a company has an intrinsic value of $10 a share but its stock is trading at $8 a share, then it can instantly get a 25% \"\"return\"\" by buying back stock. I use the term \"\"return\"\" loosely since the company does not actually profit from the buyback, but from the shareholder's perspective the company is worth more per share.\"" }, { "docid": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" }, { "docid": "200928", "title": "", "text": "Ignoring taxes, a share repurchase has exactly the same effect on the company and the shareholders' wealth as a cash dividend. In either case, the company is disbursing cash to its shareholders; in the former, in exchange for shares which shareholders happen to be selling on the market at the time; in the latter, equally to all shareholders. For those shareholders who do not happen to be selling their shares, a share repurchase by a company is equivalent to a shareholder's reinvestment of a cash dividend in additional shares of the same company. The only difference is the total number of shares left outstanding. Your shares after a share buyback represent ownership of a greater fraction of the company, since in effect the company is buying out other shareholders on your behalf. Theoretically, a share buyback leaves the price of the stock unchanged, whereas a cash dividend tends to reduce the price of the stock by exactly the amount of the dividend, (notwithstanding underlying earnings.) This is because a share buyback concentrates your ownership in the company, but at the same time, the company as a whole is devalued by the exact amount of cash disbursed to buy back shares. Taxwise, a share buyback generally allows you to treat your share of the company's profits as capital gains---and quite possibly defer taxes on it as long as you own the stock. You usually have to pay taxes on dividends at the time they are paid. However, dividends are sometimes seen as instilling discipline in management, because it's a very public and obvious sign of distress for a company to cut its dividend, whereas a share repurchase plan can often be quietly withdrawn without drawing that much attention. A third alternative to a dividend or a share repurchase is for the company to find profitable projects to reinvest its earnings in, and attempt to grow the company as a whole (in the hopes of even greater earnings in the future) rather than distribute current earnings back to shareholders. (A company may alse use its earnings to pay down or repurchase debt, as well.) As to your second question, the SEC has certain rules that regulate the timing and price of share repurchases on the open market." }, { "docid": "27416", "title": "", "text": "\"For the first and last questions, I can do this multiple ways. For the middle question, I'll just make up values. If you want different ones, you will have to redo the math. I am going to assume that you participate in the merger exchange, swapping your share for their offer. If you own one share, it depends how they handle fractional shares. Your original one share of ABC can be worth either one share of XYZ or 1.05 shares of XYZ. If you get one share, you typically get an additional $.80 cash to make up for the fractional share. You might ask why you don't just get $20 cash and one share of XYZ. Consider the case where you own twenty shares of ABC. Then you'd own twenty-one shares of XYZ and $384. No need for fractional shares. Beyond all this though, the share value of XYZ is not set autocratically. The shares might be worth $16, $40, or $2 after the merger. If both stocks are perfectly valued and the market is aware of that value, then it will depend partially on the number of shares of each. For example, if we assume there are 10,000 shares of ABC and 50,000 shares of XYZ (including the shares paid for ABC), then their initial market values are $320,000 for ABC and $800,000 for XYZ. XYZ is paying $360,000, so its value drops to $440,000. But it is gaining ABC, which is worth $320,000. Net value now is $760,000 or $15.20 per share. This has assumed that the shares transferred from XYZ to the shareholders of ABC were already included in the market value. This may mean that the stock price was previously $20 or so with almost 40,000 shares in circulation. Then they issued new shares, diluting the value down to $16. We could start at 50,000 shares at $16 and end up with 60,000 to 60,050 shares at $13.332 to $13.333 per share. Then XYZ is really only paying $326,658.31 for ABC. That's a premium of only $6,658.31 for ABC and gives a final stock value of $13.222 per share. The problem though is that in reality, there is no equivalent of perfect value. So I say again that the market value might be $15.20 (the theoretic answer that best fits the question given the example quantities of shares), $13, $20, or something else. It will depend on how the market perceives the deal. Is the combined company worth more or less than the sum of its parts? And beyond this, you will have $19.20 to $20 in cash in addition to your XYZ share (or 1.05 shares). Assuming 1.05 shares, that would be $15.96 plus the $19.20--that's $35.16 total in theory or anything from $19.20 up in practice. With the givens, the only thing of which you can be sure is the $19.20 cash. The value of the stock is up in the air. If XYZ is only privately traded, this is still true. The stock is worth the price that someone will pay for it. The \"\"someone\"\" is just more limited with privately traded stocks.\"" }, { "docid": "501153", "title": "", "text": "\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"" }, { "docid": "499154", "title": "", "text": "\"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price. However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock. That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock. If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, \"\"Friends and Family\"\" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (\"\"fixed price method\"\"), or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data compiled by the bookrunner (\"\"book building\"\"). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of \"\"initial underpricing\"\" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO \"\"mania\"\" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (\"\"syndicate\"\") arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that \"\"theglobe.com\"\" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially.\"" }, { "docid": "227284", "title": "", "text": "Are you really talking about share price, or share value? Because what about stock splits? Market Cap stays the same, but the price per share is lowered. This is so that the stock is more liquid and accessible to a greater number of investors. This encourages people to invest in the stock though. I can't really think of any reasons why a company would want to lower their share value or discourage people from investing unless they are trying to reacquire shares. Returning value to the shareholders is the #1 priority of any publicly traded company." }, { "docid": "431814", "title": "", "text": "If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight: Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)" }, { "docid": "200054", "title": "", "text": "When you sell the stock your income is from the difference of prices between when you bought the stock and when you sold it. There's no interest there. The interest is in two places: the underlying company assets (which you own, whether you want it or not), and in the distribution of the income to the owners (the dividends). You can calculate which portion of the interest income constitutes your dividend by allocating the portions of your dividend in the proportions of the company income. That would (very roughly and unreliably, of course) give you an estimate what portion of your dividend income derives from the interest. Underlying assets include all the profits of the company that haven't been distributed through dividends, but rather reinvested back into the business. These may or may not be reflected in the market price of the company. Bottom line is that there's no direct correlation between the income from the sale of the stake of ownership and the company income from interest, if any correlation at all exists. Why would you care about interest income of Salesforce? Its not a bank or a lender, they may have some interest income, but that's definitely not the main income source of the company. If you want to know how much interest income exactly the company had, you'll have to dig deep inside the quarterly and annual reports, and even then I'm not sure if you'll find it as a separate item for a company that's not in the lending business." }, { "docid": "121313", "title": "", "text": "Monsanto is a publicly traded company that trades under the ticker MON. The stock is owned by a wide range of owner around the world. The buyout offer from Bayer is an all cash offer. Bayer will buy all shares of MON at about $128/share. So if I owned 100 shares of MON, I would receive $12,800 or so for my shares. The deal has not yet been approved by regulators, which is why the stock price is hovering around $104/share today." }, { "docid": "148270", "title": "", "text": "The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself." }, { "docid": "421039", "title": "", "text": "Unissued capital is only a token restriction. When a company is incorporated a maximum number of shares is specified in the legal documentation. Most companies will make this an extremely large number so they never face that limitation. See here. You wouldn't necessarily expect the stock price to change. The reason a company issues new stock is as a way to raise capital. Although new stock is issued, the cash raised by the sale becomes an Asset on the company's balance sheet. There's a good worked example in this Wikipedia article. Following a rights issue the Liabilities of the company will increase to account for the increase in owner's equity, but the Assets will also increase by the same amount with the cash received. Whether the stock price changes will depend upon what price the stock is issued at and on the market's opinions about the company's growth potential now it has new capital to invest. If the new stock is issued at the same price as the current market price, there's no particular reason to expect the share price to change. Again Wikipedia has more detail. When new stock is issued it is usually offered to existing shareholders first, in proportion to their current holding. If the shareholder decides to purchase the new stock in full then their position won't be diluted. If they opt not to buy the new stock, they will now own a smaller percentage of the company as their stocks will make up a smaller part of the now larger number of shares." }, { "docid": "427859", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"" }, { "docid": "521635", "title": "", "text": "I was doing some thinking about this a while back, and it makes absolute perfect sense for Amazon to buy UPS with issued shares. First off, Amazon's stock is overpriced in every form of the word, which means using issued stocks to buy things is the best way to abuse the current situation. It gives even more validity to their share price. Some examples... If lets say Amazon issued 1 extra share for every existing share, it would give them 235 billion of purchasing power. If they used this to buy 235 billion worth of utility companies, the stock price cannot really go down below 235 billion in market cap, because they own 235 billion in real, valuable companies. So if a completely worthless company like the South Seas Company issued stock to buy real businesses, they could make validity to their absurd price. If the South Seas Company had a market cap of 500 billion at their high, and issued 1 share per existing share, and bought 250 billion dollars of businesses and assets, they suddenly became a real company and cannot really go under a market cap of 250 billion. Too bad they didn't, and the company went under almost instantly once the scam was found out. By buying UPS, they gain the company at a discount of the discrepancy of Amazon's price and intrinsic value. But the biggest reason to merge with UPS is for their current customers. So with deliveries, Amazon would have to spend the same amount on their route as UPS. They still have to hire a driver for 8 hours a day, they still have to pay for the same amount of gas, and they stop at more or less the same amount. So your expenses are fixed. Any extra package that Amazon would deliver that they wouldn't before, is almost pure profit. The expenses don't change if the truck is 3/4 full, or full. Which means that all of UPS's business would become almost pure profit. They need to buy UPS or Fedex, making a new service is a huge mistake. It's probably just a bargaining chip in negotiation because of these reasons. Also a side note, Amazon should also buy a huge railroad. They have a part in every inch of this country, and to buy its own method of transportation to transport boxes, which is more fuel and time efficient than trucks makes sense. They would also be able to design a lighter weight train designed to just carry boxes. Sending one truck to a warehouse is much more costly than just attaching a light weight train car heading to that warehouse anyways. Just my two cents if I were CEO of Amazon." }, { "docid": "105343", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "249320", "title": "", "text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time." }, { "docid": "327127", "title": "", "text": "\"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or \"\"passive market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at \"\"control market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a \"\"control premium.\"\" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an \"\"opinion letter\"\") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation.\"" }, { "docid": "306782", "title": "", "text": "\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"" }, { "docid": "339854", "title": "", "text": "Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability." } ]

[ { "docid": "57286", "title": "", "text": "The most significant reason is that if the board of directors of a company neglects the stock value, the stockholders will vote them out of their jobs." } ]

