Split (1)

train · 108k rows

query_id stringlengths 32 32	query stringlengths 5 5.37k	positive_passages listlengths 1 17	negative_passages listlengths 9 100	subset stringclasses 7 values
61b7cb4c9985298a852dc757609cbf47	Super-generic mutual fund type	[ { "docid": "a66fc17f8cc2ae924765246d0e4bc808", "text": "You can also create a CD ladder (say 1/3 in a 6 month CD, 1/3 in a 1 year CD, 1/3 in a 2 year CD) with half of your emergency fund money. You always want to leave some of it in a liquid account so you can get at it immediately without any interest penalty. CD's provide higher interest than a savings account. By staggering the lengths of the CD's, you give yourself more options, and can roll them over into CD's with higher rates (since interest rates are soooo low right now) as the CD's mature.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79a7be86c8b7c56dca5a5d1caa005029", "text": "\"Since this is your emergency fund, you generally want to avoid volatility while keeping pace with inflation. You really shouldn't be looking for aggressive growth (which means taking on some risk). That comes from money outside of the emergency fund. The simplest thing to do would be to shop around for a different savings account. There are some deals out there that are better than ING. Here is a good list. The \"\"traditional\"\" places to keep an emergency fund are Money Market Mutual Funds (not to be confused with Money Market Accounts). They are considered extremely safe investments. However, the returns on such a fund is pretty low these days, often lower than a high-yield online savings account. The next step up would be a bond fund (more volatility, slightly better return). Pick something that relies on Government bonds, not \"\"high-yield\"\" (junk) bonds or anything crazy like that. Fidelity Four in One comes pretty close to your \"\"index of indexes\"\" request, but it isn't the most stable thing. You'd probably do better with a safer investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aec1192ef6541a2d6224645a3b260ea9", "text": "Congrats on having such a nice emergency fund. That's pretty substantial. I don't want to be the one to suggest the One Investment To Rule Them All because I might be wrong. :) I'd investigate other avenues for investment. Here are a few (in no particular order): My two cents but I think you're wise to be wary of investing in US equities now. Hedging (both with your passive investments and with another source of income) is something you can afford to do. (But to answer your question, there are indexes that are broader than the S&P 500. The Wilshire 5000 index has all of them, for example.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e6a893421677586f657499d3a01381b", "text": "\"It sounds like you want a place to park some money that's reasonably safe and liquid, but can sustain light to moderate losses. Consider some bond funds or bond ETFs filled with medium-term corporate bonds. It looks like you can get 3-3.5% or so. (I'd skip the municipal bond market right now, but \"\"why\"\" is a matter for its own question). Avoid long-term bonds or CDs if you're worried about inflation; interest rates will rise and the immediate value of the bonds will fall until the final payout value matches those rates.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "825b37e57e118707124a3e76177bfcb3", "text": "Since you already have twice your target in that emergency fund, putting that overage to work is a good idea. The impression that I get is that you'd still like to stay on the safe side. What you're looking for is a Balanced Fund. In a balanced fund the managers invest in both stocks and bonds (and cash). Since you have that diversification between those two asset classes, their returns tend to be much less volatile than other funds. Also, because of their intended audience and the traditions from that class of funds' long history, they tend to invest somewhat more conservatively in both asset classes. There are two general types of balanced funds: Conservative Allocation funds and Moderate Allocation funds. Conservative allocation funds invest in more fixed income than equity (the classic mix is 60% bonds, 40% stocks). Moderate allocation funds invest in more equity than fixed income (classic mix: 40% bonds, 60% stocks). A good pair of funds that are similar but exemplify the difference between conservative allocation and moderate allocation are Vanguard's Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) for the former and Vanguard's Wellington Fund (VWELX) for the latter. (Disclaimer: though both funds are broadly considered excellent, this is not a recommendation.) Good luck sorting this out!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "136a3319c5a9aa18f28e1dc9a86d035d", "text": "If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "12dfd7a4c63537325923b5f65bab573a", "text": "Exchange-traded funds are bought and sold like stocks so you'd be able to place stop orders on them just like you could for individual stocks. For example, SPY would be the ticker for an S & P 500 ETF known as a SPDR. Open-end mutual funds don't have stop orders because of how the buying and selling is done which is on unknown prices and often in fractional shares. For example, the Vanguard 500 Index Investor shares(VFINX) would be an example of an S & P 500 tracker here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aa935aa25a7851ccd845e69c74c8def", "text": "\"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \"\"mutual funds\"\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc89ac65703cbe166a0f98fdfe4dba54", "text": "\"Use VTIVX. The \"\"Target Retirement 2045\"\" and \"\"Target Retirement 2045 Trust Plus\"\" are the same underlying fund, but the latter is offered through employers. The only differences I see are the expense ratio and the minimum investment dollars. But for the purposes of comparing funds, it should be pretty close. Here is the list of all of Vanguard's target retirement funds. Also, note that the \"\"Trust Plus\"\" hasn't been around as long, so you don't see the returns beyond the last few years. That's another reason to use plain VTIVX for comparison. See also: Why doesn't a mutual fund in my 401(k) have a ticker symbol?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed7e00711ef0c440f3985a8963d02b05", "text": "You can set up a Self Managed Super Fund (SMSF) and use it to buy residential investment property, and as Justin has mentioned even borrow to acquire the investment property through the SMSF. However, you cannot hold your home in the SMSF, as this would be classed as an in-house asset, and you are only allowed to hold a maximum of 5% of the total market value of SMSF as in-house assets. Furthermore, as you already own your house, you are not allowed to transfer residential property into a SMSF from a related party, even if done at current market value (you are allowed to transfer business real property from a related party at current market value). Regarding loans, you are not allowed to lend money from your SMSF to a related party as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d53eb6e97cd4e36144f3f6406937ca0", "text": "Thanks for the huge insight. I am still a student doing an intern and this was given as my first task, more of trying to give the IA another perspective looking at these funds rather than picking. I was not given the investors preference in terms of return and risk tolerances so it was really open-ended. However, thanks so much for the quick response. At least now I have a better idea of what I am going to deliver or at least try to show to the IA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7ce8a8943cebbacfc68a2735d5f6f1d", "text": "\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \"\"derivative\"\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "793ccb71f403b6df10f6d9e5aeef7d72", "text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88edd029ff0f292e8b015f2b0773a604", "text": "\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a657750c12ad24f753f130ba5bff9636", "text": "For long periods of time a short ETF's performance will not match the negative of the long ETF, e.g. funding costs and the fact that they 'only' match daily returns will result in a suboptimal performance. If possible use other derivatives like a put on a long gold etf (fgriglesnickerseven)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4edc4c5604999faf7ba4fa4c1f99c4d", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb7489191787be6458bb24d48707cb7c", "text": "You are not limited in these 3 choices. You can also invest in ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, but traded like stocks. Usually (at least in Canada), MERs for ETFs are smaller than for mutual funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbae56ad4aca8a1caeb2c6a7ab08472", "text": "\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001308bb6898cc328653575ba51889b7", "text": "Not to my knowledge. Often the specific location is diversified out of the fund because each major building company or real estate company attempts to diversify risk by spreading it over multiple geographical locations. Also, buyers of these smaller portfolios will again diversify by creating a larger fund to sell to the general public. That being said, you can sometimes drill down to the specific assets held by a real estate fund. That takes a lot of work: You can also look for the issuer of the bond that the construction or real estate company issued to find out if it is region specific. Hope that helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a06204d0c55ccb723b886366940db61", "text": "I don't think that you'll notice a difference in the NAV in a fund with fees that are low as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund. Their management fees are incorporated into the NAV, but keep in mind that the fund has a total of $144 billion in assets, with $66 billion in the investor class. The actual fees represent a tiny fraction of the NAV, and may only show up at all on the day they assess the fees. With Vanguard total stock market, you notice the fee difference in the distributions. In the example of Vanguard Total Stock Market, there are institutional-class shares (like VITPX with a minimum investment of $200M) with still lower costs -- as low as 0.0250% vs. 0.18% for the investor class. You will notice a different NAV and distributions for that fund, but there may be other reasons for the variation that I'm not familar with, as I'm not an institutional investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf406fc668170807dc692a9f9092dd32", "text": "\"There is a lot misinformation in this thread that I'd like to clear up. In fact, you're more than welcomed to PM me if you wish to see any backup to the statements I'm about to make. First, I'd like to say that as an Uber/Lyft driver, the experience has been nothing short of exhilarating. I normally work in the L.A. and O.C. areas of So. Cal and the amount of interesting, super successful, and wonderful people I meet on a daily basis is off the charts. It's as if I'm some sort of talk show host on wheels. Initially, I applied for Lyft, as the social and community angle of its service intrigued the hell out of me. I'm an outgoing guy and I'm also an artist of some type who receives a royalty check only once a month. Instead of doing kickstarters and begging for money, I thought doing Lyft would be a great idea instead. So far my customers have been nothing short of an inspiration. Anyway, after passing a background check, a driving test with my mentor, a driving record check, alongside submitting all my documentation (license, registration, insurance) , and a quick vehicle inspection (my car is rather new and in great condition) I was hired quickly. That same day I decided to get to work quickly, see how the whole system works. As soon as I got to the destination I wanted to get to I got my first call on my phone within 5 minutes. I use my GPS and rush to pick my customer up (while obeying all traffic laws, of course). After a couple of minutes of chit chat I come to find out my first Lyft customer ever is an Uber recruiter. She likes my car and my approach so she hands me a Uber logo'd black bag with an iPhone, a car charger, and a mount. I asked her if this means I have to work exclusively for Uber, she says, \"\"Nope.\"\" My eyes then light up like some medieval lights in the sky, chicken little for the peasantry, ancient aliens approved phenomena when I realize I'll have access to both customer bases just one week removed from not being able to pay my phone bill. After submitting a background check, a driving record check, and pretty much all the stuff Lyft asked for, I was driving for both Uber and Lyft a week after I was hired for Lyft. The good news for you the consumer is that both companies are being cut throat because they want your money! There's never been a better time to hitch a ride on the cheap. Both companies have thrown millions of dollars over the past couple of months through social media, driver bonuses, and other venues, so you're able to get a free ride or a deep discount off a long ride. If you haven't tried both services, now's the time. Don't want to risk getting a DUI just for driving down a couple of blocks to your favorite bar this weekend? You'll probably be able to get a free ride there (if you scour gently for specials) and pay between $7-13 for the trip back. Better than getting your car impounded, losing your license, and paying $10,000+ in penalties and court fees, eh? You have no idea how many poor saps I take to and from work who can't drive because they just got a D.U.I., and who are now plunking $25-35 per ride just to get to where they gotta go. INSURANCE As for insurance, both companies have given me supplemental insurance. I have full coverage on my car for when I'm off the clock (which was required at time of hiring, btw). So here's how the insurance for Lyft and Uber works. [For Lyft](http://i.imgur.com/mc6hanN.jpg) When App is turned on (on the way to pick up client) -or- \"\"Contingent Liability\"\" 1. * up to $50k/person (bodily injury) 1. * up to $100k/accident (bodily injury) 1. * up to $25k/accident (Property damage) When you pick up client(s) in the car and you're on your way to the destination. Excessive liability & UM/UIM 1. Up to $1,000,000/occurence Contingent Collision & Comprehensive 1. up to $50,000/accident ($2500 deductible) [For UberX](http://i.imgur.com/k9kIvzB.png) When App is turned on (on the way to pick up client) -or- \"\"Contingent Liability\"\" 1. up to $50k/person (bodily injury) 1. up to $100k/accident (bodily injury) 1. up to $25k/accident (Property damage) When you pick up client(s) in the car and you're on your way to the destination. Excessive liability & UM/UIM Up to $1,000,000/occurence Contingent Collision & Comprehensive up to $50,000/accident ($1000 deductible) Other than the deductible, as you can see both plans are pretty much the same. Which in my opinion, should be more than enough. SERVICES & EXPECTATIONS Both apps are easy to use and within 5-10 minutes (sometimes much sooner, there've been many times where I get a call and the customer is on the sidewalk a few feet from where I was parked waiting for my next call). Both passengers and drivers adhere to a rating system. As of today, if either driver or passenger fail to maintain a rating of 4.6 and above they risk being booted from using the app. So it's important that drivers know what the hell they are doing (like being courteous, respectful, professional, clean, and know how to use a GPS while driving accurately and safely and/or knowing their routes instinctively) and passengers should also be polite, respectful, communicative (very important since drivers aren't psychics). Also, don't be so drunk that you either pass out or throw up in the back and make sure that if your bring your friends along for the ride, that they adhere to the code of conduct expected of passengers. I've run into numerous instances where an otherwise perfect passenger gets dinged for their drunk and/or rude friends. Also, as a driver, for your insurance to work, don't EVER end a drive early because you made a wrong turn or were late for a pick up. You're risking an insurance hiccup in the event of an incident, and passengers should also make sure that their driver has their app online throughout the entire trip, as well as making sure the driver's pic of him/her and his/her car match the profile you see on the app. As for safety, I've yet to hear from a passenger they felt they were ever in immediate danger. Did they get a creepy vibe from one of their drivers? Sure, not everyone is a social butterfly, and there has been an inundation of ex-cab drivers going over to Uber (which is good, cause' the service is getting pro drivers with experience, but could prove detrimental, since they're gonna have a hard time competing with Lyft on the charisma side of things). However, I've already numerous accounts from young women in Hollywood who are now refusing to call for a yellow cab or taxis on Hollywood Blvd and Sunset and the surrounding areas due to unwelcome sexual advances by drivers looking to take advantage of their sometimes solitary and inebriated drive home. It's heartwarming and great to hear whenever you drop one of these young women off at their places and they thank you for being both professional, courteous, welcoming, and above all else, trustworthy, all while paying a fraction of the cost of what a cab would normally run at that time of night. MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (IN SUMMARY) I'm literally having the time of my life. My other job requires me to interact with humanity, pick its brain, and then express those experiences to everyone else in an invigorating, positive, and inspirational manner. What better way to do it--while earning some decent money--than driving around for Uber and Lyft. These services are, without a doubt, revolutionary, and are being used and employed by both young and old, men and women, struggling students, and strategically utilized by incredibly wealthy and successful Hollywood types and investment bankers. It's cheap, reliable, and very fun too. It's also bringing back the long lost art of human interaction and conversation back into our daily lives. So far, so good, and it breaks my heart whenever I hear misinformation and astroturfing about these services throughout the internet, and I'm supremely angered as to how certain municipalities are colluding with taxi cab lobbies to prevent Uber and Lyft and other ride-share services from competing fairly at a time where cities are desperate to ease congestion, reduce DUI's, and make sure their citizens are happy and are left with more money in their pocketbooks.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4f0b80784928bee1230505db0eb23a5f	Do mutual fund companies deliberately “censor” their portfolios/funds?	[ { "docid": "eeae47327398ea15c73b93538235cb5f", "text": "\"Do mutual funds edit/censor underperforming investments to make their returns look better, and if so, is there any way one can figure out if they are doing it? No, that's not what the quote says. What the quote says is that the funds routinely drop investments that do not bring the expected return, which is true. That's their job, that is what is called \"\"active management\"\". Obviously, if you're measuring the fund by their success/failure to beat the market, to beat the market the funds must consistently select over-performers. No-one claims that they only select over-performers, but they select enough of them (or not...) for the average returns to be appealing (or not...) for the investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20eaa2ce1822366372a8b6126a2f940c", "text": "There is a survivorship bias in the mutual fund industry. It's not about individual stocks in which those funds invest. Rather, it's in which funds and fund companies/families are still around. The underperforming funds get closed or merged into other funds. Thus they are no longer reported, since they no longer exist. This makes a single company's mutual funds appear to have a better history, on average, than they actually did. Similarly, fund companies that underperform, will go out of business. This could make the mutual fund industry's overall history appear to be better than it actually was. Most companies don't do this to deliberately game the numbers. It's rational on the part of fund companies to close underperforming funds. When a fund has a below average history, investors will likely not invest in it, and will remove their existing money. The fund will shrink while the overhead remains the same, making the fund unprofitable for the company to run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c60b445afe0bab8264191b238caa2fe", "text": "\"If I invest in individual stocks I will, from time to time, sell stocks that aren't performing well. If the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, then the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, regardless of whether selling those stocks is labeled as \"\"delete[ing] failures\"\". Same thing for mutual funds: selling underperforming stocks is perfectly ordinary, and calling it \"\"delete[ing] failures\"\" in order to imply some sort of dishonesty is simply dishonest.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0f25b9fbec9ffacf7aed54f24f4be5ec", "text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7bbbba72cb8dc5b8dcf6cba5fd65700", "text": "The S&P 500 is a market index. The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500. I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e09b473dcb81d2f1f51efcea3d3b24c7", "text": "\"That's like a car dealer advertising their \"\"huge access\"\" to Chevrolet. All brokers utilize dark pools nowadays, either their own or one belonging to a larger financial institution. Why? Because that's a primary source of broker income. Example: Under current US regulations the broker is under no obligation to pass these orders to actual (a.k.a. lit) exchanges. Instead it can internalize them in its dark pool as long as it \"\"improves the price\"\". So: If a broker doesn't run its own dark pool, then it sends the orders to the dark pool run by a larger institution (JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, Getco, Knight Capital) and gets some fraction of the dark pool's profit in return. Are Mom and Pop negatively impacted by this? Not for most order types. They each even got a free penny out of the deal! But if there were no dark pools, that $1.00 difference between their trade prices would have gone half ($0.50) to Mom's counterparty and half ($0.50) to Pop's counterparty, who could be someone else's Mom and someone else's Pop. So ... that's why brokers all use dark pools, and why their advertisement of their dark pool access is silly. They're basically saying, \"\"We're going to occasionally throw you a free penny while making 49 times that much from you\"\"! (Note: Now apply the above math to a less liquid product than AAPL. Say, where the spread is not $0.01, but more like $0.05. Now Mom and Pop still might make a penny each, while the broker can make $4.98 on a 100 share trade!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6aa7994d1eb6dfbbd1f75c1cafa06219", "text": "A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the results of the kinds of analyses that one can do for a single stock must be commingled to produce something analogous for the fund's NAV. In other words, there is plenty of shooting in the dark going on. That being said, there are plenty of people who claim to do such analyses and will gladly sell you their results (actually, Buy, Hold, Sell recommendations) for whole fund families (e.g. Vanguard) in the form of a monthly or weekly Newsletter delivered by US Mail (in the old days) or electronically (nowadays). Some people who subscribe to such newsletters swear by them, while others swear at them and don't renew their subscriptions; YMMV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d9303a97a7532a9f39858d68b75bf2a", "text": "Without knowing the specifics it is hard to give you a specific answer, but most likely the answer is no. If they limit the participation in the site to accredited investors, this is probably not something they are doing willingly, but rather imposed by regulators. Acredited investors have access to instruments that don't have the same level of regulatory protection & scrutiny as those offered to the general public, and are defined under Regulation D. Examples of such securities are 144A Shares, or hedgefunds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3434f214ebf6ea235e1f6dc952df5914", "text": "\"How does [FINRA's 5% markup policy] (http://www.investopedia.com/study-guide/series-55/commissions-and-trade-complaints/finra-5-markup-policy/) affect the expense/profit/value of an ETF/Mutual Fund? An extreme example to illustrate: If my fund buys 100 IBM @ 100, The fund would credit the broker $10,000 for those shares and the broker would give the fund 100 shares. Additionally there would be some sort of commission (say $10) paid on top of the transaction which would come out of the fund's expense ratio. But the broker is \"\"allowed\"\" to charge a 5% markup. So that means, that $100 price that I see could have hit the tape at $95 (assume 5% markup which is allowed). Thus, assuming that the day had zero volatility for IBM, when the fund gets priced at the end of the day, my 100 shares which \"\"cost\"\" 10,000 (plus $10) now has a market value of $9,500. Is that how it \"\"could\"\" work? That 500 isn't calculated as part of the expense of the fund is it? (how could it be, they don't know about the exact value of the markup).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d7c47268b8731b24a5cc95a73efbe03", "text": "\"How on earth can you possibly know what is going on in individual company X? The sole exception is if it is your own company. The stock markets of the world are in fact a nest of sharks. The big sharks essentially make money out of the little sharks. Some little sharks manage not to be eaten, and grow bigger. Good luck with that. \"\"Insider trading\"\" is, when found out, a crime these days. But \"\"insider knowledge\"\", \"\"insider hints\"\", \"\"knowledge of market sentiment\"\" and indeed just rumours about a given company are the kinds of things you won't particularly get to hear of in the fog of disinformation, and don't particularly want to waste your time with for a very uncertain loss or gain at the end of the year. The thing I find annoying about mutual funds is that they can be very stupid, and I speculate that it may be the consequence of the marketing on the one hand, and the commission structure on the other. I started cashing in my funds in late 2007, following the collapse of Northern Rock here in the UK. The \"\"2008\"\" crisis was in fact the slowest economic car crash in history. But very very few mutual funds saw, or seemed to see, the way the wind was blowing, and switch massively to cash. If the punters had the courage to hang on, of course, mostly stocks bounced back in 2009 and 2010. Moral: remember you can cash your stuff in any time you want.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40e08223ac41fd50cdae1dcf1e7cebc1", "text": "The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f69471fbc64767b814c43447c1a02d6f", "text": "There are not necessarily large shareholders, maybe every other Joe Schmoe owns 3 or 5 shares; and many shares might be inside investment funds. If you are looking for voting rights, typically, the banks/investment companies that host the accounts of the individual shareholders/fund owners have the collective voting rights, so the Fidelity's and Vanguard's of the world will be the main and deciding voters. That is very common.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13804378135ed6bfb6d6e7517aac9d40", "text": "index ETF tracks indented index (if fund manager spend all money on Premium Pokemon Trading Cards someone must cover resulting losses) Most Index ETF are passively managed. ie a computer algorithm would do automatic trades. The role of fund manager is limited. There are controls adopted by the institution that generally do allow such wide deviations, it would quickly be flagged and reported. Most financial institutions have keyman fraud insurance. fees are not higher that specified in prospectus Most countries have regulation where fees need to be reported and cannot exceed the guideline specified. at least theoretically possible to end with ETF shares that for weeks cannot be sold Yes some ETF's can be illiquid at difficult to sell. Hence its important to invest in ETF that are very liquid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daccd8ca0d17624588d8df91bea8c332", "text": "One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20e5cfc13dc16a19aef4dc3ba03eba08", "text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "403f5cce6098e955f1016b38320d2ee1", "text": "\"I think the answer to your question is no, in theory. By screening out funds, you must actively manage the investments. To then try to ensure you track the index closely enough, you have to do further management. Either you spend your own time to do this or you pay someone else. This is ok, but it seems contrary to the primary reasons most people choose an index fund and why the product exists. You want a specific type of ethical investment(s) that has lower fees and performs well. I think you can get close, it just won't be like an \"\"index fund\"\". Don't expect equal results.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcbd96d50a6f159f56b3bc04413bca94", "text": "\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is over. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does not want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca4e08fd07ce1d7ceac49708e140e482", "text": "You'd be moving from 33.5K of taxable income + 16.5K of untaxable income, to 65K of taxable income (worst case). So the question is whether the net from the extra 31.5K of taxable income is more than the 16.5K, and since marginal tax rates in the relevant brackets are no more than 32% according to the table you posted (22% federal and 10% provincial), it's definitely a win to move jobs. More precisely, the marginal tax rate is 25% on the first 8044 (41544-33500) and 32% on the rest, making for total extra tax of about 9.5K and thus net income (beyond the 33.5K baseline) of 22K. Compared to the 16.5K this leaves you 5.5K up. If you end up at the 70K end, you're another 3.4K up beyond that.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
066aaab7ffbc665fb9cd907b3a514e66	Self assessment expenses - billing date or payment date?	[ { "docid": "848ab8b6c4f59f784f99de5bb5c720c8", "text": "Unless you're running a self-employed business with a significant turnover (more than £150k), you are entitled to use cash basis accounting for your tax return, which means you would put the date of transactions as the payment date rather than the billing date or the date a debt is incurred. For payments which have a lag, e.g. a cheque that needs to be paid in or a bank transfer that takes a few days, you might also need to choose between multiple payment dates, e.g. when you initiated the payment or when it took effect. You can pick one as long as you're consistent: You can choose how you record when money is received or paid (eg the date the money enters your account or the date a cheque is written) but you must use the same method each tax year.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8143e59701da827051bb11538170aa2e", "text": "Hi guys, have a question from my uni finance course but I’m unsure how to treat the initial loan (as a bond, or a bill or other, and what the face value of the loan is). I’ll post the question below, any help is appreciated. “Hi guys, I have a difficult university finance question that’s really been stressing me out.... “The amount borrowed is $300 million and the term of the debt credit facility is six years from today The facility requires minimum loan repayments of $9 million in each financial year except for the first year. The nominal rate for this form of debt is 5%. This intestest rate is compounded monthly and is fixed from the date the facility was initiated. Assume that a debt repayment of $10 million is payed on 31 August 2018 and $9million on April 30 2019. Following on monthly repayments of $9 million at the end of each month from May 31 2019 to June 30 2021. Given this information determine the outstanding value of the debt credit facility on the maturity date.” Can anyone help me out with the answer? I’ve been wracking my brain trying to decide if I treat it as a bond or a bill.” Thanks in advance,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592", "text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28fbd6147331296e24091a48b5f615a7", "text": "It is important to understand that when or before you received services from your medical provider(s), you almost certainly signed a document stating that you understand that you are fully responsible for the entire bill, even though the provider may be willing to bill the insurer on your behalf as a service. In almost all cases, this is the arrangement, so it is very unlikely that you will be able to dispute the validity of the bill, since you did receive the service and almost certainly agreed to be fully responsible for the payments. With regard to the discounts, your medical provides have likely contracted with your insurer to provide services at a certain price or discount level, so I would base all of your negotiations with the providers and/or the collectors on those amounts. They can't legitimately bill you for the full amount since you are insured by a company they have a contract with, and you are not self-pay/uninsured, and the fact that they haven't been paid by your insurer doesn't change that, because the discount likely depends on the contact they have with your insurer and not whether or not they are billed/paid by your insurer. Please note - this is a common arrangement, but I'd recommend that you verify this with your insurer. Unfortunately, payment in 90+ days is often typical by insurance standards, so it's not yet clear to me whether or not your insurer has broken any laws such as a Prompt Pay law, or violated the terms of your policy with them (read it!). However, you need to find out which claims rep/adjuster is handling your claims and follow up with them until the payments are made. It's not personal, so make this person's life miserable until it is done and call them so often that they know it's you by the caller ID. I would also recommend contacting the collector(s), and letting them know that you don't have the money and so will not be able to pay, provide them with copies of the EOBs that state that the insurance company plans to pay the providers, and then ignore their calls/letters until the payments are made. When they call, simply reiterate that you don't have the money and that your insurance company is in the process of paying the bills. You have to expect that you will be dealing with a low-paid employee that is following a script. You are just the next person on their robo-call list, and they are not going to understand that you don't have a pile of money laying around with which to pay them, even if you tell them repeatedly. Make sure that you at no point give them access to any of your financial accounts, such as a checking or savings account, or a debit card - they will access it and clean you out. It is likely that your insurance provider will pay the providers directly since they were likely billed by the providers originally. If the providers have sold the debt to the collectors (and are not just employing a collector for debt they still own), you may have to follow up with the providers as well and make sure that the collection activity stops, since the providers may also need to forward the payments to the collectors once they are paid by the insurance company. Of course, if the insurer refuses to pay the claims, at that point I would recommend meeting with a lawyer to seek to force them to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d3b2a9a6abd42118fa040f7b762a52b", "text": "\"In the US, you'd run the risk of being accused of fraud if this weren't set up properly. It would only be proper if your wife could show that she were involved, acting as your agent, bookkeeper, etc. Even so, to suggest that your time is billed at one rate but you are only paid a tiny fraction of that is still a high risk alert. I believe the expression \"\"if it quacks like a duck...\"\" is pretty universal. If not, I'll edit in a clarification. note -I know OP is in UK, but I imagine tax collection is pretty similar in this regard.