[ { "docid": "141141", "title": "", "text": "\"Something to note is that when a company announces a share buyback program there is usually a time frame and amount of shares that are important details as it isn't like the company will make one big buy back of stock generally. Rather it may take months or even years as noted in the Wikipedia article about share repurchases. Wikipedia covers some of the technical details here but to give a specific set of answers: When a company announces a share buyback program, who do they actually buy back the shares from? From the Wikipedia link: \"\"Under US corporate law there are five primary methods of stock repurchase: open market, private negotiations, repurchase 'put' rights, and two variants of self-tender repurchase: a fixed price tender offer and a Dutch auction.\"\" Thus, there are open market and a couple of other possibilities. Openly traded shares on a stock exchange? Possibly, though there are other options. Is there a fixed price that they buy back at? Sometimes. I'd think a \"\"fixed price tender offer\"\" would imply a fixed price though the open market way may take various prices. If I own shares in that company, can I get them to buy back my shares? Selective Buy-Backs is noted in Wikipedia as: \"\"In broad terms, a selective buy-back is one in which identical offers are not made to every shareholder, for example, if offers are made to only some of the shareholders in the company. In the US, no special shareholder approval of a selective buy-back is required. In the UK, the scheme must first be approved by all shareholders, or by a special resolution (requiring a 75% majority) of the members in which no vote is cast by selling shareholders or their associates. Selling shareholders may not vote in favor of a special resolution to approve a selective buy-back. The notice to shareholders convening the meeting to vote on a selective buy-back must include a statement setting out all material information that is relevant to the proposal, although it is not necessary for the company to provide information already disclosed to the shareholders, if that would be unreasonable.\"\" Thus it is possible, though how probable is another question. While not in the question, something to consider is how the buybacks can be done as a result of offsetting the dilution of employees who have stock options that may exercise them and spread the earnings over more shares, but this is more on understanding the employee stock option scenario that various big companies use when it comes to giving employees an incentive to help the stock price.\"" }, { "docid": "121313", "title": "", "text": "Monsanto is a publicly traded company that trades under the ticker MON. The stock is owned by a wide range of owner around the world. The buyout offer from Bayer is an all cash offer. Bayer will buy all shares of MON at about $128/share. So if I owned 100 shares of MON, I would receive $12,800 or so for my shares. The deal has not yet been approved by regulators, which is why the stock price is hovering around $104/share today." }, { "docid": "573077", "title": "", "text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"" }, { "docid": "58009", "title": "", "text": "\"Stock price is determined by the buyers and sellers, correct? Correct! \"\"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it\"\"-Publius Syrus What causes people to buy or sell? Is it news? earnings? stock analysis and techniques? All of these things influence investors' perception of how much a stock is worth. If AMZN makes a lot of money one quarter, then the price might go up. But maybe public perception of AMZN changes because of a large scandal. This could cause the share price to decline even with the favorable earnings report. Why do these 'good' or 'bad' news make people want to buy/sell a stock? People invest to make money. If it looks like a company is going to take a turn for the worst, people will sell. If it looks like the company has a bright, cash-laden future in front of them, people will buy. News is one of the many factors people use to determine how well a company will do. Theoretically could a bunch of people short AMZN and drive down the price regardless of how well it is doing? Say investors wanted to boycott AMZN in order to drive down the cost and get some cheap shares. This is pretty silly, but say for the sake of the argument that everyone who owned AMZN decided to sell their shares and no other investor was willing to buy the shares for less than $0.01, then AMZN shares would be \"\"worth\"\" $0.01 in that aspect. That is extremely unlikely to happen, though, for two reasons:\"" }, { "docid": "167322", "title": "", "text": "\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"" }, { "docid": "78138", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on many factors, but generally, the bid/ask spread will give you an idea. There are typically two ways to buy (or sell) a security: With a limit order, you would place a buy for 100 shares at $30-. Then it's easy, in the worst case you will get your 100 shares at $30 each exactly. You may get lucky and have the price fall, then you will pay less than $30. Of course if the price immediately goes up to say $35, nobody will sell at the $30 you want, so your broker will happily sit on his hands and rake in the commission while waiting on what is now a hail Mary ask. With a market order, you have the problem you mention: The ticker says $30, but say after you buy the first 5 shares at $30 the price shoots up and the rest are $32 each - you have now paid on average $31.9 per share. This could happen because there is a limit order for 5 at $30 and 200 at $32 (you would have filled only part of that 200). You would be able to see these in the order book (sometimes shown as bid/ask spread or market depth). However, the order book is not law. Just because there's an ask for 10k shares at $35 each for your $30 X stock, doesn't mean that by the time the price comes up to $35, the offer will still be up. The guy (or algorithm) who put it up may see the price going up and decide he now wants $40 each for his 10k shares. Also, people aren't obligated to put in their order: Maybe there's a trader who intends to trade a large volume when the price hits a certain level, like a limit order, but he elected to not put in a limit order and instead watch the ticker and react in real time. Then you will see a huge order suddenly come in out of nowhere. So while the order book is informative, what you are asking is actually fundamentally impossible to know fully, unless you can read the minds of every interested trader. As others said, in \"\"normal\"\" securities (meaning traded at a major exchange, especially those in the S&P500) you simply can't move the price, the market is too deep. You would need millions of dollars to budge the price, and if you had that much money, you wouldn't be asking here on a QA site, you would have a professional financial advisor (or even a team) that specializes in distributing your large transaction over a longer time to minimize the effect on the market. With crazier stocks, such as OTC and especially worthless penny stocks with market caps of $1 mil or less, what you say is a real problem (you can end up paying multiples of the last ticker if not careful) and you do have to be careful about it. Which is why you shouldn't trade penny stocks unless you know what you're doing (and if you're asking this question here, you don't).\"" }, { "docid": "327127", "title": "", "text": "\"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or \"\"passive market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at \"\"control market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a \"\"control premium.\"\" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an \"\"opinion letter\"\") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation.\"" }, { "docid": "245867", "title": "", "text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees." }, { "docid": "428315", "title": "", "text": "Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all." }, { "docid": "25817", "title": "", "text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"" }, { "docid": "319568", "title": "", "text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"" }, { "docid": "209754", "title": "", "text": "\"The value of a stock ultimately is related to the valuation of a corporation. As part of the valuation, you can estimate the cash flows (discounted to present time) of the expected cash flows from owning a share. This stock value is the so-called \"\"fundamental\"\" value of a stock. What you are really asking is, how is the stock's market price and the fundamental value related? And by asking this, you have implicitly assumed they are not the same. The reason that the fundamental value and market price can diverge is that simply, most shareholders will not continue holding the stock for the lifespan of a company (indeed some companies have been around for centuries). This means that without dividends or buybacks or liquidations or mergers/acquisitions, a typical shareholder cannot reasonably expect to recoup their share of the company's equity. In this case, the chief price driver is the aggregate expectation of buyers and sellers in the marketplace, not fundamental evaluation of the company's balance sheet. Now obviously some expectations are based on fundamentals and expert opinions can differ, but even when all the experts agree roughly on the numbers, it may be that the market price is quite a ways away from their estimates. An interesting example is given in this survey of behavioral finance. It concerns Palm, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 3Com. When Palm went public, its shares went for such a high price, they were significantly higher than 3Com's shares. This mispricing persisted for several weeks. Note that this facet of pricing is often given short shrift in standard explanations of the stock market. It seems despite decades of academic research (and Nobel prizes being handed out to behavioral economists), the knowledge has been slow to trickle down to laymen, although any observant person will realize something is amiss with the standard explanations. For example, before 2012, the last time Apple paid out dividends was 1995. Are we really to believe that people were pumping up Apple's stock price from 1995 to 2012 because they were waiting for dividends, or hoping for a merger or liquidation? It doesn't seem plausible to me, especially since after Apple announced dividends that year, Apple stock ended up taking a deep dive, despite Wall Street analysts stating the company was doing better than ever. That the stock price reflects expectations of the future cash flows from the stock is a thinly-disguised form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and there's a lot of evidence contrary to the EMH (see references in the previously-linked survey). If you believe what happened in Apple's case was just a rational re-evaluation of Apple stock, then I think you must be a hard-core EMH advocate. Basically (and this is elaborated at length in the survey above), fundamentals and market pricing can become decoupled. This is because there are frictions in the marketplace making it difficult for people to take advantage of the mispricing. In some cases, this can go on for extended periods of time, possibly even years. Part of the friction is caused by strong beliefs by market participants which can often shift pressure to supply or demand. Two popular sayings on Wall Street are, \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right. You have to be right at the right time.\"\" and \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right, if the market disagrees with you.\"\" They suggest that you can make the right decision with where to put your money, but being \"\"right\"\" isn't what drives prices. The market does what it does, and it's subject to the whims of its participants.\"" }, { "docid": "235391", "title": "", "text": "\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "535605", "title": "", "text": "You have a lot of different questions in your post - I am only responding to the request for how to value the ESPP. When valuing an ESPP, don't think about what you might sell the shares for in the future, think about what the market would charge you for that option today. In general, an option is worth much less than the underlying share itself. For the simplest example, assume you work at a public company, and your exercise price for your options is $.30, and you can only exercise those options until the end of today, and the cost of the shares on the public stock exchange is also $.30. You have the same 'strike price' as everyone else in the market, making your option worth nothing. In truth, holding that right to a specific strike price into the future does give you value, because it means you can realize the upside in share price gains, without risking any money on share losses. So, how do you value the options? If it's a public company with an active options market, you can easily compare your $.30 strike price with the value of call options in the market that have a $.30 strike price. That becomes the value to you of the option (caveat: it is unlikely you can find an exact match for the terms of your vesting period, but you should be able to find a good starting point). If it's a public company without an active options market, you will have to do a bit of estimation. If a current share is worth $.25 (so, close to your strike price), then your option is worth a little bit, but not much. Compare other shares in your industry / company size to get examples of the relative value between an option and a share. If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt." }, { "docid": "135216", "title": "", "text": "\"The market capitalization of a stock is the number of shares outstanding (of each stock class), times the price of last trade (of each stock class). In a liquid market (where there are lots of buyers and sellers at all price points), this represents the price that is between what people are bidding for the stock and what people are asking for the stock. If you offer any small amount more than the last price, there will be a seller, and if you ask any small amount less than the last price, there will be a buyer, at least for a small amount of stock. Thus, in a liquid market, everyone who owns the stock doesn't want to sell at least some of their stock for a bit less than the last trade price, and everyone who doesn't have the stock doesn't want to buy some of the stock for a bit more than the last trade price. With those assumptions, and a low-friction trading environment, we can say that the last trade value is a good midpoint of what people think one share is worth. If we then multiply it by the number of shares, we get an approximation of what the company is worth. In no way, shape or form does it not mean that there is 32 billion more invested in the company, or even used to purchase stock. There are situations where a 32 billion market cap swing could mean 32 billion more money was invested in the company: the company issues a pile of new shares, and takes in the resulting money. People are completely neutral about this gathering in of cash in exchange for dilluting shares. So the share price remains unchanged, the company gains 32 billion dollars, and there are now more shares outstanding. Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of \"\"invested in\"\"; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being. Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders. The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers. Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off.\"" }, { "docid": "3750", "title": "", "text": "\"The implication is market irrationality is stronger than market rationality. Aka nothing makes sense when TSLA climbs to $400 or when CMG rises to $750. I wouldn't say there is a systematic flaw in valuation. I think there is just a lot of ignorance. Markets are more open to household investors than ever before. You used to go to your broker and ask him what's up and he'd give you the inside scoop since you pay them money. Now you go onto marketwatch and get some random nobody's opinion on everything and make stock selections based on that. But eventually the chickens come home to roost and things will correct itself. Big players will jump ship and cause signals to other traders to jump ship. The public can pump stocks up pretty high but it doesn't just go to infinity. Eventually someone will stop and say, \"\"wtf is going on\"\" and start selling. Stocks are sold on a basis of a limit order book so it's real prices that people are paying. People don't care about prices currently because most don't have any finance knowledge but want to invest their own money. They just hear about Tesla doing something amazing (from some clickbait article or news outlet) and can't stop thinking about buying Tesla. They go to Chipotle and think \"\"wow this place is so good and hip, they must be a great investment\"\". The markets have been filled with more subjective analysis than ever before especially with so much low quality information at your fingertips. Equally ignorant people startin blogs about investment and personal finance being shepherds for other ignorant people. In the end they all lose. People who exclaim \"\"this stock is going up to $250 easily\"\" with literally zero quantitative analysis or even a baseline reference point to back it up are prime examples of this. Ignorance of markets and cheap money almost always lead to market runs that end catastrophically. Dot com bubble, 1929 market crash, 2008, it's always the same. People who have no business taking loans out or buying on margin or leveraging positions with debt only to get fucked over once things are brought back down to Earth. After 2 runs of QE, we now have cheap money and with everyone being a crier for their personal investment strategy, we now also have rampant ignorance. I don't expect things to last but no one can call the bottom or the top, or else you'd be very very rich. Have a safe portfolio, don't try to time the markets. Have a strategy that hedges against unexpected change, don't try to gamble on this change. Because it's ultimately impossible to predict the movement of every single person on this earth that invests their money into markets. So don't try. Just be prepared. ---- To expand further into valuation theory: at the end of the day, people invest their money to make more money. It's as simple as that. If your money doesn't grow in an investment vehicle, it's ultimately a shit investment. But no one values intrinsic value of a company's equity before they decide whether or not $380 for TSLA is a good/bad deal. As a result, stocks can be pumped up way higher and people still see the gains on their stocks through capital gains fueled by other optimistic investors. Non-zero sum goes both ways. People can make shitloads of money on stock without an equitable loser--people can also lose shitloads on stock without any real winner emerging from the rubble. When this bubble bursts, lots and lots of people will lose money on TSLA when people's expectations become rational and they stop paying $300 a share for a negative or 70 PE ratio. It's insane what multipliers people will pay for these companies without even realizing the implication--if you buy a share of a company with a PE ratio of 70, you just paid 70 times their earnings for a share. In an ideal world where they released every single penny of earnings as dividends, it would take you 70 periods to reclaim your money on that share. This obviously doesn't take into account capital gains, but capital gains aren't supposed to be this irrational to where a stock can be pumped up into 70x PE ratio in the first place. It's a whole messed up web of confusion and irrationality and eventually something will catalyze a reaction. Imagine a market where everyone just agreed to pump up a single stock to infinity and everyone just rakes in shitloads of money. Would this work? Of course not. It's literally a pyramid scheme that relies on future generations to constantly inject capital--no real value is being created by this scheme. It requires constantly more future generations to continue adding money into the scheme and will crash once people stop pumping money into it. The same thing will happen here. Everyone \"\"agreed\"\" to pump up TSLA (in a sense) but eventually people will realize this is stupid as shit and the pyramid will come tumbling down because there is nothing they receive from this scheme other than the money from other people. It's essentially moving money around, making 0 use of it, until people stop pumping money into the system and everyone realizes that nothing of real value had been produced through the use of this money. Ultimately the only thing that creates real value is the money that is returned to shareholders from an outside party--the company you're invested in. Real value is not created when people exchange stock and money. So why do these transactions create higher values in equity? The basis of equity valuation states that dividends are the only way for companies to raise the price of their stock, going off the traditional Dividend Discount Model. And theoretically, that's the only logical explanation. Buying and trading stock does nothing for the company, minus T Stock they might own. Ultimately the only party creating real value is the underlying company. If they aren't creating real value, then their stock should not be increasing, period. The way they create value is by efficiently utilizing assets to generate returns on investment which can be returned to investors through dividends. Dividends can only be increased (while maintaining an equitable payout ratio) by generating more net income that can increase the actual pool of money that can be allocated back to investors. TSLA does not do this. TSLA regularly loses money and overpromises. There is no logical explanation for any of this except that everyone is irrational. Obviously theory is not the same as in practice but the theory is important here because it's really the basis for any investment at all. At the end of the day, a share of stock is the right to a share of the company's equity. People own equity in companies because companies generate money that it returns back to its owners. That's what a company does. That's what an owner does. If you own shares of a company, you're an owner. And if your company does not return more money back to you YoY, then why are you invested in them? Ultimately, you're riding a capital gains wave that will eventually subside once market irrationality succumbs to rationality. And it always does because the real value always catches up to the fake value that is caused by pumping and dumping stocks.\"" }, { "docid": "498676", "title": "", "text": "\"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a \"\"friendly merger\"\"; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a \"\"tender offer\"\" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any \"\"holdouts\"\" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are \"\"squeezed out\"\"; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home.\"" }, { "docid": "262925", "title": "", "text": "\"It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing. For a simple example, consider three resource companies: \"\"Oil Ltd.\"\" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; \"\"Oil and Iron Inc.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and \"\"Iron and Copper Ltd.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying \"\"value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs\"\". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years. In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market. In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple.\"" }, { "docid": "306782", "title": "", "text": "\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "467594", "title": "", "text": "The main reason is that a public company is owned by its share holders, and share holders would care about the price of the stock they are owning, therefore the company would also care, because if the price go down too much, share holders become angry and may vote to oust the company's management." } ]

[ { "docid": "146628", "title": "", "text": "\"I would differentiate between pricing and valuation a bit more: Valuation is the result of investment analysis and the result of coming up with a fair value for a company and its shares; this is done usually by equity analysts. I have never heard about pricing a security in this context. Pricing would indicate that the price of a product or security is \"\"set\"\" by someone (i.e. a car manufacturer sets the prices of its new cars). The price of a security however is not set by an analyst or an institution, it is solely set by the stock market (perhaps based on the valuations of different analysts). There is only one exception to this: pricing an IPO before its shares are actually traded on an exchange. In this case the underwriting banks set the price (based on the valuation) at which the shares are distributed.\"" }, { "docid": "554996", "title": "", "text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"" }, { "docid": "141043", "title": "", "text": "Care to explain why? A monopoly exists when a single firm is the sole producer of a product *for which there are no close substitutes.* While they may become one producer of *web-app enabled ride sharing from drivers in their own vehicles*, there is not one producer of on-request ground transportation. I've traveled cabs, black cars, shuttles, car share services, and used uber and lyft. If lyft dies, I still have dozens of other options. It would be like saying that if there is only one cab company that rents electric cars that they're a monopoly. Yeah, they might be the only one that rents electric cars, but they have many close substitutes (every other rental car company). So they're not the single seller. Uber would not be able to fix the price in the market because of these other options. They also do not establish a high barrier to entering the market, except for the barrier of name recognition and competition. They cannot control the quantity of the product put into the market. They meet none of the qualities of a monopoly. They *could*, however, become a part of an oligopoly, but one could argue that this already existed in ground transportation. If anything, Uber has opened up the market for competition by fighting against regulations that have restricted entry into the market for themselves, benefitting others with a similar model. No one would be crying if Uber garnered such a following that they out-performed Discount Cab, leading to its demise; Lyft is no different." }, { "docid": "573077", "title": "", "text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"" }, { "docid": "239998", "title": "", "text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch." }, { "docid": "586984", "title": "", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions." }, { "docid": "427859", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"" }, { "docid": "245867", "title": "", "text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees." }, { "docid": "319568", "title": "", "text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"" }, { "docid": "188232", "title": "", "text": "\"Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves \"\"dividend investors\"\"? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends. Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad.\"" }, { "docid": "3750", "title": "", "text": "\"The implication is market irrationality is stronger than market rationality. Aka nothing makes sense when TSLA climbs to $400 or when CMG rises to $750. I wouldn't say there is a systematic flaw in valuation. I think there is just a lot of ignorance. Markets are more open to household investors than ever before. You used to go to your broker and ask him what's up and he'd give you the inside scoop since you pay them money. Now you go onto marketwatch and get some random nobody's opinion on everything and make stock selections based on that. But eventually the chickens come home to roost and things will correct itself. Big players will jump ship and cause signals to other traders to jump ship. The public can pump stocks up pretty high but it doesn't just go to infinity. Eventually someone will stop and say, \"\"wtf is going on\"\" and start selling. Stocks are sold on a basis of a limit order book so it's real prices that people are paying. People don't care about prices currently because most don't have any finance knowledge but want to invest their own money. They just hear about Tesla doing something amazing (from some clickbait article or news outlet) and can't stop thinking about buying Tesla. They go to Chipotle and think \"\"wow this place is so good and hip, they must be a great investment\"\". The markets have been filled with more subjective analysis than ever before especially with so much low quality information at your fingertips. Equally ignorant people startin blogs about investment and personal finance being shepherds for other ignorant people. In the end they all lose. People who exclaim \"\"this stock is going up to $250 easily\"\" with literally zero quantitative analysis or even a baseline reference point to back it up are prime examples of this. Ignorance of markets and cheap money almost always lead to market runs that end catastrophically. Dot com bubble, 1929 market crash, 2008, it's always the same. People who have no business taking loans out or buying on margin or leveraging positions with debt only to get fucked over once things are brought back down to Earth. After 2 runs of QE, we now have cheap money and with everyone being a crier for their personal investment strategy, we now also have rampant ignorance. I don't expect things to last but no one can call the bottom or the top, or else you'd be very very rich. Have a safe portfolio, don't try to time the markets. Have a strategy that hedges against unexpected change, don't try to gamble on