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f1b1c566e68e180bc8d2edd76e7676a", "text": "\"But I have been having a little difficulty to include the expenditure in my monthly budget as the billing cycle is from the 16th to 15th of the next month and my income comes in at the end of the month. Many companies will let you change the statement date if you want, so one way to do this would be to request your bank to have statements due at the end of the month or first of month. You can call and ask, this might resolve your problem entirely. How can I efficiently add the credit card expenditure to my monthly budget? We do this using YNAB, which then means our monthly budget is separate from our actual bank accounts. When we spend, we enter the transaction into YNAB and it's \"\"spent.\"\" Additionally, we just pay whatever our credit card balance is a day before the end of the month so it is at $0 when we do our budget discussion at the end of each month.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b677bf9fd32eb6bc39174c40ce70a5b", "text": "If the hospital is run like hospitals in the US it can take a long time just to determine the bill. The hospital, Emergency room, ER doctors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, X-Ray department, pharmacy and laboratory are considered separate billing centers. It can take a while to determine the charges for each section. Is there an insurance company involved? When there is one involved it can take weeks or months before the hospital determines what the individual owes. The co-pays, coverages, and limits can be very confusing. In my experience it can take a few months before the final amount is known. You may want to call the hospital to determine the status of the bills.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6b09a1c18842ba3d64088cabe20f311", "text": "Personal story here: I ended up at the Santa Monica hospital without insurance and left with a bill of $30k-$35k. They really helped me, so I felt like I had a duty to pay them. However, close inspection revealed ridiculous markups on some items which I would have disputed, but I noticed that I had been billed for a few thousands of services not rendered. I got very mad at them for this, they apologized, told me they'd fix it. I never heard back from them and they never put it in collection either. I'm assuming they (rightfully) got scared that I'd go to court and this would be bad publicity. Sometimes I feel guilty I didn't pay them anything, sometimes I feel like they tried to screw me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f544b73053ef55810b85675372d3150a", "text": "I store all my receipts digitally, and make sure to input them into accounting program sooner than later, just so I don't forget about it. For practical purposes, the two important things are: Any kind of a digital system makes this pretty easy, even just putting the sums in a spreadsheet and the receipts into files with the date in the name. However, because it's easy enough, I also have a box where I stuff the paper receipts. I expect never to need them, but should something very weird happen to my computer and backups, they would be there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84bc66f322b8d2b1c50ecec75a3970be", "text": "Careful, here. The last time we got a bill from the doctor's office because they made a billing mistake it turns out the bill was a mistake. Before you pay anything go through the list of charges and payments and make sure it's accurate. (In our case she went to an appointment and was then told there was no reason for the doctor to see her that day. Several months later a bill for the visit showed up--except they hadn't kept straight what payment was for what visit so it took some digging to figure out what had happened.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "540ad14306a6ab98c337a396e981a398", "text": "Even for those of us who aren't at risk of over drafting, direct debit is a less-than-stellar option. Direct debit is a great way to begin ignoring how large your bills are. By explicitly paying them through my bank's online billpay, I notice immediately when a bill is larger than it ought to be. This is often caused by a billing error. In which case I've found it far easier to resolve disputes when the money is still in my hands. It's significantly harder to convince an internet provider, cell phone service, or utility to reverse an incorrect charge after it's been paid than it is before. The other times, it's because I've been using the service more than normal. For example, sending text messages more frequently or using more electricity. Explicitly paying these bills makes me realize upfront that there's been a change in my behavior and I can either reduce my expenses or accept the higher cost for higher service. My own experience leads me to believe that paying your bills automatically every month is a great way to ignore these events, and leak money like a sieve. Online bill pay makes doing this as trivial as I could hope for, and the risk of missing a payment is essentially nil.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6cd27e3c2f8b12e4334eb3d747c96c3", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b4466c1672ecccd8c473e8503ff8b95", "text": "\"According to the instructions for IRS Form 8889, Expenses incurred before you establish your HSA are not qualified medical expenses. If, under the last-month rule, you are considered to be an eligible individual for the entire year for determining the contribution amount, only those expenses incurred after you actually establish your HSA are qualified medical expenses. Accordingly, your medical expenses from year A are not considered \"\"qualified medical expenses\"\" and you should not use funds in your HSA to pay them unless you would like to pay taxes on the distributed funds and a 20% penalty. Publication 969 states very clearly on page 9: How you report your distributions depends on whether or not you use the distribution for qualified medical expenses (defined earlier). If you use a distribution from your HSA for qualified medical expenses, you do not pay tax on the distribution but you have to report the distribution on Form 8889. There is nothing about the timing of contributions versus distributions. As long as the distribution is for a qualified medical expense, the distribution will not be included in gross income and not subject to penalty regardless of how much money you had in your HSA when you incurred the medical expense.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3174bd88a6eb03c2c32fcf1803446a5f", "text": "My guess: they are giving you a constant number of days between when the bill is sent and when it is due. Due dates are usually set either: same date each month IE the 3rd of each month. same day IE first thursday of the month. Note: due date might vary based on weekends. Number of days in the month - date on bill should be pretty constant if due date option #1 is being used. Note how Feb dates were usually earlier, since it is a shorter month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18d9cbc00c698170d9acdf0c488dd88c", "text": "If you read all that paperwork they made you fill out at the emergency room, there is probably something in there explicitly stating that you owe any bills you rack up regardless of what happens with the insurance company. They generally have a disclaimer that filing for you with your insurance company is a courtesy service they offer, but they are not obliged to do it. Ultimately, you are responsible for your bills even if the provider slow-billed you. Sorry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf395ba4cd893fe297222a85e755771d", "text": "Better suited to /r/personalfinance, but you definitely owe the money. Unless you had something in writing that they were going to send a bill to a certain address, it's your responsibility to pay. Hell, even if you did have something in writing that said they'd send the bill somewhere else it's still your responsibility to pay even if the bill doesn't show up. You know you owed them money. When your parents didn't get the bill, you should have called the company to ask about it. It's your responsibility to follow up since you're the one that owes the money. What did you think would happen when you went 5 months without paying $312 that you knew you owed?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c318c953c93d76372cc5e4e2817fd93c	Why is a stock that pays a dividend preferrable to one that doesn't?	[ { "docid": "7dcda72e44ad0126ba5ec11ec96b37e3", "text": "Check out the questions about why stock prices are what they are. In a nutshell, a stock's value is based on the future prospects of the company. Generally speaking, if a growth company is paying a dividend, that payment is going to negatively affect the growth of the business. The smart move is to re-invest that capital and make more money. As a shareholder, you are compensated by a rising stock price. When a stock isn't growing quickly, a dividend is a better way for a stockholder to realize value. If a gas and electric company makes a billion dollars, investing that money back into the company is not going to yield a large return. And since those types of companies don't really grow too much, the stocks typically trade in a range and don't see the type of appreciation that a growth stock will. So it makes sense to pay out the dividend to the shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10d8658ae1f278bd82771c88cacf32fa", "text": "The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "613fb19903e86d17b4d0dae3b5a7afe7", "text": "One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d508d155637deec50c60a2ca1ee444b", "text": "\"Dividend paying stocks are not \"\"better\"\" In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations. The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares. Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field. IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "13741d54162a9c82b58e040a60a81243", "text": "There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a441a35f5ea8b2a32692d8b7d32d6a20", "text": "\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c9eee7ddb2b677c51d0b55c42a95900", "text": "\"Some investment trusts have \"\"zero dividend preference shares\"\" which deliver all their gains as capital gains rather than income, even if the trust was investing in income yielding stocks. They've rather gone out of fashion after a scandal some years ago (~2000). Good 2014 article on them here includes the quote \"\"Because profits from zero dividend preference shares are taxed as capital gains, they can be used tax efficiently if you are smart about how you use your annual capital gains tax allowance.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff", "text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9b6e76052a90103ff5a9ddac9ac31a5", "text": "\"Baseball cards don't pay dividends. But many profitable companies do just that, and those that don't could, some day. Profits & dividends is where your analogy falls apart. But let's take it further. Consider: If baseball cards could somehow yield a regular stream of income just for owning them, then there might be yet another group of people, call them the Daves. These Daves I know are the kind of people that would like to own baseball cards over the long term just for their income-producing capability. Daves would seek out the cards with the best chance of producing and growing a reliable income stream. They wouldn't necessarily care about being able to flip a card at an inflated price to a Bob, but they might take advantage of inflated prices once in a while. Heck, even some of the Steves would enjoy this income while they waited for the eventual capital gain made by selling to a Bob at a higher price. Plus, the Steves could also sell their cards to Daves, not just Bobs. Daves would be willing to pay more for a card based on its income stream: how reliable it is, how high it is, how fast it grows, and where it is relative to market interest rates. A card with a good income stream might even have more value to a Dave than to a Bob, because a Dave doesn't care as much about the popularity of the player. Addendum regarding your comment: I suppose I'm still struggling with the best way to present my question. I understand that companies differ in this aspect in that they produce value. But if stockholders cannot simply claim a percentage of a company's value equal to their share, then the fact that companies produce value seems irrelevant to the \"\"Bobs\"\". You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors. The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket. A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares. Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying \"\"book value\"\" per share.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b630929af30262fb03a36642052d7bd0", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "003ff0722258a8a1db2755954ebb35ee", "text": "\"I seem not to be able to comment on the first answer due to reputation, so I'll aim to enhanced the first answer which is generally good but with these caveats: 1) Dividends are not \"\"guaranteed\"\" to preferred shareholders. Rather, preferred shareholders are normally in line ahead (i.e. in preference to or \"\"preferred\"\") of common shareholders in terms of dividend payment. This is an extremely important distinction, because unlike investments that we generally consider \"\"guaranteed\"\" such as CDs (known as GICs in Canada), a company's board can suspend the dividend at anytime for long periods of time without significant repercussions -- whereas a missed payment to a bank or secured bondholder can often push a company into bankruptcy very quickly. 2) Due to point 1), it is extremely important to know the \"\"convenants\"\" or rules sorrounding both the preferred shares you are buying and the other more senior creditors of that issuing company (i.e. taxes (almost always come first), banks loans, leases, bonds etc.). It is also important to know if a particular preferred share has \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends. You generally only want to buy preferred's that have \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends, since that means that anytime the company misses a payment, they must pay those dividends first before any other dividends at the same or lower priority in the future. 3) Unlike a common stock, your upside on a preferred stock is relatively fixed: you get a fixed share of the company's profit and that's it, whereas a common shareholder gets everything that's left over after interest and preferred dividends are paid. So if the company does really well you will theoretically do much better with common stock over time. For the above reasons, it is generally advisable to think of preferred shares as being more similar to really risky bonds in the same company, rather than similar to common stock. Of course, if you are an advanced investor there are a lot more variables in play such as tax considerations and whether the preferred have special options attached to them such conversion into common shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ae7681cfe1d319898337f727b749fc4", "text": "Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43a8a0bd9f7e3a02c41380568ddbd89c", "text": "\"Preferred dividends and common dividends are completely separate transactions. There's not a single \"\"dividend\"\" payment that is split between preferred and common shares. Dividends on preferred shares are generally MUCH higher than common dividends, and are generally required by the terms of the preferred shares, again unlike common dividends, which are discretionary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7357993aa3e3e8e6d746463fbc6fefa2", "text": "Shares often come associated with a set of rights, such as ability to vote in the outcome of the company. Some shares do not have this right, however. With your ability to vote in the outcome of the company, you could help dictate that the company paid dividends at a point in time. Or many other varieties of outcomes. Also, if there were any liquidity events due to demand of the shares, this is typically at a much higher price than the shares are now when the company is private/closely held.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fd8ecaa4e48f0176054c42c39d7c412", "text": "\"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it \"\"wasting money\"\" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a", "text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730", "text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22ea84df5765d24026478526849a4fb6", "text": "Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4ed417141918153347ad59bdaa98385", "text": "Buying stocks is like an auction. Put in the price you want to pay and see if someone is willing to sell at that price. Thing to remember about after hours trading; There is a lot less supply so there's always a larger bid/ask price spread. That's the price brokers charge to handle the stocks they broker over and above the fee. That means you will always pay more after the market closes. Unless it is bad news, but I don't think you want to buy when that happens. I think a lot of the after market trading is to manipulate the market. Traders drive up the price overnight with small purchases then sell their large holdings when the market opens.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b004e8f6c250759e152884ec241164a7	Estate taxes and the top 1 percent by net worth	[ { "docid": "cd8357d402dd8084d8d89d0fc81cd792", "text": "Of course, you've already realized that some of that is that smaller estates are more common than larger estates. But it seems unlikely that there are four times as many estates between $10 and $11 million as above that range. People who expect to die with an estate subject to inheritance tax tend to prepare. I don't know how common it is, but if the surviving member of a couple remarries, then the new spouse gets a separate exemption. And of course spouses inherit from spouses without tax. In theory this could last indefinitely. In practice, it is less likely. But if a married couple has $20 million, the first spouse could leave $15 million to the second and $5 million to other heirs. The second spouse could leave $10 million to a third spouse (after remarrying) and another $5 million to children with the first spouse. All without triggering the estate tax. People can put some of their estate into a trust. This can allow the heirs to continue to control the money while not paying inheritance tax. Supposedly Ford (of Ford Motor Company) took that route. Another common strategy is to give the maximum without gift tax each year. That's at least $14k per donor and recipient per year. So a married couple with two kids can transfer $56k per year. Plus $56k for the kids' spouses. And if there are four grandchildren, that's another $112k. Great-grandchildren count too. That's more than a million every five years. So given ten years to prepare, parents can transfer $2 million out of the estate and to the heirs without tax. Consider the case of two wealthy siblings. They've each maxed out their gifts to their own heirs. So they agree to max out their gifts to their sibling's heirs. This effectively doubles the transfer amount without tax implication. Also realize that they can pretransfer assets at the current market rate. So if a rich person has an asset that is currently undervalued, it may make sense to transfer it immediately as a gift. This will use up some of the estate exemption. But if you're going to transfer the asset eventually, you might as well do so when the value is optimal for your purpose. These are just the easy things to do. If someone wants, they can do more complicated things that make it harder for the IRS to track value. For example, the Bezos family invested in Amazon.com when Jeff Bezos was starting it. As a result, his company could survive capital losses that another company might not. The effect of this was to make him fabulously rich and his parents richer than they were. But he won't pay inheritance tax until his parents actually transfer the estate to him (and I believe they actually put it in a charitable trust). If his company had failed instead, he still would have been supported by the capital provided by his parents while it was open (e.g. his salary). But he wouldn't have paid inheritance tax on it. There are other examples of the same pattern: Fred Smith of FedEx; Donald Trump; Bill Gates of Microsoft; etc. The prime value of the estate was not in its transfer, but in working together while alive or through a family trust. The child's company became much more valuable as a result of a parent's wealth. And in two of those examples, the child was so successful that the parent became richer as a result. So the parent's estate does count. Meanwhile, another company might fail, leaving the estate below the threshold despite a great deal of parental support. And those aren't even fiddles. Those children started real companies and offered their parents real investment opportunities. A family that wants to do so can do a lot more with arrangements. Of course, the IRS may be looking for some of them. The point being that the estate might be more than $11 million earlier, but the parents can find ways to reduce it below the inheritance tax exemption by the time that they die.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b309d8497110987412f3ebce00f7f42f", "text": "There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars. These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58855f1783e2b031601dca2b3e9a29fc", "text": "There are two key reasons: Consider a family of four, two kids and two adults, that has a net worth of $20 million. Each of these four people live in a top 1% household. But any of those four people can die, and their estate will not pay any estate tax. Both kids and one spouse can die, and still no estate tax will be paid. Only when the last spouse dies would there be any estate tax. Also, consider a person who dies but whose assets do not flow into their estate. For example, their assets could be held in an inter-vivos trust. People with higher net worths are much more likely to use trusts to avoid or minimize estate taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa07528615abdd6a4fcf39b4ec776522", "text": "Data is a funny thing. There are many different ways of constructing data sets. Keep in mind, the cite you linked is fine, I follow this kind of site when I am data mining. They got their data from the Government, and there's no reason to doubt its validity. Keep in mind, it's a survey. They extrapolate from a survey of a small population - In the 2016 survey, 6,254 families were interviewed, and in the 2013 survey, 6,026 were interviewed. 1) Let's set that aside, and look at the numbers as if they were gospel. $10.37M net worth to be top 1%. That's people at all different ages, and not the wealth cutoff for those dying, else the estate tax would hit closer to the 1%. Given the limited data set, I'd only hypothesize, if we graphed the age (along the bottom, X axis) vs number of people, the curve would peek in mid to late 60's, as people retire. With 20 years for the couple to spend and gift, it's not tough to imagine that by the time they pass away, the taxable estate $11M couple falls to just .2%. 2) When the estate tax impacted estates over just $600K, and my daughter was born, we set up a trust. Out net worth was barely positive, but insurance alone would have created enough wealth to have our orphaned child be subject to the tax of our estate before she received a dime. We also used the trust to fund her college. As a completed gift, had we made some bad decisions and lost it all, at least that money would be protected. Keep in mind, there are different flavors of trusts, but it's safe to say that in a survey to collect data, the million dollar+ trusts are considered family wealth. Not tough to imagine a good fraction of those families over $10M have a nice chunk already protected this way. 3) Last - For any illiquid assets, there's a discount that gets applied, typically 30%. I own a ranch, and want to start gifting it to the kids, the process involves creating stock, with restrictions, as a way to transfer the fractions required to gift the $14K/yr per person combination. (That is, a couple can gift 14x4 = $56K to a child with a spouse. 4 kids, all married, and the gifting is $224K/yr, $320K at full valuation. Again, these gifts may be to irrevocable trusts, and still thought of as their wealth.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4aa71bc5470147597db83be59cdb3e56", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4fa325f676d104d2e0616422b951ff6", "text": "It is the most incorrect piece of the article, but it's not the lack of taxes that have allowed the wealthy to do better than the rest of us. You can argue for the seizure of their assets by the gov't - through taxes - as a way to take it from them. But the Fed's monetary policies are far more severe in how they impact inequality.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6177247a1ac13044890876a8fafc0a23", "text": "Here's how the CBO says the top 1% get their income: Source\|% from source :--------\|---------: Cash Wages and Salaries\|33.4% Business Income\|23.2% Capital Gains\|19.1% Capital Income\|11.2% Corporate Tax Borne by Capital\|7.3% Other Income\|3.2% Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes\|0.9% Employee's Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plans\|0.7% Employer's Contributions to Health Insurance\|0.5%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee13d471d6a4de0b7fb093a6e1334ae9", "text": "\"Well I'd say they are expected to pay much more than what you describe. What you've described is called \"\"flat\"\" tax and is widely considered unacceptable (meaning the rich wouldn't pay enough). Today, as codified in progressive tax tables, the rich are certainly expected to pay much more than a flat tax as you describe. Beyond the natural scaling you get with a percentage, the percentage itself goes up as you make more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "814cb498ebdb318b3b26331502051b3a", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/top-1-of-households-in-uk-fully-recovered-from-financial-crisis) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) *** > New research from the Resolution Foundation showed that households with incomes of &pound;275,000 or more quickly recovered from the impact of the deep recession and have seen their share of national income return to the level seen before the global banking system froze up in the summer of 2007. > &quot;Adam Corlett, senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said:&quot;The incomes of the top 1% took a short, sharp hit following the financial crisis. > The share of national disposable income for the richest 1% of households rose steadily after Margaret Thatcher became prime minister in 1979 and reached a peak of 8.5% on the eve of the financial crisis. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6njstj/top_1_of_households_in_uk_fully_recovered_from/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~167774 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: income^#1 year^#2 election^#3 Foundation^#4 standards^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f04a63bace0b07f39e3568065d4022d7", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/994323/economists-say-the-ultra-wealthy-dodging-taxes-far-more-than-we-think/) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot) *** > Economists Annette Alstads&aelig;ter, Niels Johannesen, and Gabriel Zucman have taken the data from the two leaks and combined them with unusually detailed income and wealth records in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark to estimate the size and scope of tax evasion. > The economists&#039; surprising finding: The top.01% of the wealthy in these countries evades about 30% of their respective personal income and taxes, compared to the average evasion rate of 3%. These findings complicate two arguments commonly made by defenders of the status quo: One, that tax evasion is a relatively uncommon practice among the very wealthy highlighted by extreme cases, and two, that tax evasion among lower-income earners-working under the table or failing to declare tips, for example-is more pernicious than the use of offshore banks. > The researchers think that the results will likely show more tax evasion among the ultra-wealthy in more unequal countries, like the United States. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6etje2/economists_say_panama_papers_and_swiss_leaks_show/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~134702 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: tax^#1 evasion^#2 wealthy^#3 wealth^#4 super^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc7edd99a53e359a1c34b75cc8cbc63e", "text": "> 73% of Americans were in the ‘top 20%’ for at least a year Well, sure. [The top 20% currently begins at $92,000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States). All an American needs to do to qualify for that 73% is sell their house with ~50% equity at some point in their life since the IRS considers that income. Great logic of this article: liquidate your primary investment and \\poof\\ you're wealthy. Even [the authors of the study cited in this article say](http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/01/hirschl-research-finds-many-join-1-percent-few-stay-long): “It would be misguided to presume that top-level income attainment is solely a function of hard work, diligence and equality of opportunity,” they write. “A more nuanced interpretation includes the proposition that access to top-level income is influenced by historic patterns of race and class inequality.”", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c0bd52e79978f8c6e0af02469a87a93", "text": "\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c83108ac8af92e0912975e456bd3c5dd", "text": "Maryland is one of only two states (as of the writing of that article) that collects both inheritance tax and estate tax. These are two different issues, and it's important to differentiate between them sufficiently. I can't provide you a definitive answer, so consult a tax professional in Maryland for specific details to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities. This blog has a nice summary of the differences, as of 2012: The estate tax is assessable if more than one million dollars passes at death. The total dollar value of the property determines whether there is an estate tax. The inheritance tax is not dependent upon the value of the estate, as even very small estates can have inheritance tax imposed. Inheritance tax is assessed on property given to a person who is further removed in relationship than a sibling. Thus, for example, a 10% tax will be assessed on property passing to a cousin, niece, nephew or friend. Another section of the page states, as an example: If you give someone $10,000 in cash, the inheritance tax will simply reduce the amount inherited – in this case to $9,000. There are several other exemptions to the inheritance tax in addition to the immediate family exception discussed above: Property that passes from a decedent to or for the use of a grandparent, parent, spouse, child or other lineal descendant, spouse of a child or other lineal descendant, stepparent, stepchild, brother or sister of the decedent, or a corporation if all of its stockholders consist of the surviving spouse, parents, stepparents, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, and lineal descendants of the decedent and spouses of the lineal descendants. Putting this information together makes me think that the inheritance wouldn't be taxable in your case because it's a cash inheritance from an immediate family member, so it qualifies for one of the exemptions. Since I'm not a tax professional, however, I can't say that for sure. Hopefully these pages will give you enough of a foundation for when you talk to a professional.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5bbbf00ed8e7b0c39a7ece90572ef56", "text": "I know that if you make more, you pay more, but do those who have more, not make more, pay higher income tax? In general, no. In most locales, income tax is based on income, not on wealth. I am retired. I have little income but a fair amount of wealth. I play very little income tax. (But I do pay other kinds of taxes.) Here's a scenario. 2 people of average wealth with similar situations have the same job with equal pay. After 5 years, their situations haven't changed and they still earn equal pay, but now one has $40,000 in their account and the other $9,000. Does one now pay higher income tax because he has more in his account or does he pay the same because he makes the same? In most locales, you pay income tax on everything that is counted as income. Your salary is income. In some cases, earned interest is income. But aside from the earned interest from your bank accounts, neither the $40,000 nor the $9,000 is income. Your huge mansion isn't income. Your expensive car isn't income. The huge amount of land you own isn't income. The pricey artwork on your walls isn't income. You don't pay income tax on any of these, but your local may impose other taxes on these (such as property tax, etc.) [Note: consult the tax laws of your specific locale if you want to know details.]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a292e86a29e93f809f8d96cd651970a1", "text": "Fact check: not true. Their median net worth dropped 39 percent from 2007 to 2010 while their mean net worth, which is what the title of this post implies, went down 14.7 percent over the same period. Other things worth noting: the 2007 net worth values were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U-RS) and were based on the interviews of 6492 families in 2010 and 4421 in 2007. Here's the [source article from the Fed [PDF Warning]](http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/PDF/scf12.pdf).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1808c6c81d6b04a809ec7841876cc6a4", "text": "I think you are thinking too hard about this. If a billionaire's assets increase 70% in the stock market, he created $700M in new wealth. If 300 people each create a million dollars in new wealth. We have 300 new millionaires creating 300M in wealth, but still 70% of wealth among the 301 people was created by the billionaire. 300 new millionaires is still a good thing, no matter what you think about how to tax a billionaire's assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05106f27e856cd2f6b5bd98a7903936f", "text": "Net worth is interesting as it can have a different number assigned depending on your intent. The number I focus on is my total retirement account and any brokerage account. I purposely exclude the value of my house.* This tells me how much I'm able to invest. My heir would look at it a bit differently. She'd have the cash not only from the house, but from every bit of our possessions that can be sold. For my own purposes, knowing I have a piece of art that might sell for $xxx doesn't mean much, except for insurance purposes. In your case, if the coins are gold, and held for investment, count them. If they were your grandfather's and you plan to leave them to your own grandkids, I'd leave them out. * I make this point for two reasons - as someone with an eye toward retirement, the house doesn't get included in the 4% return math that I apply to the retirement and stock accounts. Also, in our situation, even when we downsize at retirement, the move isn't likely to pull much cash out of the house, it will be a lateral move. For those who plan to move from a McMansion in the suburbs of NY or Boston to a modest home in a lower cost of living elsewhere, that difference may be very important, and should be taken into account. This is simply how we handle this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fabbdbd646deebfed2e6ce56a9ae822", "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).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f469e2fa5ef685010cd4b8febf2dc799", "text": "In 2015 there's a $5.43M (That's million, as in 6 zeros) estate exemption. Even though it's $14K per year with no paperwork required, if you go over this, a bit of paperwork will let you tap your lifetime exemption. There's no tax consequence from this. The Applicable Federal Rate is the minimum rate that must be charged for this to be considered a loan and not a gift. DJ's answer is correct, otherwise, and is worth knowing as there are circumstances where the strategy is applicable. If the OP were a high net worth client trying to save his estate tax exemption, this (Dj's) strategy works just fine.