this change. Because it's ultimately impossible to predict the movement of every single person on this earth that invests their money into markets. So don't try. Just be prepared. ---- To expand further into valuation theory: at the end of the day, people invest their money to make more money. It's as simple as that. If your money doesn't grow in an investment vehicle, it's ultimately a shit investment. But no one values intrinsic value of a company's equity before they decide whether or not $380 for TSLA is a good/bad deal. As a result, stocks can be pumped up way higher and people still see the gains on their stocks through capital gains fueled by other optimistic investors. Non-zero sum goes both ways. People can make shitloads of money on stock without an equitable loser--people can also lose shitloads on stock without any real winner emerging from the rubble. When this bubble bursts, lots and lots of people will lose money on TSLA when people's expectations become rational and they stop paying $300 a share for a negative or 70 PE ratio. It's insane what multipliers people will pay for these companies without even realizing the implication--if you buy a share of a company with a PE ratio of 70, you just paid 70 times their earnings for a share. In an ideal world where they released every single penny of earnings as dividends, it would take you 70 periods to reclaim your money on that share. This obviously doesn't take into account capital gains, but capital gains aren't supposed to be this irrational to where a stock can be pumped up into 70x PE ratio in the first place. It's a whole messed up web of confusion and irrationality and eventually something will catalyze a reaction. Imagine a market where everyone just agreed to pump up a single stock to infinity and everyone just rakes in shitloads of money. Would this work? Of course not. It's literally a pyramid scheme that relies on future generations to constantly inject capital--no real value is being created by this scheme. It requires constantly more future generations to continue adding money into the scheme and will crash once people stop pumping money into it. The same thing will happen here. Everyone \"\"agreed\"\" to pump up TSLA (in a sense) but eventually people will realize this is stupid as shit and the pyramid will come tumbling down because there is nothing they receive from this scheme other than the money from other people. It's essentially moving money around, making 0 use of it, until people stop pumping money into the system and everyone realizes that nothing of real value had been produced through the use of this money. Ultimately the only thing that creates real value is the money that is returned to shareholders from an outside party--the company you're invested in. Real value is not created when people exchange stock and money. So why do these transactions create higher values in equity? The basis of equity valuation states that dividends are the only way for companies to raise the price of their stock, going off the traditional Dividend Discount Model. And theoretically, that's the only logical explanation. Buying and trading stock does nothing for the company, minus T Stock they might own. Ultimately the only party creating real value is the underlying company. If they aren't creating real value, then their stock should not be increasing, period. The way they create value is by efficiently utilizing assets to generate returns on investment which can be returned to investors through dividends. Dividends can only be increased (while maintaining an equitable payout ratio) by generating more net income that can increase the actual pool of money that can be allocated back to investors. TSLA does not do this. TSLA regularly loses money and overpromises. There is no logical explanation for any of this except that everyone is irrational. Obviously theory is not the same as in practice but the theory is important here because it's really the basis for any investment at all. At the end of the day, a share of stock is the right to a share of the company's equity. People own equity in companies because companies generate money that it returns back to its owners. That's what a company does. That's what an owner does. If you own shares of a company, you're an owner. And if your company does not return more money back to you YoY, then why are you invested in them? Ultimately, you're riding a capital gains wave that will eventually subside once market irrationality succumbs to rationality. And it always does because the real value always catches up to the fake value that is caused by pumping and dumping stocks.\"" }, { "docid": "25817", "title": "", "text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"" }, { "docid": "453582", "title": "", "text": "\"Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices. Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment. Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date. It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is \"\"in the money\"\" or \"\"out of the money\"\" and by how much.\"" }, { "docid": "384267", "title": "", "text": "Stocks in the Weimar hyperinflation are discussed in When Money Dies. I don't own a copy of the book but here is a link to a blog post about it. Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights Basically, the stock market did very well (i.e. the US dollar value of stocks increased quite a lot. Of course, the price of everything increased if measured in marks.) Quote from the article: Bottom line: In marks, stocks had an amazing run. Even in USD they had a nice runup. It makes sense that the stock market would skyrocket because (a) if money has no value, then people will want to replace money with tangible things like goods, and since a stock represents a share in the factories and things which a company owns, it makes sense that you would want them and (b) if money has no value anyway, why not gamble with it? I would be interested to hear what happened in other hyperinflations." }, { "docid": "533712", "title": "", "text": "Not directly Nintendo, but: A company would want its share price to be high if it wants to sell its stock, e.g. on IPO or on subsequent offerings. However, if they want to buy back some shares, it would be in their interest to get more stock for the buck. There may of course be derivative values associated with a high share price, e.g. if they bet on the price or have agreements with investors for particular milestones to be reached. Employees might hold shares and be motivated by share price increases, so a decrease may not be desired, unless they are into some kind of insider trading (buy low, sell high). And last, over-valued share prices may undermine trust in a company, and failing to inform shareholders sufficiently may be outright illegal. Besides those reasons related to law, funding, sales, public relations and company image, companies should be pretty much independent from their own share prices, in contrast to share distribution." }, { "docid": "153212", "title": "", "text": "Why is the stock trading at only $5 per share? The share price is the perceived value of the company by people buying and selling the stock. Not the actual value of the company and all its assets. Generally if the company is not doing well, there is a perceived risk that it will burn out the money fast. There is a difference between its signed conditional sale and will get money and has got money. So in short, it's trading at $5 a share because the market doesn't feel like it's worth $12 per share. Quite a few believe there could be issues faced; i.e. it may not make the $12, or there will be additional obligations, i.e. employees may demand more layoff compensation, etc. or the distribution may take few years due to regulatory and legal hurdles. The only problem is the stock exchange states if the company has no core business, the stock will be suspended soon (hopefully they can release the $12 per share first). What will happen if I hold shares in the company, the stock gets suspended, and its sitting on $12 per share? Can it still distribute it out? Every country and stock markets have laid out procedures for de-listing a company and closing a company. The company can give $10 as say dividends and remaining later; or as part of the closure process, the company will distribute the balance among shareholders. This would be a long drawn process." }, { "docid": "435023", "title": "", "text": "It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case. Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question. A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized. By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth. Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets." }, { "docid": "432104", "title": "", "text": "\"This could be another reason. \"\"Companies buy their own stock in the market place to reduce the number of shares outstanding, and thus boosts the earnings per share. It also boosts the stock price, which benefits management that has stock options. \"\" Taken from this article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2014/01/06/the-most-reliable-indicator-of-an-approaching-market-top/ and this article \"\"Why are stock rising?\"\" may help as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2013/12/23/why-are-stocks-rising/\"" }, { "docid": "576136", "title": "", "text": "When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble..." } ]

[ { "docid": "555608", "title": "", "text": "Overpriced shares: Cheaper to raise new capital through secondary share offerings or debt using shares as a security. Fends off hostile take overs, since the company is too dear. When a company is taken over it needs only one set of management. Top management of the company that is taken over loses their jobs - no one wants to lose their job. Shareholders love to see share price grow - sale brings them profit, secures jobs for company management. Shares are used as a currency during acquisitions, if company shares are overpriced that means they can buy another company on the cheap - paying with the overpriced shares. Undervalued shares: More expensive to raise additional capital through secondary share offerings - for the same amount of capital the management has to offer a bigger chunk of the company; have to offer bigger chunk of a company as a security as well. Makes company vulnerable to hostile take overs, company is undervalues - makes it an attractive bargain. Once the company is taken over top management will almost certainly lose jobs. Falling price makes shareholders unhappy - they will vote management out. Makes difficult to acquire other companies." } ]

[ { "docid": "421039", "title": "", "text": "Unissued capital is only a token restriction. When a company is incorporated a maximum number of shares is specified in the legal documentation. Most companies will make this an extremely large number so they never face that limitation. See here. You wouldn't necessarily expect the stock price to change. The reason a company issues new stock is as a way to raise capital. Although new stock is issued, the cash raised by the sale becomes an Asset on the company's balance sheet. There's a good worked example in this Wikipedia article. Following a rights issue the Liabilities of the company will increase to account for the increase in owner's equity, but the Assets will also increase by the same amount with the cash received. Whether the stock price changes will depend upon what price the stock is issued at and on the market's opinions about the company's growth potential now it has new capital to invest. If the new stock is issued at the same price as the current market price, there's no particular reason to expect the share price to change. Again Wikipedia has more detail. When new stock is issued it is usually offered to existing shareholders first, in proportion to their current holding. If the shareholder decides to purchase the new stock in full then their position won't be diluted. If they opt not to buy the new stock, they will now own a smaller percentage of the company as their stocks will make up a smaller part of the now larger number of shares." }, { "docid": "583708", "title": "", "text": "It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for? The only way to (on average) make good buy and sell decisions is to know about investing and trading (buy some books, I have 12), understand the businesses you propose to invest in and understand their market(s) (which may also mean understanding national and international economics somewhat)." }, { "docid": "235391", "title": "", "text": "\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "239998", "title": "", "text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch." }, { "docid": "123263", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"" }, { "docid": "573077", "title": "", "text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"" }, { "docid": "13732", "title": "", "text": "\"Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission? The buyer doesn't get a commission. The buyer pays a commission. So normally a buyer would say, \"\"I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.\"\" The broker would then charge the buyer a commission. Assuming 4%, the commission would be So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000. The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission. In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission. So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission. The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140. Total paid to the seller is $1860. Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction. That's a reasonable outlook. A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller. In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker. In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter). Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one. As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock. The broker still expects a commission. But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission. So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer). The broker has more work to do than normal. They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation. In most purchases, you just say something like \"\"I want to offer $20 a share\"\" or \"\"I want to purchase at the market price.\"\" In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share. And they may do that multiple times. Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price. And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested. Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day. Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price. If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission. However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO. Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97. I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible. And once they do that, they're out of the picture. Your broker will still be your broker later. So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day. The broker doesn't care much either way. They want you to buy and sell something. The IPO or something else. They don't care much as to what. The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return. If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that. All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result. They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day. But it might not. These numbers may not be accurate. Obviously the $20 stock price is made up. But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate. Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage. The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year). The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission. If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission.\"" }, { "docid": "281419", "title": "", "text": "There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter? Everyone has a different valuation of a company. The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share. To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on. The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell. Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up. Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before. In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger. This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board. But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect. Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't." }, { "docid": "121313", "title": "", "text": "Monsanto is a publicly traded company that trades under the ticker MON. The stock is owned by a wide range of owner around the world. The buyout offer from Bayer is an all cash offer. Bayer will buy all shares of MON at about $128/share. So if I owned 100 shares of MON, I would receive $12,800 or so for my shares. The deal has not yet been approved by regulators, which is why the stock price is hovering around $104/share today." }, { "docid": "586984", "title": "", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions." }, { "docid": "262925", "title": "", "text": "\"It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing. For a simple example, consider three resource companies: \"\"Oil Ltd.\"\" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; \"\"Oil and Iron Inc.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and \"\"Iron and Copper Ltd.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying \"\"value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs\"\". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years. In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market. In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple.\"" }, { "docid": "327127", "title": "", "text": "\"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or \"\"passive market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at \"\"control market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a \"\"control premium.\"\" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an \"\"opinion letter\"\") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation.\"" }, { "docid": "209754", "title": "", "text": "\"The value of a stock ultimately is related to the valuation of a corporation. As part of the valuation, you can estimate the cash flows (discounted to present time) of the expected cash flows from owning a share. This stock value is the so-called \"\"fundamental\"\" value of a stock. What you are really asking is, how is the stock's market price and the fundamental value related? And by asking this, you have implicitly assumed they are not the same. The reason that the fundamental value and market price can diverge is that simply, most shareholders will not continue holding the stock for the lifespan of a company (indeed some companies have been around for centuries). This means that without dividends or buybacks or liquidations or mergers/acquisitions, a typical shareholder cannot reasonably expect to recoup their share of the company's equity. In this case, the chief price driver is the aggregate expectation of buyers and sellers in the marketplace, not fundamental evaluation of the company's balance sheet. Now obviously some expectations are based on fundamentals and expert opinions can differ, but even when all the experts agree roughly on the numbers, it may be that the market price is quite a ways away from their estimates. An interesting example is given in this survey of behavioral finance. It concerns Palm, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 3Com. When Palm went public, its shares went for such a high price, they were significantly higher than 3Com's shares. This mispricing persisted for several weeks. Note that this facet of pricing is often given short shrift in standard explanations of the stock market. It seems despite decades of academic research (and Nobel prizes being handed out to behavioral economists), the knowledge has been slow to trickle down to laymen, although any observant person will realize something is amiss with the standard explanations. For example, before 2012, the last time Apple paid out dividends was 1995. Are we really to believe that people were pumping up Apple's stock price from 1995 to 2012 because they were waiting for dividends, or hoping for a merger or liquidation? It doesn't seem plausible to me, especially since after Apple announced dividends that year, Apple stock ended up taking a deep dive, despite Wall Street analysts stating the company was doing better than ever. That the stock price reflects expectations of the future cash flows from the stock is a thinly-disguised form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and there's a lot of evidence contrary to the EMH (see references in the previously-linked survey). If you believe what happened in Apple's case was just a rational re-evaluation of Apple stock, then I think you must be a hard-core EMH advocate. Basically (and this is elaborated at length in the survey above), fundamentals and market pricing can become decoupled. This is because there are frictions in the marketplace making it difficult for people to take advantage of the mispricing. In some cases, this can go on for extended periods of time, possibly even years. Part of the friction is caused by strong beliefs by market participants which can often shift pressure to supply or demand. Two popular sayings on Wall Street are, \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right. You have to be right at the right time.\"\" and \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right, if the market disagrees with you.\"\" They suggest that you can make the right decision with where to put your money, but being \"\"right\"\" isn't what drives prices. The market does what it does, and it's subject to the whims of its participants.\"" }, { "docid": "153212", "title": "", "text": "Why is the stock trading at only $5 per share? The share price is the perceived value of the company by people buying and selling the stock. Not the actual value of the company and all its assets. Generally if the company is not doing well, there is a perceived risk that it will burn out the money fast. There is a difference between its signed conditional sale and will get money and has got money. So in short, it's trading at $5 a share because the market doesn't feel like it's worth $12 per share. Quite a few believe there could be issues faced; i.e. it may not make the $12, or there will be additional obligations, i.e. employees may demand more layoff compensation, etc. or the distribution may take few years due to regulatory and legal hurdles. The only problem is the stock exchange states if the company has no core business, the stock will be suspended soon (hopefully they can release the $12 per share first). What will happen if I hold shares in the company, the stock gets suspended, and its sitting on $12 per share? Can it still distribute it out? Every country and stock markets have laid out procedures for de-listing a company and closing a company. The company can give $10 as say dividends and remaining later; or as part of the closure process, the company will distribute the balance among shareholders. This would be a long drawn process." }, { "docid": "226063", "title": "", "text": "\"The share price on its own has little relevance without looking at variations. In your case, if the stock went from 2.80 to 0.33, you should care only about the 88% drop in value, not what it means in pre-split dollar values. You are correct that you can \"\"un-split\"\" to give you an idea of what would have been the dollar value but that should not give you any more information than the variation of 88% would. As for your title question, you should read the chart as if no split occurred as for most intents and purposes it should not affect stock price other than the obvious split.\"" }, { "docid": "498676", "title": "", "text": "\"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a \"\"friendly merger\"\"; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a \"\"tender offer\"\" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any \"\"holdouts\"\" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are \"\"squeezed out\"\"; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home.\"" }, { "docid": "301547", "title": "", "text": "\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"" }, { "docid": "188232", "title": "", "text": "\"Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves \"\"dividend investors\"\"? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends. Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad.\"" }, { "docid": "532171", "title": "", "text": "\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "499269", "title": "", "text": "Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another" } ]

[ { "docid": "535605", "title": "", "text": "You have a lot of different questions in your post - I am only responding to the request for how to value the ESPP. When valuing an ESPP, don't think about what you might sell the shares for in the future, think about what the market would charge you for that option today. In general, an option is worth much less than the underlying share itself. For the simplest example, assume you work at a public company, and your exercise price for your options is $.30, and you can only exercise those options until the end of today, and the cost of the shares on the public stock exchange is also $.30. You have the same 'strike price' as everyone else in the market, making your option worth nothing. In truth, holding that right to a specific strike price into the future does give you value, because it means you can realize the upside in share price gains, without risking any money on share losses. So, how do you value the options? If it's a public company with an active options market, you can easily compare your $.30 strike price with the value of call options in the market that have a $.30 strike price. That becomes the value to you of the option (caveat: it is unlikely you can find an exact match for the terms of your vesting period, but you should be able to find a good starting point). If it's a public company without an active options market, you will have to do a bit of estimation. If a current share is worth $.25 (so, close to your strike price), then your option is worth a little bit, but not much. Compare other shares in your industry / company size to get examples of the relative value between an option and a share. If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt." }, { "docid": "281419", "title": "", "text": "There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter? Everyone has a different valuation of a company. The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share. To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on. The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell. Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up. Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before. In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger. This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board. But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect. Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't." }, { "docid": "239998", "title": "", "text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch." }, { "docid": "341652", "title": "", "text": "\"No, the stock market is not there for speculation on corporate memorabilia. At its base, it is there for investing in a business, the point of the investment being, of course, to make money. A (successful) business earns money, and that makes it valuable to its owners since that money can be distributed to them. Shares of stock are pieces of business ownership, and so are valuable. If you knew that the business would have profit of $10,000,000 every year, and would distribute that to the owners of each of its 10,000,000 shares each year, you would know to that each share would receive $1 each year. How much would such a share be worth to you? If you could instead put money in a bank and get 5% a year back, to get $1 a year back you would have to put $20 into the bank. So maybe that share of stock is worth about $20 to you. If somebody offers to sell you such a share for $18, you might buy it; for $23, maybe you pass up the offer. But business is uncertain, and how much profit the business will make is uncertain and will vary through time. So how much is a share of a real business worth? This is a much harder call, and people use many different ways to come up with how much they should pay for a share. Some people probably just think something like \"\"Apple is a good company making money, I'll buy a share at whatever price it is being offered at right now.\"\" Others look at every number available, build models of the company and the economy and the risks, all to estimate what a share might be worth, more or less. There is no indisputable value for a share of a successful business. So, what effect does a company's earnings have on the price of its stock? You can only say that for some of the people who might buy or sell shares, higher earnings will, all other thing being equal, have them be willing to spend more to buy it or demand more when selling it. But how much more is not quantifiable but depends on each person's approach to the problem. Higher earnings would tend to raise the price of the stock. Yet there are other factors, such as people who had expected even higher earnings, whose actions would tend to lower the price, and people who are OK with the earnings now, but suspect trouble for the business is appearing on the horizon, whose actions would also tend to lower the price. This is why people say that a stock's price is determined by supply and demand.