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b070bafb6bb09999ae7567f65cd6f0ac	Does investing in a company support it?	[ { "docid": "c6cb4a956263e8a41ee3791e633b372f", "text": "Would you consider the owner of a company to be supporting the company? If you buy stock in the company you own a small part of that company. Your purchase also increases the share price, and thus the value of the company. Increased value allows the company to borrow more money to say expand operations. The affect that most individuals might have on share price is very very small. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing for you to do if it is something you believe in. After all if enough people followed those same convictions it could have an impact on the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c671fbf2d129267bb6316c15735d1b2b", "text": "\"We're not \"\"helping\"\" the company in a comparable sense to donating money to a non-profit. As you wrote, investing in a company deals with ownership and in a sense, becoming a part owner of a company, even if it is a minor ownership, indicates that we sense it has some sort of value, whether that's ethical, financial or tangible value. As investors, we should take responsibility and ensure that our voices are heard when voting occurs (sadly, not too common). EDIT: @thepassiveinvestor makes an excellent point that this paragraph only applies to IPOs: Keep in mind, when we purchase stock in a company, that money is used for business purposes. It also signals value to the market as well, if enough money or enough investors buy the stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf93f14c4c9dbe35734cc4af063d42a", "text": "As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f5da25c83626a5a159a078dfdc8dd25", "text": "As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "45f75f318140ab32ba09e27eb9b885aa", "text": "\"Investing in an existing company is almost like buying a house, or even becoming an \"\"Angel investor\"\" in a start-up. Before you start the process, decide how much you want to be involved in the day-to-day and which industries you would feel most comfortable in. The latter is an important consideration since you would have to know sufficient about the industry in order to evaluate the quality of your prospective investment. Searching for a suitable business is a time-consuming process: The guidance for evaluating any company has been answered in another question, so I'll simply link. Most business owners are looking to their businesses to provide them a pension, so they often look to sell around retirement age. Buying such a business is tricky - you may be assisting the next generation to finance the purchase which can have it's own struggles. Ideally you'll be looking for a young(ish) company with proven sales and which is looking to finance growth in an optimal way. Such a company may have many options for raising capital so you'll be competing to invest. As to whether or not it's a good idea... KFC only became a household name and global franchise after Pete Harman joined Harland Sanders as a partner. Richard and Maurice McDonald may have founded McDonald's but it was Ray Kroc who made it a success. New partners bring in new ideas and fresh energy which the original entrepreneurs may have lost during the difficulties of starting out. But that goes back to my first query; just how much do you want to get involved?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f2b3bea16a194d79cea04a22815d518", "text": "449 of the 500 companies in the S&P 500 used 54% of their earnings to buy back shares for over $2 trillion. Rather than invest in development, capital, human capital, bigger dividends, they're repurchasing shares to boost their EPS and increase share value in the short term. Why is this an issue? Because it shows that these companies are uneasy about the long term. It stunts growth. Doesn't have to be research, simply expansion or rewarding employees/shareholders. Employees of the company receive no benefits and bagholders may make a quick buck short term, but suffer long. Execs of the company however get fat AF checks for hitting target ratios and price. Stock buybacks enable this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a57f8a7e43f68fa77372db1607017ea4", "text": "But investing into your own company is already a tax deductible event. Expenditures like Research & Development, employee compensation, and acquiring new equipment are all things that reduce taxable income. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/05/20/third-cash-owned-5-us-companies/84640704/ > Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOGL), Cisco Systems (CSCO) and Oracle (ORCL) are sitting on $504 billion, or 30%, of the $1.7 trillion in cash and cash equivalents held by U.S. non-financial companies in 2015, according to an analysis released Friday by ratings agency Moody's Investors Service. That's even more cash concentration than in previous years, as these five companies held 27% of cash in 2014 and 25% in 2013. Apple alone is holding more cash and investments than eight of the 10 entire industry sectors. 1/3 of all dollars created by the US Federal Reserve banking system (physically minted or otherwise) is collectively held by 5 companies. Companies exist to accumulate wealth and will seek to avoid unnecessary expenditures, which includes taxes. The corporate income tax rate is 35%. For individuals, the top income tax bracket (for every dollar of income above $400,000) is 39.6%. I argue that dropping the top individual income tax bracket down to 34% will not materially affect these companies (paying 35% income tax) from continuing to just sit on a ludicrous sum of wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90da7807b82f18388c78a07d60511260", "text": "\"It's not either or. Much of the time the value of the stock has some tangible relation to the financial prospects of the company. The value of Ford and GM stock rose when they were selling a lot of cars, and collapsed when their cars became unpopular. Other companies (Enron for example) frankly 'cook the books' to make it appear they are prospering, when they are actually drowning in debt and non-performing assets. So called \"\"penny stocks\"\" have both low prices and low volumes and are susceptible to \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemes, where a manipulator buys a bunch of the stock, touts the stock to the world, pointing to the recent increase in price. They then sell out to all the new buyers, and the price collapses. If you are going to invest in the stock market it's up to you to figure out which companies are which.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb6bef38badbb80ac0351264579ffbfe", "text": "\"The way to invest money in a company is to buy its shares, or derivatives of its shares. However, it seems you're way in over your head. Don't buy what you don't understand. There is plenty of material to teach you about stock investing on the internet. However, a book may be the fastest way to learn what you need to know. And yes, there is a \"\"for dummies\"\" book about that: Stock Investing ForDummies. I just found it by Googling, I'm sure you can find even more interesting books out there. (Note, the link is to the \"\"cheat sheet\"\" in the back of the book. The full book is worth reading.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c50f4befa2ff841763a4a23ab2ef8cd2", "text": "Not directly. But companies benefit in various ways from a higher stock price. One way a high stock price can hurt a company is that many companies do share buybacks when the price is too high. Economically speaking, a company should only buy back shares when those shares are undervalued. But, management may have incentives to do buybacks at irrationally high prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3203580708f5da3c2fd8f0e3fa45ffb", "text": "\"Every investment comes with a risk. There is also a bit of speculation involved. In there is an anticipation that one expects the value to go up in normal course of events. By your definition \"\"If I buy this equipment, I could produce more widgets, or sell more widgets,\"\" as an investment. Here again there is an anticipation that the widgets you sell will give you more return. If you are investing in stock/share, you are essentially holding a small portion of value in company and to that extent you are owining some equipment that is producing some widget .... Hence when you are purchasing Stocks, it would be looked as investment if you have done your home work and have a good plan of how you want to invest along with weiging the risk involved. However if you are investing only for the purpose of making quick bucks following so called hot tips, then you are not investing but speculating.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c2ba8dba2f6f2b1e937ccfc001c4238", "text": "\"In some cases, when a company purchases a minor stake, they often intend to increase the size of the stake over time. As a reference, note that Coca Cola has increased their stake in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) over time. It also adds some \"\"support\"\" to the price because these investors may be willing to step in and purchase the stock if there is any distress or poor performance. Finally, its generally a good \"\"tell\"\" that the stock has good things going for it and may be subject to additional interest from large investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f0d832f5d7b871a5be90f876c28da0d", "text": "A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d68fc2a7722d857c5ffbe80888669754", "text": "\"There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns. The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :) While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with \"\"best practices\"\"... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals. Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0c0d39f8df8c4b635315554a55d549e", "text": "\"Sure, it doesn't, but realistically they can't/shouldn't do anything about it in their index funds, because then they're just another stock picker, trying to gauge which companies are going to do best. Their funds not all being indexes is what I was getting at with my original question. How much leeway do they have in their definitions of other funds? IE, if they had a dividend fund that included all large cap dividend paying stocks above 3% yield, they couldn't take out Shell just because of climate risk without fundamentally changing what the fund is. But if it's just \"\"income fund\"\" then they can do whatever in that space.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b93344044b6216beaa023228a7c575e", "text": "There's really not a simple yes/no answer. It depends on whether you're doing short term trading or long term investing. In the short term, it's not much different from sports betting (and would be almost an exact match if the bettors also got a percentage of the team's ticket sales), In the long term, though, your profit mostly comes from the growth of the company. As a company - Apple, say, or Tesla - increases sales of iPhones or electric cars, it either pays out some of the income as dividends, or invests them in growing the company, so it becomes more valuable. If you bought shares cheaply way back when, you profit from this increase when you sell them. The person buying it doesn't lose, as s/he buys at today's market value in anticipation of continued growth. Of course there's a risk that the value will go down in the future instead of up. Of course, there are also psychological factors, say when people buy Apple or Tesla because they're popular, instead of at a rational valuation. Or when people start panic-selling, as in the '08 crash. So then their loss is your gain - assuming you didn't panic, of course :-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b246bdaf4503b29d579c9e01389a1e48", "text": "Apart from investing in their own infrastructure, profits can be spent purchasing other companies, (Mergers and Acquisitions) investing in other securities, and frankly whatever they please. The idea here is that publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make as much money as they can with the resources (including cash, but including so much more than that) available to the company. It happens that the majority of huge companies eventually stopped growing and figured out that they weren't good at making money outside their core discipline and started giving the money back through dividends, but that norm has been eroded by tech companies that have figured out how to keep growing and driving up share prices even after they become giants. Shareholders will pressure management to issue dividends if share prices don't keep going up, but until the growth slows down, most investors hang on and don't rock the boat.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81274911372a5638c5f3fdc2923a01e8", "text": "Yes, an investment can be made in a company before IPO. The valuation process is similar as that done for arriving at IPO or for a normal listed company. The difference may be the premium perceived for the idea in question. This would differ from one investor to other. For example, whether Facebook will be able to grow at the rate and generate enough revenues and win against competition is all a mathematical model based on projections. There are quite a few times the projection would go wrong, and quite a few times it would go correct. An individual investor cannot generally borrow from banks to invest into a company (listed or otherwise) (or for any other purpose) if he does not have any collateral that can be kept as security by the bank. An individual can get a loan only if he has sufficient collateral. The exceptions being small personal loans depending on one's credit history. The Private Equity placement arm of banks or firms in the business of private equity invest in start-up and most of the time make an educated guess based on their experience. More than half of their investments into start-ups end up as wiped out. An occasional one or two companies are ones that they make a windfall gain on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac18a23cf30f659b257d22786cc092b5", "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.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a07e87da207c1c5a6824bf4d57247125	Tax me more: Can I pay extra to the government so I don't have to deal with all this paperwork?	[ { "docid": "70cf8d23890f8f5e17526f378a4ec318", "text": "\"In a word, no. If your income is high enough to have to file a return, you have to file a return. My accountant has a nice mindset for making it more palatable. I'll paraphrase: \"\"Our tax system is ludicrously complicated. As a result, it is your duty as an American to seek out and take advantage of every deduction and credit available to you. If our politicians and leaders put it into the tax code, use it to your advantage.\"\" A friend of mine got a free golf cart that way. It was a crazy combination of credits and loopholes for electric vehicles. That loophole has been closed, and some would say it's a great example of him exercising his patriotic duty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca68b853da4903c868ef1cf8c1746131", "text": "\"Actually, if you don't care about paying a bit more, either hire an accountant and dump the paper on them, or (may be cheaper but a bit more work) spring for tax software. Modern tax programs can often download most of your data directly. If you don't care about claiming deductions you can skip a lot of the rest. I'm perfectly capable of doing my taxes on paper or in a spreadsheet... but I spring for tax software every year because I find it a _LOT more pleasant. Remember that most of the complexity does come from policies intended to reduce your taxes. When you call for simplification, you may not like the result. It's better than it was a decade or two ago. I used to joke that the battle cry of the next revolution would be \"\"No Taxation Without Proper Instructions!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d615272fc63f3c83770340271b0f895a", "text": "Currently, the answer is no, you cannot get out of filing a tax return. As noted in the comments, if you want to pay more to get out of the drudgery of working on your return, you can pay an accountant to do it for you. You are not alone in thinking that the current income tax system in the U.S. is overly complicated. What you are essentially describing is a flat tax, a system where there would be a simple tax rate that is paid with no deductions, loopholes, etc., and minimal reporting requirements. Besides flat tax proposals, others have proposed eliminating the income tax altogether and switching to a national sales tax, such as the FairTax proposal. Each of these proposals has pros and cons over the current system, and if you have questions about them, feel free to ask a new question. But what they have in common is that they would drastically simplify the system of taxation in this country. If that sounds good to you, you can learn more about these proposals and support organizations and candidates that advocate these reforms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdbf1892068b0986e049fd7246643448", "text": "\"Perhaps the real question you are asking is \"\"How can the tax code be fixed to make it simple for everyone (including me), and what would it take to effect those changes\"\"? There are really two causes for the complexity of the tax code. Many of those who enter Government hold a desire for power, and Government uses the tax code as one lever of power to distribute largess to their supporters, and to nudge everyone to behaviors which they favor. The current system enables incumbents to spend taxpayer money to reward those they favor, and thus they accumulate power and security. Those who enter Government also love to spend money (especially other people's money), and their rapacious behavior recognizes no boundaries. They will spend money without control until the taxpayers yank them to a brutal stop. They enact complex rules which are used to ease the (tax) burden for some, which buys their support (with taxpayer money), and they spend money to benefit those which they favor. The system of lobbyists and contributors exists to entice Government to treat them and the causes they support favorably. This system enables incumbents to spend taxed money to reward those they favor, and to tax those they disfavor. Thus their greed is satisfied, and their power is increased. The freedom you seek is not available, although you can minimize the effort required for compliance. You can take the standard deduction, and use nothing but the W-2 provided by your employer, and unless you are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax, you will find that the tax software will do most of the work for you. Do you want to approach the Nirvana of minimal effort to appease your tax collectors? Avoid starting your own business, charitable donations, investment income, 1099 income, and you will need minimal paperwork. Avoid earning enough to risk the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax). Refuse to take the mortgage interest deduction, tax credits for electric vehicles, tax credits for high-efficiency appliances and air conditioners, tax credits for residential solar panel installations. Do not own investments which pay interest, or own stocks where you need to track the \"\"basis\"\" (purchase price) of the stocks, nor buy and then sell valuable items that might gain value (where you would need to track the purchase price, the \"\"basis\"\"). Avoid owning and leasing a rental home for income, deducting businesses expenses and mileage for business purposes, contributions to a retirement plan (outside an employer plan) -- all complicate your tax filing. The solution you truly desire is either a \"\"Flat Tax\"\" or the \"\"Fair Tax\"\". These solutions would effect either a single tax rate (with no deductions or adjustments to income, yeah right), or a national retail sales tax, which would tax the money spent in the economy regardless of the source of the money (legal, gifts, crime) and there would be no need to report income, or classify it. The largest objection to either is that the tax code might become less \"\"progressive\"\" (increasing tax rate with increasing income). Good Luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "18022fc1f1297df64ca19c71ace3c1ca", "text": "Go to a good bookstore and find a book about saving on income tax. Unlike other countries, where filling in your tax returns usually means you have to pay extra money, in Germany filling in your tax return usually means that you will be paid money, and the more tax deductible items you can fill in, the more money you will get back. At the very least, ask some German colleagues about the most typical tax deductible items. They love getting taxes back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2226740c96f085d39471c7c914edee3f", "text": "If you are paid by foreigners then it is quite possible they don't file anything with the IRS. All of this income you are required to report as business income on schedule C. There are opportunities on schedule C to deduct expenses like your health insurance, travel, telephone calls, capital expenses like a new computer, etc... You will be charged both the employees and employers share of social security/medicare, around ~17% or so, and that will be added onto your 1040. You may still need a local business license to do the work locally, and may require a home business permit in some cities. In some places, cities subscribe to data services based on your IRS tax return.... and will find out a year or two later that someone is running an unlicensed business. This could result in a fine, or perhaps just a nice letter from the city attorneys office that it would be a good time to get the right licenses. Generally, tax treaties exist to avoid or limit double taxation. For instance, if you travel to Norway to give a report and are paid during this time, the treaty would explain whether that is taxable in Norway. You can usually get a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries against your US taxes, which helps avoid paying double taxes in the USA. If you were to go live in Norway for more than a year, the first $80,000/year or so is completely wiped off your US income. This does NOT apply if you live in the USA and are paid from Norway. If you have a bank account overseas with more than $10,000 of value in it at any time during the year, you owe the US Government a FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR). This is pretty important, there are some large fines for not doing it. It could occur if you needed an account to get paid in Norway and then send the money here... If the Norwegian company wires the money to you from their account or sends a check in US$, and you don't have a foreign bank account, then this would not apply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8613a48d2920c4a773321741f27078e6", "text": "It's going to depend entirely on your tax situation, its complexity, and your willingness/interest in dealing with tax filings. Personally I find that not only do I not enjoy dealing with figuring out my taxes, but I don't know even a fraction of the possible deductions available and all the clever ways to leverage them. Plus the tax code is changing constantly and staying on top of that is not something I'm ever going to attempt. I am of the philosophy that it is my duty to pay only the absolute minimum tax legally required, and to utilize every possible exemption, deduction, credit, etc. that is available to me. Plus my business activities are a bit on the non-traditional side so it requires some unorthodox thinking at times. For me, a trained professional is the only way to go. What it costs me, I way more than make up in savings on my tax bill. I also go out of my way to never get a refund because if I get one, it just means I gave the government a free loan. The last time I computed my own taxes (used TurboTax if memory serves) was I think in the late 90s.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cecc860897423d6c529366fcac3bc914", "text": "\"You need to hire a tax professional and have them sort it out for you properly and advise you on how to proceed next. Don't do it yourself, you're way past the stage when you could. You're out of compliance, and you're right - there are penalties that a professional might know how to mitigate, and maybe even negotiate a waiver with the IRS, depending on the circumstances of the case. Be careful of answers like \"\"you don't need to pay anything\"\" that are based on nothing of facts. Based on what you said in the question and in the comments, it actually sounds like you do have to pay something, and you're in trouble with the IRS already. It might be that you misunderstood something in the past (e.g.: you said the business had filed taxes before, but in fact that might never happened and you're confusing \"\"business filed taxes\"\" with \"\"I filed schedule C\"\") or it might be the actual factual representation of things (you did in fact filed a tax return for your business with the IRS, either form 1120 of some kind or 1065). In any case a good licensed (CPA or EA) professional will help you sort it out and educate you on what you need to do in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "563f7f6f56b95f036aeeef527b3212e5", "text": "Whether to employ a payroll service to handle the taxes (and possibly the payroll itself) is a matter that depends on how savvy you are with respect to your own taxes and with using computers in general. If you are comfortable using programs such as Excel, or Quicken, or TurboTax, or TaxAct etc, then taking care of payroll taxes on a nanny's wages all by yourself is not too hard. If you take a shoebox full of receipts and paystubs to your accountant each April to prepare your personal income tax returns and sign whatever the accountant puts in front of you as your tax return, then you do need to hire a payroll service. It will also cost you a bundle since there are no economies of scale to help you; there is only one employee to be paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d040358f6a20041bc83832cbfa7f5f6", "text": "Congratulations on starting your own business. Invest in a tax software package right away; I can't recommend a specific one but there is enough information out there to point you in the right direction: share with us which one you ended up using and why (maybe a separate question?) You do need to make your FICA taxes but you can write off the SE part of it. Keep all your filings as a PDF, a printout and a softcopy in the native format of the tax software package: it really helps the next tax season. When you begin your business, most of the expenses are going to be straightforward (it was for me) and while I had the option of doing it by hand, I used software to do it myself. At the beginning, it might actually seem harder to use the tax software package, but it will pay off in the end. Build relationships with a few tax advisors and attorneys: you will need to buy liability insurance soon if you are in any kind of serious (non hobby) business and accounting for these are no trivial tasks. If you have not filed yet, I recommend you do this: File an extension, overpay your estimated taxes (you can always collect a refund later) and file your return once you have had a CPA look over it. Do not skimp on a CPA: it's just the cost of running your business and you don't want to waste your time reading the IRS manuals when you could be growing your own business. Best of luck and come back to tell us what you did!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f414572f1273861b9e4d36c3ad3e02a", "text": "As I replied to someone else who said that: I'm often having to send stuff with the check. Paperwork, a bill etc. While that would work to a person who knows me, it's usually not going to work with a business or government who needs to know why I'm sending this check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cd9ddbb33a39b667b4b1e0f1df1a920", "text": "If you have complicated taxes (own a business, many houses, you are self employed, you are a contractor, etc etc) a person can make the most of your situation. If you are a w-2 single job, maybe with a family, the programs are going to be so close to spot on that the extra fees aren't worth it. I would never bother using HR Block or Liberty or those tax places that pop up. Use the software, or in my state sometimes municipalities put on tax help days at the library to assist in filling out the forms. If you have tough taxes, get a dedicated professional based on at least a few recommendations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4bdf77bd6c433338ae2798676b50331", "text": "\"There are many people who have deductions far above the standard deduction, but still don't itemize. That's their option even though it comes at a cost. It may be foolish, but it's not illegal. If @littleadv citation is correct, the 'under penalty of perjury' type issue, what of those filers who file a Schedule A but purposely leave off their donations? I've seen many people discuss charity, and write that they do not want to benefit in any way from their donation, yet, still Schedule A their mortgage and property tax. Their returns are therefore fraudulent. I am curious to find a situation in which the taxpayer benefits from such a purposeful oversight, or, better still, a cited case where they were charged with doing so. I've offered advice on filings return that wasn't \"\"truthful\"\". When you own a stock and cannot find cost basis, there are times that you might realize the basis is so low that just entering zero will cost you less than $100 in extra tax. You are not truthful, of course, but this kind of false statement isn't going to lead to any issue. If it gets noticed within an audit, no agent is going to give it more than a moment of time and perhaps suggest, \"\"you didn't even know the year it was bought?\"\" but there would be no consequence. My answer is for personal returns, I'm sure for business, accuracy to the dollar is actually important.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3c276445f1d5db3e000e6ae79c6709e", "text": "And if you need to pay business taxes outside of the regular US 1040 form, you can use the IRS' Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS). Basically, you enroll your bank accounts, and you can make estimated, penalty, etc. payments. The site can be found here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a179b6735e2b581d1797b56142f6ba59", "text": "Years ago I mailed my personal tax return one day after the due date, and my check was deposited as normal, and I never heard anything about it. As an employer, I once sent in my employee's withheld federal taxes one day after the due date, and I later received a letter stating my penalty for being late worked out to be around $600. The letter stated that since this was my first time being late they would waive the fee. In both cases, they could have charged me a late fee if they wanted to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8a34d5de6f3676427fdea0189bc6428", "text": "It would be quite the trick for (a) the government to run all year and get all its revenue in April when taxes are due and (b) for people to actually save the right amount to be able to cut that check each year. W2 employers withhold the estimated federal and state taxes along with the payroll (social security) tax from each paycheck. Since the employer doesn't know how many kids you have, or how much mortgage interest, etc you will take deductions for, you can submit a W4 form to adjust withholdings. The annual Form 1040 in April is to reconcile exact numbers, some people get a refund of some of what they paid in, others owe some money. If one is self-employed, they are required to pay quarterly estimated taxes. And they, too, reconcile exact numbers in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "986c9acc7c40e3a524b8ef9cff81fbe9", "text": "I just scanned in a single sheet summary of my last two years tax returns. It is something our CPA does for us. How would I post it? Don't worry, I marked out all the personal information. What is says is I paid over $50K in taxes in 2015. Last year we had one of our biggest contracts put on hold, so I only paid $20K. I won't have this years figures, because we don't submit them to our CPA until the end of the year. However, this year, we just bought out two other owners at $1.2M, which makes me a 33% owner. The contract is getting restarted (knock on wood), which all together means my personal tax liability is going to be well over $100K. My company is a commercial company, but we work with the government, and matter of fact some of the stuff we produce was designed and developed by the government (as is many of today's modern inventions - I think you would be surprised). So lets tackle it one at a time. Pick one of those things that commercial does better than government. P.s. Higher taxes doesn't mean higher for you, a lot of times it means higher for guys like me or way better than me (which I am perfectly fine with, and matter of fact would support). People who use infastructure more - like large corporations - should pay more for it...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "071f7252ad58078526431800146394df", "text": "\"When you say \"\"set aside,\"\" you mean you saved to pay the tax due in April? That's underpaying. It's a rare exception the IRS makes for this penalty, hopefully it wasn't too large, and you now know how much to withhold through payroll deductions. Problem is, this wasn't unusual, it was an oversight. You have no legitimate grounds to dispute. Sorry.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58c2c71412d6f9feae8bc64f2ce0e0b3", "text": "They're wrong, and it's easy to show that if you pay the same % in taxes then you end up the same either way. If you have an initial investment of 10k, an effective tax rate of 25%, and gains of 10% a year, here are the numbers: You invest 10k into a traditional. After 50 years, you have $1,173,908. After paying taxes, you end up with $880,431. You invest 10k into a Roth. After paying the taxes, your initial investment is $7500. After 50 years, you have $880,431 - the same you have with the traditional. The advantage from the Roth comes from two things - the assumption that taxes are lower now for you than they will be in the future (a good bet, given that taxes are relatively low in the US) and the ability to have a mix of taxable and non-taxable income to draw from in retirement to lower your effective tax rate (draw down the taxable up to a certain tax bracket then use your non-taxable above that).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9e69ab9fb91087bd50537b8319e08a0b	When do I pay taxes if I'm self employed?	[ { "docid": "bfc6b9e15735ccad53b4a312432b6239", "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.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b0fe4f46c95a1af4c1c188eddc55166d", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fe6f7a9cad2f4520ed898b0c39b47ba", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56366def285b890e0e187764b2691abf", "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!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d6a6791ce3ec6df6dfd451ae2ffb6d3", "text": "Your taxable income is your total income from however many sources of income you have. If you are in employment and doing self-employed job at the same time, your taxable income will be a combination of both incomes. For example if in employment you make £10000 and self employed you make another £10000 - your total income is £20000 and this is your taxable income. And even if your self-employed job does not bring you more than personal allowance, how would HMRC know that without you filling-in tax return?