\"" }, { "docid": "153212", "title": "", "text": "Why is the stock trading at only $5 per share? The share price is the perceived value of the company by people buying and selling the stock. Not the actual value of the company and all its assets. Generally if the company is not doing well, there is a perceived risk that it will burn out the money fast. There is a difference between its signed conditional sale and will get money and has got money. So in short, it's trading at $5 a share because the market doesn't feel like it's worth $12 per share. Quite a few believe there could be issues faced; i.e. it may not make the $12, or there will be additional obligations, i.e. employees may demand more layoff compensation, etc. or the distribution may take few years due to regulatory and legal hurdles. The only problem is the stock exchange states if the company has no core business, the stock will be suspended soon (hopefully they can release the $12 per share first). What will happen if I hold shares in the company, the stock gets suspended, and its sitting on $12 per share? Can it still distribute it out? Every country and stock markets have laid out procedures for de-listing a company and closing a company. The company can give $10 as say dividends and remaining later; or as part of the closure process, the company will distribute the balance among shareholders. This would be a long drawn process." }, { "docid": "25817", "title": "", "text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"" }, { "docid": "197047", "title": "", "text": "Ok you're looking at this in a very confusing way. First, as said by CapitalNumb3rs, the dividend yield is the dividends paid in the year as a percent of the stock price. Given this fact then if the stock price moves down and the dividend stays the same then the yield increases. Company's don't usually pay out on a yield basis, that's mostly just a calculation to measure how strong a dividend is. This could mean either A. The stock is underpriced and will rise which will lower the yield to a more normal level or B. the company is not doing as well and eventually the dividends will decrease to a point where the yield again looks more normal. Second off let's look at it in a more realistic way that still takes into account your assumptions: **YEAR 1** 1. Instead of assuming buying 35% let's put this into a share amount. Let's say there are 1,000,000 shares so you just bought 350k shares for $700k. You paid a price of $2/share. Let's assume the market decides that's a fair price and it stays that way through the end of year 1. This gives us a market capitalization of $2 million. 2. The dividend paid out at year 1 is $60k so you could calculate on a per share basis which would be a dividend of $60k / 1 million shares or a $0.06 dividend per share. Our stock price is still at $2.00 so our yield comes out to $0.06 / $2.00 or 3.0% **YEAR 2** Assuming no additional shares issued there are still a total of 1 million shares outstanding. You owned 350k and now want to purchase another 50k (5% of outstanding share float). The market price you are able to purchase the 50k shares at has now changed which means that share price is now valued at $1.50 / share. We have a dividend paid out at $100k, which comes out to a dividend per share of $0.10. We have a share value of $1.50 and the $0.10 dividend per share giving us a new yield of 6.66%. **CONCLUSION:** There are many factors that can cause a company's stock price to fluctuate, some of it is hype based but some of it is a result of material changes. In your case the stock went down 25%. In most scenarios where a stock would have that much decline it would likely either not have been paying a dividend in the first place or would maybe not be paying one for much longer. Most companies that pay dividends are larger and more mature companies with a steady, healthy and predictable cash flow. Also most companies that are that size would not trade a stock under $3.00, I know this is just an example but the scenario is definitely a bit extreme in terms of the price drop and dividend increase. Again the yield is just a calculation that depends on the dividend that is usually planned in advance and the stock price that can fluctuate for many reasons. I hope this made everything more clear and let me know if you have any other questions." }, { "docid": "123263", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"" }, { "docid": "533712", "title": "", "text": "Not directly Nintendo, but: A company would want its share price to be high if it wants to sell its stock, e.g. on IPO or on subsequent offerings. However, if they want to buy back some shares, it would be in their interest to get more stock for the buck. There may of course be derivative values associated with a high share price, e.g. if they bet on the price or have agreements with investors for particular milestones to be reached. Employees might hold shares and be motivated by share price increases, so a decrease may not be desired, unless they are into some kind of insider trading (buy low, sell high). And last, over-valued share prices may undermine trust in a company, and failing to inform shareholders sufficiently may be outright illegal. Besides those reasons related to law, funding, sales, public relations and company image, companies should be pretty much independent from their own share prices, in contrast to share distribution." }, { "docid": "234040", "title": "", "text": "\"Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it \"\"should\"\": A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months. This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share). Only then would the stock be worth buying? Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market. Why? Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars). Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted. The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)\"" }, { "docid": "586984", "title": "", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions." }, { "docid": "427859", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"" }, { "docid": "501153", "title": "", "text": "\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"" }, { "docid": "551893", "title": "", "text": "A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised." }, { "docid": "209754", "title": "", "text": "\"The value of a stock ultimately is related to the valuation of a corporation. As part of the valuation, you can estimate the cash flows (discounted to present time) of the expected cash flows from owning a share. This stock value is the so-called \"\"fundamental\"\" value of a stock. What you are really asking is, how is the stock's market price and the fundamental value related? And by asking this, you have implicitly assumed they are not the same. The reason that the fundamental value and market price can diverge is that simply, most shareholders will not continue holding the stock for the lifespan of a company (indeed some companies have been around for centuries). This means that without dividends or buybacks or liquidations or mergers/acquisitions, a typical shareholder cannot reasonably expect to recoup their share of the company's equity. In this case, the chief price driver is the aggregate expectation of buyers and sellers in the marketplace, not fundamental evaluation of the company's balance sheet. Now obviously some expectations are based on fundamentals and expert opinions can differ, but even when all the experts agree roughly on the numbers, it may be that the market price is quite a ways away from their estimates. An interesting example is given in this survey of behavioral finance. It concerns Palm, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 3Com. When Palm went public, its shares went for such a high price, they were significantly higher than 3Com's shares. This mispricing persisted for several weeks. Note that this facet of pricing is often given short shrift in standard explanations of the stock market. It seems despite decades of academic research (and Nobel prizes being handed out to behavioral economists), the knowledge has been slow to trickle down to laymen, although any observant person will realize something is amiss with the standard explanations. For example, before 2012, the last time Apple paid out dividends was 1995. Are we really to believe that people were pumping up Apple's stock price from 1995 to 2012 because they were waiting for dividends, or hoping for a merger or liquidation? It doesn't seem plausible to me, especially since after Apple announced dividends that year, Apple stock ended up taking a deep dive, despite Wall Street analysts stating the company was doing better than ever. That the stock price reflects expectations of the future cash flows from the stock is a thinly-disguised form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and there's a lot of evidence contrary to the EMH (see references in the previously-linked survey). If you believe what happened in Apple's case was just a rational re-evaluation of Apple stock, then I think you must be a hard-core EMH advocate. Basically (and this is elaborated at length in the survey above), fundamentals and market pricing can become decoupled. This is because there are frictions in the marketplace making it difficult for people to take advantage of the mispricing. In some cases, this can go on for extended periods of time, possibly even years. Part of the friction is caused by strong beliefs by market participants which can often shift pressure to supply or demand. Two popular sayings on Wall Street are, \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right. You have to be right at the right time.\"\" and \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right, if the market disagrees with you.\"\" They suggest that you can make the right decision with where to put your money, but being \"\"right\"\" isn't what drives prices. The market does what it does, and it's subject to the whims of its participants.\"" }, { "docid": "141043", "title": "", "text": "Care to explain why? A monopoly exists when a single firm is the sole producer of a product *for which there are no close substitutes.* While they may become one producer of *web-app enabled ride sharing from drivers in their own vehicles*, there is not one producer of on-request ground transportation. I've traveled cabs, black cars, shuttles, car share services, and used uber and lyft. If lyft dies, I still have dozens of other options. It would be like saying that if there is only one cab company that rents electric cars that they're a monopoly. Yeah, they might be the only one that rents electric cars, but they have many close substitutes (every other rental car company). So they're not the single seller. Uber would not be able to fix the price in the market because of these other options. They also do not establish a high barrier to entering the market, except for the barrier of name recognition and competition. They cannot control the quantity of the product put into the market. They meet none of the qualities of a monopoly. They *could*, however, become a part of an oligopoly, but one could argue that this already existed in ground transportation. If anything, Uber has opened up the market for competition by fighting against regulations that have restricted entry into the market for themselves, benefitting others with a similar model. No one would be crying if Uber garnered such a following that they out-performed Discount Cab, leading to its demise; Lyft is no different." }, { "docid": "453582", "title": "", "text": "\"Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices. Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment. Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date. It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is \"\"in the money\"\" or \"\"out of the money\"\" and by how much.\"" }, { "docid": "139094", "title": "", "text": "\"They are similar in the sense that they are transferring money from the company to shareholders, but that's about it. There is different tax treatment, yes, but that's because they are fundamentally different. Dividends transfer money equally to all shareholders, but that also reduces the value of each share by the same amount, since it's cash out the door, which drops the value of the company. Shareholders are taxed on dividends at the capital gains tax rate. A buyback returns the cash to shareholders who decide to sell. Other shareholders get a secondary benefit of now owning a slightly larger portion of the company since there are fewer shares outstanding. Shareholders only pay tax if they sell shares for a gain. It that means when company buyback their stock, the stock price will definitely go up? Not necessarily. It depends on the price that the company buys back the shares for and what the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of that cash is - meaning what else could the company have done with the cash that would have been better? Buybacks often happen in mature companies with undervalued stock prices and fewer opportunities for further investment. If a company has an intrinsic value of $10 a share but its stock is trading at $8 a share, then it can instantly get a 25% \"\"return\"\" by buying back stock. I use the term \"\"return\"\" loosely since the company does not actually profit from the buyback, but from the shareholder's perspective the company is worth more per share.\"" }, { "docid": "591546", "title": "", "text": "\"The goal is to understand the movements of the market as a whole and understand the fortunes of every investor in the S&amp;P. As for why it isn't price-weighted, it is because price is a complely arbitrary notion, whereas market cap is at least \"\"real\"\" in some sense. Imagine Berkshire Hathaway vs Apple. In the S&amp;P, Apple takes up about 75% more of the index because it's market cap is 796B, compared to 452B for Berkshire. This makes intuitive sense. Apple is \"\"worth\"\" 75% more, so it takes up that much more of the index. Now lets look at price. In a price weighted index of only those two stocks, Apple, with a stock price of 154.12 would take up .06% compared to Berkshire Hathaway at 99.94% due to its 274,740 stock price. The only difference is Apple has WAY more shares outstanding. Nothing of economic value (other than a bit of liquidity) is captured in a price-weighted index.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "91012", "title": "", "text": "Originally, stocks were ownership in a company just like any other business- you expected to make a profit from your investment, which is what we call dividends to stock holders. Since these dividends had real value, the stock price was based on what this return rate was, factoring in what it might be expected to be in the future, etc. Nowdays many companies never issue any dividends, so you have to consider the full value of the company and what benefit could be gained by another company if it were to acquire it. the market will likely adjust the share price to factor in what the value of the company might be to an acquirer. But otherwise, some companies today trading at an astronimical price, and which nevers pays a dividend- chalk it up to market stupidity. In this investor'd mind, there is no logical reason for these prices, except based on the idea that someone else might pay you more for it later... for what reason? I can't figure it out. Take it back to it's roots and imagine pitching a new business idea to you uncle to invest in- it will make almost nothing compared to it's share price, and even what it does make it won't pay anything to him for his investment. Why wouldn't he just laugh at you?" } ]