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee0f34fa27cb4ca84be860d651f060f3", "text": "You tagged with S-Corp, so I assume that you have that tax status. Under that situation, you don't get taxed on distributions regardless of what you call them. You get taxed on the portion of the net income that is attributable to you through the Schedule K that the S-Corp should distribute to you when the S-Corp files its tax return. You get taxed on that income whether or not it's distributed. If you also work for the small business, then you need to pay yourself a reasonable wage. The amount that you distribute can be one factor in determining reasonableness. That doesn't seem to be what you asked, but it is something to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37a8df9320affe0b7287c522247d716f", "text": "If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14473f2ac55ef0a59cf823be7856e1de", "text": "You will need to register as self-employed aka sole trader (that's the whole point: pay taxes on income that you're not getting as wages from an employer, who would arrange PAYE/NI contributions), or set up a limited company (in the last case you would have the option of either getting paid as wages or as dividends — which one is better is a complex issue which varies from year to year). You'll find lots of advice on the HMRC website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691ebc769be4882276be7460d9e1cd52", "text": "Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18aa3fdbbe9aca96da6f7a89dc764210", "text": "If you sell through an intermediate who sets up the shop for you, odds are they collect and pay the sales tax for you. My experience is with publishing books through Amazon, where they definitely handle this for you. If you can find a retailer that will handle the tax implications, that might be a good reason to use them. It looks like Etsy uses a different model where you yourself are responsible for the sales tax, which requires you to register with your state (looks like this is the information for New York) and pay the taxes yourself on a regular basis; see this link for a simple guide. If you're doing this, you'll need to keep track of how much tax you owe from your sales each month, quarter, or year (depending on the state laws). You can usually be a sole proprietor, which is the easiest business structure to set up; if you want to limit your legal liability, or work with a partner, you may want to look into other forms of business structure, but for most craftspeople a sole proprietorship is fine to start out with. If you do a sole proprietorship, you can probably file the income on a 1040 Schedule C when you do your personal taxes each year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8a34d5de6f3676427fdea0189bc6428", "text": "It would be quite the trick for (a) the government to run all year and get all its revenue in April when taxes are due and (b) for people to actually save the right amount to be able to cut that check each year. W2 employers withhold the estimated federal and state taxes along with the payroll (social security) tax from each paycheck. Since the employer doesn't know how many kids you have, or how much mortgage interest, etc you will take deductions for, you can submit a W4 form to adjust withholdings. The annual Form 1040 in April is to reconcile exact numbers, some people get a refund of some of what they paid in, others owe some money. If one is self-employed, they are required to pay quarterly estimated taxes. And they, too, reconcile exact numbers in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd07b9332ec0af4e8cddc1f4c558f5dc", "text": "\"From the IRS page on Estimated Taxes (emphasis added): Taxes must be paid as you earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. If the amount of income tax withheld from your salary or pension is not enough, or if you receive income such as interest, dividends, alimony, self-employment income, capital gains, prizes and awards, you may have to make estimated tax payments. If you are in business for yourself, you generally need to make estimated tax payments. Estimated tax is used to pay not only income tax, but other taxes such as self-employment tax and alternative minimum tax. I think that is crystal clear that you're paying income tax as well as self-employment tax. To expand a bit, you seem to be confusing self-employment tax and estimated tax, which are not only two different things, but two different kinds of things. One is a tax, and the other is just a means of paying your taxes. \"\"Self-employment tax\"\" refers to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that you must pay on your self-employment income. This is an actual tax that you owe. If you receive a W-2, half of it is \"\"invisibly\"\" paid by your employer, and half of it is paid by you in the form of visible deductions on your pay stub. If you're self-employed, you have to pay all of it explicitly. \"\"Estimated tax\"\" does not refer to any actual tax levied on anyone. A more pedantically correct phrasing would be \"\"estimated tax payment\"\". Estimated taxes are just payments that you make to the IRS to pay tax you expect to owe. Whether you have to make such payments depends on how much tax you owe and whether you've paid it by other means. You may need to pay estimated tax even if you're not self-employed, although this would be unusual. (It could happen, for instance, if you realized large capital gains over the year.) You also may be self-employed but not need to pay estimated tax (if, for instance, you also have a W-2 job and you reduce your withholding allowances to have extra tax withheld). That said, if you earn significant income from self-employment, you'll likely have to make estimated tax payments. These are prepayments of the income tax and Social Security/Medicare taxes you accrue based on your self-employment income. As Pete B. mentioned in his answer, a possible reason that your estiamtes are low is because some taxes have already been withheld from the paychecks you received so far during the year (while you were an employee). These represent tax payments you've already made; you don't need to pay that money a second time, but you may need to make estimated tax payments for your income going forward.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f2ff5ed3f7d9d6c17bd7c358111fd09", "text": "The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "113ceb5d9dd121482e9d9a44002a48f2", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0c51eea3ded591cacec119ff328abda", "text": "Payment of taxes for your personal return filed with the IRS always come from your personal account, regardless of how the money was earned. Sales tax would be paid from your business account, so would corporate taxes, if those apply; but if you're talking about your tax payments to the IRS for your personal income that should be paid from your personal account. Also, stating the obvious, if you're paying an accountant to handle things you can always ask them for clarification as well. They will have more precise answers. EDIT Adding on for your last part of the question I missed: In virtually all cases LLC's are what's called a pass through entity. For these entities, all income in the eyes of the federal government passes directly through the entity to the owners at the end of each year. They are then taxed personally on this net income at their individual tax rate, that's the very abridged version at least. The LLC pays no taxes directly to the federal government related to your income. Here's a resource if you'd like to learn more about LLC's: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04bbc88a939792d7bc92dd48454f2d87", "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.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ab958f97e8daad4ad0303ab42971a604	Why is the highest quintile the only quintile whose wealth exceeds its income?	[ { "docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f", "text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97dd95216f61b7b4ca84a94b66c47844", "text": "There are a lot of forces at play here, one of which is addressed in your second bullet point. Housing, transportation, food, and healthcare are pretty much the staple expenses of a modern day human. While these expenses all have a range from minimum required to function and luxurious all humans incur these costs. The lower rung wage earners earn an amount closer to their actual costs than higher earners. As income scales up these expenses typically also scale up with different lifestyle choices. There reaches a breaking point though where is so much excess to your income that you begin meaningfully spending on investments; you may also begin to take a meaningful portion of your compensation in securities rather than currency. In times where the economy is booming, folks who hold assets in securities rather than currency really win. In 2008 people in that highest rung really took a wealth hit (and probably an income hit).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0943efcc83439fa03b5ee014a3ce8fbf", "text": "In a business environment, this phenomenon could be easily explained by 'operational leverage'. Operational leverage is the principle that increasing revenues by a small amount can have a disproportionately large impact on net income. Consider this example: you run a business that rents out a factory and produces goods to sell to consumers. The rent costs you $10k / month, and all of your other costs depend on how many goods you produce. Assume each good gives you $10 in profit, after factoring your variable costs. If you sell 1,000 units, you break-even, because your variable profit will pay for your rent. If you sell 1,100 units, you make $1,000 net profit. If you sell 1,200 units, you double your overall profit, making $2,000 for the month. Operational leverage is the principle that adding incremental revenue will have a greater impact than the revenue already received, because your fixed costs are already 'paid for'. Similarly in personal finance, consider these scenarios: You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,000 - your monthly savings (and therefore your wealth) will be zero. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,100 - your monthly savings will be $100 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,200 - increasing your income by ~10% has allowed your monthly savings double, at $200 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $2,000 - your monthly savings are 5 times higher, when your income only increased by ~80%. Now in the real world, when someone makes more money, they will increase their expenses. This is because spending money can increase one's quality of life. So the incline does not happen quite so quickly - as pointed out by @Pete & @quid, there comes a point where increased spending provides someone with less increase in quality of life - at that point, savings really would quickly ramp up as income increases incrementally. But assuming you live the same making $2,000 / month as $1,000 / month, you can save, every month, a full month's worth of living expenses. This doesn't even factor in the impact of earning investment income on those savings. As to why the wealth exceeds income at that specific point, I couldn't say, but what I've outlined above should show how it is quite reasonable that the data is as-reported.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c2f67d30263121ee023c4e9234794cc1", "text": "TL;DR: Income is how much you make, net worth is the value of all your assets: cash, real estate, stocks, etc. With the case of Buffett: Berkshire Hathaway's - Buffett's company - market capitalisation is ~$460 Billion. Buffett controls 18% of shares. $460B x 18%: ~$80 Billion. So we can estimate that a large part of his net worth is tied up in BH stock (obviously this isn't perfect either as there are other factors at play here). BUT this is only on paper. Ie yes he's worth that, but he doesn't really have $80 Billion somewhere in a bank. He gets the money to live from other personal investments and business means.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f071e945bba3472b76c827d82dfbd1d", "text": "[Here's](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18) and explanation. The broadest interpretation is that there are quadrillions (1,000,000,000,000,000) of dollars in various markets. Bill Gates could become a Trillionaire, so even his wealth is a drop the ocean. Well, not really, but you get the idea. A lot of this money is constantly on the move, it is impossible to track down all the movements. Value is increasing, Value is destroyed etc. Your bank account can be tallied, but it's impossible to track down the money of the world, a continent or even a small country. Even bigger companies have trouble tracking down their money. The idea of the 'tally' is a bit of an outdated one, it came from a time when there was a gold standard, and when old fashioned marxism was still a thing. //edit: words, English, difficult", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b31565f39a22a3c38bad6baeab2848a1", "text": "You can say it's a bad proxy but practically all the richest people have their money tied up in equities, and it would be foolish for them not to. You have to include that somehow. Net worth is not just liquid assets", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49992736fd22c5c34efdd7992ee2229c", "text": "The logic is that the value of America could be determined by adding up the assets of all Americans. If houses are more expensive then America is richer (we own a large number of more expensive houses), even though no additional real assets have been created (as if more houses were built).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89027dae39e2b8fc85a969a574124174", "text": "And most wealth is squandered by the third generation. Someone has to become independently wealthy for the cycle to start over. Many will read this headline and use it as an excuse for their own lack of will to succeed. Someone had to succeed independently at some point, to earn the original wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c2b6ce53f3c3f98d525ff6c730df800", "text": "[Nope] (https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/07/13/worlds-rich-are-hording-10-trillion-in-cash/). It's all hoarded in various index accounts, mostly off-shore for obvious reasons. They want to protect their wealth, which is fine. But if you want to protect wealth you don't invest it all in means of production or real-state, which are both vulnerable to heavy crashes. You keep it protected interest-yielding accounts, in places like the Cayman Islands, or Switzerland.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae4d07bfbe8ca228742be94731ed1111", "text": "It all depends on the country. In the US, mobility at the top is reasonably high (ie first generation millionaires, first generation billionaires, etc). In other western countries, mobility at the top is very poor. This is typically due to regulation and taxes that make it incredibly difficult for small businesses to be compliant and compete (ie hire a bad employee as a small startup, and it can cripple the business if you cannot easily fire them). Mobility at the bottom is reversed. Getting out of abject poverty in the US is incredibly difficult, almost impossible. In other western countries it is not easy, but far easier than the US thanks to those social safety nets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b035ad6a97d41e25812effa927950f2", "text": "In addition to those who are wealthy (not the same as high income), there are also a certain number of people whose professional livelihood is enhanced by projecting wealth/income they may or may not have. For example, some consultants, lawyers, financial advisors or other salespeople. The same is true of luxury homes for industries where entertaining clients and associates is expected. These people are essentially making an educated bet that the additional sales they expect to make will outweigh the additional expense of the luxury items, similar to purchasing advertising. But in many cases, people are either living beyond their current income, or living beyond their long-term income by failing to save for when they are too old/sick to work. Additionally, many car brands that we traditionally associate with luxury have created mid-priced lines in the $30-40K range recently, so it is possible that some of the cars you are seeing are not as expensive as you might expect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d9948dd52d6c2486e3016ceaefb19cd", "text": "I don't really understand the paper. To me, the top 1% do not make their income from salary, but rather from equity or various other asset-based income. Mixing both in the paper to assume that if you don't make $100k/y on salary by 25 you're a loser (sorry, part of the 99%) is dishonest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00ebe675aa3b9e72368efc6cbd63f1b1", "text": "Yes, but, that math is still inconsistent. . . . . . . . If you haven't figured out, I'm just messing with you. :D But, to answer your question. The highest GDP is not being even accessed by all members of our nation. Hence, some people are living a top 1st world nation, some are in moderate 2nd level nation; while a good chunk are living as though they are in a 3rd world/developing nation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75056fd07d30862bad206916f2cc6322", "text": "\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \"\"tax havens\"\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14cbea4564e47ff4109b0975795473d6", "text": "\"Thats why I think its really funny when everyone says Bill Gates or Carlos Slim or anyone else like that is the \"\"richest\"\" in the world. It's all a floating benchmark based on that day's stock valuations and known stock holdings and has nothing to do with liquid cash or assets. I'd be more curious to know about old European money such as Rothschilds, old country royalty and the true value of Rockerfellers assets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e73ccf77803714df5c45a597cf7a9e4", "text": "In fairness decline of velocity of wealth might not be entirely explained by wealth disparity but environmental decline. (Or the low hanging fruit theory if you will.) This is is the socialist belief. If true economists have a lot to answer for. Beyond that the implementation of truly progressive tax rates could significantly help as the writer alludes to. The top is not anywhere near adequately sampled with such a low number of sample sizes which the IRS calls tax brackets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b309d8497110987412f3ebce00f7f42f", "text": "There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars. These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d7b55389bc2acad8bedf354250ef0ce", "text": "\"Really this is no different from any kind of large lump sum and having a mortgage. There are probably many questions and answers on this subject. It really doesn't matter that the proceeds were the result of a sale, an inheritance would not change the answer. I think it is important to note that the proceeds will not eliminate the house 2 mortgage. A high level choice of investment one makes is between equity (such as stock) and debt investments (such as bonds and mortgages). You are in a unique case of being able to invest in your own mortgage with no investment fee. This may tip the scales in favor of paying down the mortgage. It is difficult to answer in your specific case as we don't know the rest of your finances. Do you have a sizable 401K that is heavily invested in stocks? Do you have the need for a college fund? Do you have an emergency fund? Do you have a desire to own several homes generating income property? If it was me I'd do the following in order, skipping steps I may have already completed: I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? I really kind of hate this attitude. Your goal is to get rid of the mortgage in a timely manner. Doing such makes paying for kids college a snap, reduces the income one might need in retirement, basically eliminates the need for life insurance, and gives one a whole lot of money to have fun with.