[ { "docid": "573077", "title": "", "text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"" }, { "docid": "591546", "title": "", "text": "\"The goal is to understand the movements of the market as a whole and understand the fortunes of every investor in the S&amp;P. As for why it isn't price-weighted, it is because price is a complely arbitrary notion, whereas market cap is at least \"\"real\"\" in some sense. Imagine Berkshire Hathaway vs Apple. In the S&amp;P, Apple takes up about 75% more of the index because it's market cap is 796B, compared to 452B for Berkshire. This makes intuitive sense. Apple is \"\"worth\"\" 75% more, so it takes up that much more of the index. Now lets look at price. In a price weighted index of only those two stocks, Apple, with a stock price of 154.12 would take up .06% compared to Berkshire Hathaway at 99.94% due to its 274,740 stock price. The only difference is Apple has WAY more shares outstanding. Nothing of economic value (other than a bit of liquidity) is captured in a price-weighted index.\"" }, { "docid": "542764", "title": "", "text": "\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\"" }, { "docid": "123263", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"" }, { "docid": "576136", "title": "", "text": "When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble..." }, { "docid": "407505", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"" }, { "docid": "431814", "title": "", "text": "If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight: Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)" }, { "docid": "554996", "title": "", "text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"" }, { "docid": "327127", "title": "", "text": "\"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or \"\"passive market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at \"\"control market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a \"\"control premium.\"\" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an \"\"opinion letter\"\") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation.\"" }, { "docid": "306782", "title": "", "text": "\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"" }, { "docid": "25817", "title": "", "text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"" }, { "docid": "106740", "title": "", "text": "\"TL;DR; There is no silver bullet. You have to decide how much to invest and when on your own. Averaging down definition: DEFINITION of 'Average Down' The process of buying additional shares in a company at lower prices than you originally purchased. This brings the average price you've paid for all your shares down. BREAKING DOWN 'Average Down' Sometimes this is a good strategy, other times it's better to sell off a beaten down stock rather than buying more shares. So let us tackle your questions: At what percentage drop of the stock price should I buy more shares. (Ex: should I wait for the price to fall by 5% or 10% to buy more.) It depends on the behaviour of the security and the issuer. Is it near its historical minimum? How healthy is the issuer? There is no set percentage. You can maximize your gains or your losses if the security does not rebound. Investopedia: The strategy is often favored by investors who have a long-term investment horizon and a contrarian approach to investing. A contrarian approach refers to a style of investing that is against, or contrary, to the prevailing investment trend. (...) On the other side of the coin are the investors and traders who generally have shorter-term investment horizons and view a stock decline as a portent of things to come. These investors are also likely to espouse trading in the direction of the prevailing trend, rather than against it. They may view buying into a stock decline as akin to trying to \"\"catch a falling knife.\"\" Your second question: How many additional shares should I buy. (Ex: Initially I bought 10 shares, should I buy 5,10 or 20.) That depends on your portfolio allocation before and after averaging down and your investor profile (risk apettite). Take care when putting more money on a falling security, if your portfolio allocation shifts too much. That may expose you to risks you shouldn't be taking. You are assuming a risk for example, if the market bears down like 2008: Averaging down or doubling up works well when the stock eventually rebounds because it has the effect of magnifying gains, but if the stock continues to decline, losses are also magnified. In such cases, the investor may rue the decision to average down rather than either exiting the position or failing to add to the initial holding. One of the pitfalls of averaging down is when the security does not rebound, and you become too attached to be able to cut your losses and move on. Also if you are bullish on a position, be careful not to slip the I down and add a T on said position. Invest with your head, not your heart.\"" }, { "docid": "245867", "title": "", "text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees." }, { "docid": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" }, { "docid": "281419", "title": "", "text": "There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter? Everyone has a different valuation of a company. The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share. To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on. The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell. Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up. Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before. In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger. This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board. But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect. Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't." }, { "docid": "25195", "title": "", "text": "\"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down). If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not \"\"stealing\"\", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it.\"" }, { "docid": "521635", "title": "", "text": "I was doing some thinking about this a while back, and it makes absolute perfect sense for Amazon to buy UPS with issued shares. First off, Amazon's stock is overpriced in every form of the word, which means using issued stocks to buy things is the best way to abuse the current situation. It gives even more validity to their share price. Some examples... If lets say Amazon issued 1 extra share for every existing share, it would give them 235 billion of purchasing power. If they used this to buy 235 billion worth of utility companies, the stock price cannot really go down below 235 billion in market cap, because they own 235 billion in real, valuable companies. So if a completely worthless company like the South Seas Company issued stock to buy real businesses, they could make validity to their absurd price. If the South Seas Company had a market cap of 500 billion at their high, and issued 1 share per existing share, and bought 250 billion dollars of businesses and assets, they suddenly became a real company and cannot really go under a market cap of 250 billion. Too bad they didn't, and the company went under almost instantly once the scam was found out. By buying UPS, they gain the company at a discount of the discrepancy of Amazon's price and intrinsic value. But the biggest reason to merge with UPS is for their current customers. So with deliveries, Amazon would have to spend the same amount on their route as UPS. They still have to hire a driver for 8 hours a day, they still have to pay for the same amount of gas, and they stop at more or less the same amount. So your expenses are fixed. Any extra package that Amazon would deliver that they wouldn't before, is almost pure profit. The expenses don't change if the truck is 3/4 full, or full. Which means that all of UPS's business would become almost pure profit. They need to buy UPS or Fedex, making a new service is a huge mistake. It's probably just a bargaining chip in negotiation because of these reasons. Also a side note, Amazon should also buy a huge railroad. They have a part in every inch of this country, and to buy its own method of transportation to transport boxes, which is more fuel and time efficient than trucks makes sense. They would also be able to design a lighter weight train designed to just carry boxes. Sending one truck to a warehouse is much more costly than just attaching a light weight train car heading to that warehouse anyways. Just my two cents if I were CEO of Amazon." }, { "docid": "525390", "title": "", "text": "\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \"\"call\"\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \"\"call options\"\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\"" }, { "docid": "58290", "title": "", "text": "The original poster's concern is valid. Sometimes, market orders do get executed at seemingly ridiculous prices. In addition to Victor's reasons for using a market order, sometimes a seller does not care how low the price is. For example, after a company goes broke, its stock continues to trade for a while. This allows shareholders to realize their losses for tax purposes, and allows short-sellers to close out their positions. A shareholder who is trying to realize a 10 dollar per share loss for tax purposes probably does not care whether he gets 10 cents per share or 0.001 cents per share, so a sell-at-market order makes sense." } ]

[ { "docid": "374372", "title": "", "text": "Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity." } ]

[ { "docid": "64943", "title": "", "text": "This seemed very unrealistic, I mean who would do that? But to my immense surprise the market price increased to 5.50$ in the following week! Why is that? This is strange. It seems that people mistakenly [?] believe that the company should be at 5.5 and currently available cheap. This looks like irrational behaviour. Most of the past 6 months the said stock in range bound to 4.5 to 5. The last time it hit around 5.5 was Feb. So this is definitely strange. If the company had set a price of 6.00$ in the rights offering, would the price have increased to 6$? Obviously the company thinks that their shares are worth that much but why did the market suddenly agree? Possibly yes, possible no. It can be answered. More often the rights issue are priced at slight discount to market price. Why did this happen? Obviously management thinks that the company is worth that much, but why did the market simply believe this statement without any additional information? I don't see any other information; if the new shares had some special privileges [in terms of voting rights, dividends, etc] then yes. However the announcements says the rights issues is for common shares." }, { "docid": "197047", "title": "", "text": "Ok you're looking at this in a very confusing way. First, as said by CapitalNumb3rs, the dividend yield is the dividends paid in the year as a percent of the stock price. Given this fact then if the stock price moves down and the dividend stays the same then the yield increases. Company's don't usually pay out on a yield basis, that's mostly just a calculation to measure how strong a dividend is. This could mean either A. The stock is underpriced and will rise which will lower the yield to a more normal level or B. the company is not doing as well and eventually the dividends will decrease to a point where the yield again looks more normal. Second off let's look at it in a more realistic way that still takes into account your assumptions: **YEAR 1** 1. Instead of assuming buying 35% let's put this into a share amount. Let's say there are 1,000,000 shares so you just bought 350k shares for $700k. You paid a price of $2/share. Let's assume the market decides that's a fair price and it stays that way through the end of year 1. This gives us a market capitalization of $2 million. 2. The dividend paid out at year 1 is $60k so you could calculate on a per share basis which would be a dividend of $60k / 1 million shares or a $0.06 dividend per share. Our stock price is still at $2.00 so our yield comes out to $0.06 / $2.00 or 3.0% **YEAR 2** Assuming no additional shares issued there are still a total of 1 million shares outstanding. You owned 350k and now want to purchase another 50k (5% of outstanding share float). The market price you are able to purchase the 50k shares at has now changed which means that share price is now valued at $1.50 / share. We have a dividend paid out at $100k, which comes out to a dividend per share of $0.10. We have a share value of $1.50 and the $0.10 dividend per share giving us a new yield of 6.66%. **CONCLUSION:** There are many factors that can cause a company's stock price to fluctuate, some of it is hype based but some of it is a result of material changes. In your case the stock went down 25%. In most scenarios where a stock would have that much decline it would likely either not have been paying a dividend in the first place or would maybe not be paying one for much longer. Most companies that pay dividends are larger and more mature companies with a steady, healthy and predictable cash flow. Also most companies that are that size would not trade a stock under $3.00, I know this is just an example but the scenario is definitely a bit extreme in terms of the price drop and dividend increase. Again the yield is just a calculation that depends on the dividend that is usually planned in advance and the stock price that can fluctuate for many reasons. I hope this made everything more clear and let me know if you have any other questions." }, { "docid": "542764", "title": "", "text": "\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\"" }, { "docid": "532171", "title": "", "text": "\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"" }, { "docid": "301547", "title": "", "text": "\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"" }, { "docid": "121313", "title": "", "text": "Monsanto is a publicly traded company that trades under the ticker MON. The stock is owned by a wide range of owner around the world. The buyout offer from Bayer is an all cash offer. Bayer will buy all shares of MON at about $128/share. So if I owned 100 shares of MON, I would receive $12,800 or so for my shares. The deal has not yet been approved by regulators, which is why the stock price is hovering around $104/share today." }, { "docid": "525390", "title": "", "text": "\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \"\"call\"\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \"\"call options\"\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\"" }, { "docid": "551893", "title": "", "text": "A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised." }, { "docid": "327127", "title": "", "text": "\"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or \"\"passive market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at \"\"control market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a \"\"control premium.\"\" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an \"\"opinion letter\"\") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation.\"" }, { "docid": "521635", "title": "", "text": "I was doing some thinking about this a while back, and it makes absolute perfect sense for Amazon to buy UPS with issued shares. First off, Amazon's stock is overpriced in every form of the word, which means using issued stocks to buy things is the best way to abuse the current situation. It gives even more validity to their share price. Some examples... If lets say Amazon issued 1 extra share for every existing share, it would give them 235 billion of purchasing power. If they used this to buy 235 billion worth of utility companies, the stock price cannot really go down below 235 billion in market cap, because they own 235 billion in real, valuable companies. So if a completely worthless company like the South Seas Company issued stock to buy real businesses, they could make validity to their absurd price. If the South Seas Company had a market cap of 500 billion at their high, and issued 1 share per existing share, and bought 250 billion dollars of businesses and assets, they suddenly became a real company and cannot really go under a market cap of 250 billion. Too bad they didn't, and the company went under almost instantly once the scam was found out. By buying UPS, they gain the company at a discount of the discrepancy of Amazon's price and intrinsic value. But the biggest reason to merge with UPS is for their current customers. So with deliveries, Amazon would have to spend the same amount on their route as UPS. They still have to hire a driver for 8 hours a day, they still have to pay for the same amount of gas, and they stop at more or less the same amount. So your expenses are fixed. Any extra package that Amazon would deliver that they wouldn't before, is almost pure profit. The expenses don't change if the truck is 3/4 full, or full. Which means that all of UPS's business would become almost pure profit. They need to buy UPS or Fedex, making a new service is a huge mistake. It's probably just a bargaining chip in negotiation because of these reasons. Also a side note, Amazon should also buy a huge railroad. They have a part in every inch of this country, and to buy its own method of transportation to transport boxes, which is more fuel and time efficient than trucks makes sense. They would also be able to design a lighter weight train designed to just carry boxes. Sending one truck to a warehouse is much more costly than just attaching a light weight train car heading to that warehouse anyways. Just my two cents if I were CEO of Amazon." }, { "docid": "245867", "title": "", "text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees." }, { "docid": "431814", "title": "", "text": "If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight: Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)" }, { "docid": "453582", "title": "", "text": "\"Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices. Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment. Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date. It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is \"\"in the money\"\" or \"\"out of the money\"\" and by how much.\"" }, { "docid": "421039", "title": "", "text": "Unissued capital is only a token restriction. When a company is incorporated a maximum number of shares is specified in the legal documentation. Most companies will make this an extremely large number so they never face that limitation. See here. You wouldn't necessarily expect the stock price to change. The reason a company issues new stock is as a way to raise capital. Although new stock is issued, the cash raised by the sale becomes an Asset on the company's balance sheet. There's a good worked example in this Wikipedia article. Following a rights issue the Liabilities of the company will increase to account for the increase in owner's equity, but the Assets will also increase by the same amount with the cash received. Whether the stock price changes will depend upon what price the stock is issued at and on the market's opinions about the company's growth potential now it has new capital to invest. If the new stock is issued at the same price as the current market price, there's no particular reason to expect the share price to change. Again Wikipedia has more detail. When new stock is issued it is usually offered to existing shareholders first, in proportion to their current holding. If the shareholder decides to purchase the new stock in full then their position won't be diluted. If they opt not to buy the new stock, they will now own a smaller percentage of the company as their stocks will make up a smaller part of the now larger number of shares." }, { "docid": "78138", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on many factors, but generally, the bid/ask spread will give you an idea. There are typically two ways to buy (or sell) a security: With a limit order, you would place a buy for 100 shares at $30-. Then it's easy, in the worst case you will get your 100 shares at $30 each exactly. You may get lucky and have the price fall, then you will pay less than $30. Of course if the price immediately goes up to say $35, nobody will sell at the $30 you want, so your broker will happily sit on his hands and rake in the commission while waiting on what is now a hail Mary ask. With a market order, you have the problem you mention: The ticker says $30, but say after you buy the first 5 shares at $30 the price shoots up and the rest are $32 each - you have now paid on average $31.9 per share. This could happen because there is a limit order for 5 at $30 and 200 at $32 (you would have filled only part of that 200). You would be able to see these in the order book (sometimes shown as bid/ask spread or market depth). However, the order book is not law. Just because there's an ask for 10k shares at $35 each for your $30 X stock, doesn't mean that by the time the price comes up to $35, the offer will still be up. The guy (or algorithm) who put it up may see the price going up and decide he now wants $40 each for his 10k shares. Also, people aren't obligated to put in their order: Maybe there's a trader who intends to trade a large volume when the price hits a certain level, like a limit order, but he elected to not put in a limit order and instead watch the ticker and react in real time. Then you will see a huge order suddenly come in out of nowhere. So while the order book is informative, what you are asking is actually fundamentally impossible to know fully, unless you can read the minds of every interested trader. As others said, in \"\"normal\"\" securities (meaning traded at a major exchange, especially those in the S&P500) you simply can't move the price, the market is too deep. You would need millions of dollars to budge the price, and if you had that much money, you wouldn't be asking here on a QA site, you would have a professional financial advisor (or even a team) that specializes in distributing your large transaction over a longer time to minimize the effect on the market. With crazier stocks, such as OTC and especially worthless penny stocks with market caps of $1 mil or less, what you say is a real problem (you can end up paying multiples of the last ticker if not careful) and you do have to be careful about it. Which is why you shouldn't trade penny stocks unless you know what you're doing (and if you're asking this question here, you don't).\"" }, { "docid": "578625", "title": "", "text": "In market cap weighted index there is fairly heavy concentration in the largest stocks. The top 10 stocks typically account for about 20% of the S&P 500 index. In Equal Weight this bias towards large caps is removed. The Market Cap method would be good when large stocks drive the markets. However if the markets are getting driven by Mid Caps and Small caps, the equal weight wins. Historically most big companies start out small and grow big fast in a short span of time. Thus if we were to do Market cap one would have purchased smaller number of shares of the said company as its cap/weight would have been small and when it becomes big we would have purchased the shares at a higher price. However if we were to do equal weight, then as the company grows big one would have more share at a cheaper price and would result in better returns. There is a nice article on this, also gives the comparision of the returns over a period of 10 years, where equal weight index has done good. It does not mean that it would continue. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/08/index-debate.asp#axzz1RRDCnFre" }, { "docid": "106740", "title": "", "text": "\"TL;DR; There is no silver bullet. You have to decide how much to invest and when on your own. Averaging down definition: DEFINITION of 'Average Down' The process of buying additional shares in a company at lower prices than you originally purchased. This brings the average price you've paid for all your shares down. BREAKING DOWN 'Average Down' Sometimes this is a good strategy, other times it's better to sell off a beaten down stock rather than buying more shares. So let us tackle your questions: At what percentage drop of the stock price should I buy more shares. (Ex: should I wait for the price to fall by 5% or 10% to buy more.) It depends on the behaviour of the security and the issuer. Is it near its historical minimum? How healthy is the issuer? There is no set percentage. You can maximize your gains or your losses if the security does not rebound. Investopedia: The strategy is often favored by investors who have a long-term investment horizon and a contrarian approach to investing. A contrarian approach refers to a style of investing that is against, or contrary, to the prevailing investment trend. (...) On the other side of the coin are the investors and traders who generally have shorter-term investment horizons and view a stock decline as a portent of things to come. These investors are also likely to espouse trading in the direction of the prevailing trend, rather than against it. They may view buying into a stock decline as akin to trying to \"\"catch a falling knife.\"\" Your second question: How many additional shares should I buy. (Ex: Initially I bought 10 shares, should I buy 5,10 or 20.) That depends on your portfolio allocation before and after averaging down and your investor profile (risk apettite). Take care when putting more money on a falling security, if your portfolio allocation shifts too much. That may expose you to risks you shouldn't be taking. You are assuming a risk for example, if the market bears down like 2008: Averaging down or doubling up works well when the stock eventually rebounds because it has the effect of magnifying gains, but if the stock continues to decline, losses are also magnified. In such cases, the investor may rue the decision to average down rather than either exiting the position or failing to add to the initial holding. One of the pitfalls of averaging down is when the security does not rebound, and you become too attached to be able to cut your losses and move on. Also if you are bullish on a position, be careful not to slip the I down and add a T on said position. Invest with your head, not your heart.\"" }, { "docid": "341652", "title": "", "text": "\"No, the stock market is not there for speculation on corporate memorabilia. At its base, it is there for investing in a business, the point of the investment being, of course, to make money. A (successful) business earns money, and that makes it valuable to its owners since that money can be distributed to them. Shares of stock are pieces of business ownership, and so are valuable. If you knew that the business would have profit of $10,000,000 every year, and would distribute that to the owners of each of its 10,000,000 shares each year, you would know to that each share would receive $1 each year. How much would such a share be worth to you? If you could instead put money in a bank and get 5% a year back, to get $1 a year back you would have to put $20 into the bank. So maybe that share of stock is worth about $20 to you. If somebody offers to sell you such a share for $18, you might buy it; for $23, maybe you pass up the offer. But business is uncertain, and how much profit the business will make is uncertain and will vary through time. So how much is a share of a real business worth? This is a much harder call, and people use many different ways to come up with how much they should pay for a share. Some people probably just think something like \"\"Apple is a good company making money, I'll buy a share at whatever price it is being offered at right now.\"\" Others look at every number available, build models of the company and the economy and the risks, all to estimate what a share might be worth, more or less. There is no indisputable value for a share of a successful business. So, what effect does a company's earnings have on the price of its stock? You can only say that for some of the people who might buy or sell shares, higher earnings will, all other thing being equal, have them be willing to spend more to buy it or demand more when selling it. But how much more is not quantifiable but depends on each person's approach to the problem. Higher earnings would tend to raise the price of the stock. Yet there are other factors, such as people who had expected even higher earnings, whose actions would tend to lower the price, and people who are OK with the earnings now, but suspect trouble for the business is appearing on the horizon, whose actions would also tend to lower the price. This is why people say that a stock's price is determined by supply and demand.\"" }, { "docid": "105343", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"" } ]