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5725552036d5e3fc805427013be71153	Is there any advantage to owning equity in a company compared to a royalty agreement?	[ { "docid": "d05fc33bb41d52ddcd24e1d0ce1c13e9", "text": "Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "909417d8d10021a49861245cd34381e3", "text": "\"Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question \"\"Where is the value of the company coming from?\"\" This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments. In the current moment, it can also be defined as \"\"Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses\"\" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of \"\"Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)\"\", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc. Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts. At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense. However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances. When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: \"\"How much is the company worth at this moment?\"\", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out. In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for. This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity. This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out. The account which represents X in gnucash is called \"\"Equity\"\", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years. While the name would more accurately be called \"\"Starting Equity\"\", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named \"\"Equity\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf93f14c4c9dbe35734cc4af063d42a", "text": "As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a0b627c9da236657a47dd6eddb5215c", "text": "Ownership vs loanership. You can either own the factors of production, and so directly recieve the dividends of that production, or you can loan your wealth to someone who will use it to buy ownership in the factors of production, and give you a portion. Guess which one grows faster? One thing that was missed in this article, is that the political climate towards equity ownership has been very favorable since the 1980's, encouraging and simplifying the ownership of equity. The problem is that the middle class didn't take advantage of it, and now it's essentially too late.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc3613b07125009c56b2b3899676fdf8", "text": "If you own 100% of the shares of a company, then you own those shares personally. They are not owned by the company. If you sell 50% of you shares to a third party, then you receive the proceeds of the sale, not the company. In this case, the company's net equity is unchanged but you have exchanged 50% of your equity for cash. If you wish the company to receive the proceeds of the sale of shares, then you would have the company issue new shares in the company. In this case, your company's net equity would increase by the cash amount received and your personal equity would change accordingly. EDIT In order to fairly sell 50% of equity by issuing new shares it would be necessary for the new investor to invest 50K. This is because the new equity would be the original 50K of equity plus the cash received for new shares. Thus : cost of 50% of equity = 50% of (50K + cash recieved) = cash received. Solving for cash received gives 50K, so that is the correct amount to charge the new investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f18a170ac1d92e77e5a4792ddf675b6", "text": "Equity can be diluted by future investors, royalties get paid on each sale, companies can continue selling things even when operating at negative profit, back royalties due can be negotiated and at least partially paid in a bankruptcy. From the standpoint of the investor: If it doesn't look like the company will likely have commercial success with a second product, it may be wise to simply take a portion of the product that is actually selling rather than risk your capital on the company's future successes (or failures). From the standpoint of the business owner/entreprenuer, if you believe you have a second product close to the end of the development pipeline it would be wise not to give up equity in the entire enterprise simply to gain required financing to ramp up production and marketing on an existing product. Paying a royalty may be advantageous compared to paying interest on a loan as well (royalty payments are contingent on the occurrence of a sale while interest is due regardless).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74ef942d4e73c953544714a81f8b0383", "text": "Paying out dividends and financing new projects with debt also lessens the agency problem. The consequences of a failed project are greater when debt is used, so the manager now has a greater incentive to see that the project is a success. This, in addition to the paid divided is a benefit to the shareholder. If equity wasn't paid out and instead used for the project then the manager may not be so interested in its success. And if it's a failure then the shareholders are worse off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b573ff1763f664a030871b1be7801af5", "text": "Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's. Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5113b7444d0fc0998ef14da59956b5ec", "text": "I agree with the other comments that you should not buy/hold your company stock even if given at a discount. If equity is provided as part of the compensation package (Options/Restrictive Stock Units RSU)then this rule does not apply. As a matter of diversification, you should not have majority equity stake of other companies in the same sector (e.g. technology) as your employer. Asset allocation and diversification if done in the right way, takes care of the returns. Buying and selling on the same day is generally not allowed for ESPP. Taxation headaches. This is from personal experience (Cisco Systems). I had options issued in Sept 2008 at 18$ which vested regularly. I exited at various points - 19$,20$,21$,23$ My friend held on to all of it hoping for 30$ is stuck. Options expire if you leave your employment. ESPP shares though remain.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79f388d2574f818e5c8512003c48d607", "text": "This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc. For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2569304fbab4b2df0d16e3d0e3223be", "text": "With LLCs, the operation agreement can define different shares for different kinds of income or equity, and different partners may be treated differently. In essence, you can end up with a different stock class for each partner/member. So you need to read the grant document and the OA really carefully to know what you're getting. You may want to have a lawyer read through it for you. This may be way more complicated than classes of shares in a corporation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65341cfd9b4397498cdd8102ad2dbd20", "text": "No. Share are equity in companies that usually have revenue streams and/or potential for creating them. That revenue can be used to pay out dividends to the shareholders or to grow the company and increase its value. Most companies get their revenue from their customers, and customers rarely give their money to a company without getting some good or service in exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e93cddcced62dfdb09049d2d96c932b", "text": "What you will probably get is an option to buy, for £10,000, £10,000 worth of stock. If the stock price on the day your option is granted is £2.50, then that's 4,000 shares. Companies rarely grant discounted options, as there are tax disincentives. The benefit of the stock option is that when you exercise it, you still only pay £10,000, no matter what the 4,000 shares are now worth. This is supposed to be an incentive for you to work harder to increase the value of the company. You should also check the vesting schedule. You will typically not be able to exercise all your options for some years, although some portion of it may vest each year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f48115d3d43eea8f5b9323be4de730af", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6a86727ce2c1f10f9574097f583a59e", "text": "Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae148a4b9aca1e2103a1c57a04f56f16", "text": "This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c1f0b258fe1ee8894a5e39061f00b759	What Did Benjamin Graham Mean by Earnings Stability in The Intelligent Investor?	[ { "docid": "1adf6bf3b115f70cb8d77a0be6e30f97", "text": "\"Yes - this is exactly what it means. No losses (negative earnings). With today's accounting methods, you might want to determine whether you view earnings including or excluding extraordinary items. For example, a company might take a once-off charge to its earnings when revising the value of a major asset. This would show in the \"\"including\"\" but not in the \"\"excluding\"\" figure. The book actually has a nice discussion in Chapter 12 \"\"Things to Consider About Per-Share Earnings\"\" which considers several additional variables to consider here too. Note that this earnings metric is different from \"\"Stock Selection for the Defensive Investor\"\" which requires 10 years. PS - My edition (4th edition hardback) doesn't have 386 pages so your reference isn't correct for that edition. I found it on page 209 in Chapter 15 \"\"Stock Selection for the Enterprising Investor\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abc2f84718703e157926e5b001527a6f", "text": "\"Please note that the following Graham Rating below corresponds to five years: Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 50.00% Benjamin Graham - once known as The Dean of Wall Street - was a scholar and financial analyst who mentored legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, William J. Ruane, Irving Kahn and Walter J. Schloss. Buffett describes Graham's book - The Intelligent Investor - as \"\"by far the best book about investing ever written\"\" (in its preface). Graham's first recommended strategy - for casual investors - was to invest in Index stocks. For more serious investors, Graham recommended three different categories of stocks - Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV - and 17 qualitative and quantitative rules for identifying them. For advanced investors, Graham described various \"\"special situations\"\". The first requires almost no analysis, and is easily accomplished today with a good S&P500 Index fund. The last requires more than the average level of ability and experience. Such stocks are also not amenable to impartial algorithmic analysis, and require a case-specific approach. But Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV stocks can be reliably detected by today's data-mining software, and offer a great avenue for accurate automated analysis and profitable investment. For example, given below are the actual Graham ratings for International Business Machines Corp (IBM), with no adjustments other than those for inflation. Defensive Graham investment requires that all ratings be 100% or more. Enterprising Graham investment requires minimum ratings of - N/A, 75%, 90%, 50%, 5%, N/A and 137%. International Business Machines Corp - Graham Ratings Sales \| Size (100% ⇒ $500 Million): 18,558.60% Current Assets ÷ [2 x Current Liabilities]: 62.40% Net Current Assets ÷ Long Term Debt: 28.00% Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 100.00% Dividend Record (100% ⇒ 20 Years): 100.00% Earnings Growth (100% ⇒ 30% Growth): 172.99% Graham Number ÷ Previous Close: 35.81% Not all stocks failing Graham's rules are necessarily bad investments. They may fall under \"\"special situations\"\". Graham's rules are also extremely selective. Graham designed and backtested his framework for over 50 years, to deliver the best possible long-term results. Even when stocks don't clear them, Graham's rules give a clear quantifiable measure of a stock's margin of safety. Thank you.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "74f5180f25f128a9c22aaf7654f0730f", "text": "Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e65bd064fbdce5bd4a59cc1b63ec68e", "text": "From every article I've encountered, the chicken and egg aspect suggests that IV is produced by looking at options pricing, and calculating the IV from that. The implication is that whatever is known at that time is included in the price. And that when you see a particular option trade an unusual number of contracts at a given price, the implication is that someone thinks they know something that's not already priced in, i.e. that the current price is not accurate, they can profit on the future event.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fdbf339263b1065a53a294559a4d6dd", "text": "\"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: \"\"Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7ba96c65118aba556e5fd66ad996b27", "text": "\"In this instance \"\"quotational\"\" is a reference to a market price quote, not a mathematical function. Staunch \"\"value investors\"\" like Graham, Dodd, Munger, Buffett et al. believe there is a material difference between what security is \"\"worth\"\" and what the current market mood quotes as its price. You, the investor, perform your analysis then derive a value for a security. If there has been no material change to an aspect of the security you analyzed then there hasn't been a change in that security's value, even if there has been a decline in the price quoted by the market, that is a \"\"quotational loss.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d60e8694d9498ef8bffe8e020f24d0c", "text": "\"You're mixing up rhetoric (aka discussion and argument) with dialectic (the \"\"logical\"\" search for absolute truth). No essay about business could possibly be dialectic. Mine isn't. Paul Graham's certainly aren't. Therefore they are rhetoric, discussion and argument. And \"\"This person has much to gain if you do what he says\"\" is an absolutely valid argument. BTW - I'm self-taught. If you want to learn more, I highly recommend \"\"Thank You For Arguing.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d468a0e6187ebb28e046806b9f0ccf5", "text": "\"Your explanation is nearly perfect and not \"\"hand wavy\"\" at all. Stock prices reflect the collective wisdom of all participating investors. Investors value stocks based on how much value they expect the stock to produce now and in the future. So, the stability of the stock prices is a reflection of the accuracy of the investors predictions. Investor naivity can be seen as a sequence of increasingly sophisticated stock pricing strategies: If investors were able to predict the future perfectly, then all stock prices would rise at the same constant rate. In theory, if a particular investor is able to \"\"beat the market\"\", it is because they are better at predicting the future profits of companies (or they are lucky, or they are better at predicting the irrational behavior of other investors......)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a2789990856d8afd6cbc98beec94ec6", "text": "Crisis and volatility benefit financiers and the wealthy, even more now than they did then. Back then, anybody left standing could buy at the bottom of a depression--while it was those who needed wages to eat who really suffered. Nowadays, arbitrage and derivatives (not to mention federal policy) make volatility itself a profitable proposition for people with lots of money to invest. That said, I don't think it's a necessary conclusion from Garfield's statement that he thought those at the top intentionally caused inflation and depression--merely that their actions brought it about. Maybe he was complaining that the economy would be healthier and more stable if it were truly a free market, or maybe he was arguing that greed at the top led to imprudent policy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d749f778e3867fd0ff9cb0a5ad2224f9", "text": "Here's the original academic backbone that it's based on and expanded upon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modigliani%E2%80%93Miller_theorem I think thats it's overly conservative in this case (I fully accept academic theories only go so far in the real world) as Damodaran (NYU professor) has made a pretty solid case that cash on balance sheet at large cap tech companies is valued by the markets at less than its after tax $ value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5425400aa00739f218859eaffbd248", "text": "\"The argument you are making here is similar to the problem I have with the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis. That is if the market already has incorporated all of the information about the correct prices, then there's no reason to question any prices and then the prices never change. However, the mechanism through which the market incorporates this information is via the actors buying an selling based on what they see as the market being incorrect. The most basic concept of this problem (I think) starts with the idea that every investor is passive and they simply buy the market as one basket. So every paycheck, the index fund buys some more stock in the market in a completely static way. This means the demand for each stock is the same. No one is paying attention to the actual companies' performance so a poor performer's stock price never moves. The same for the high performer. The only thing moving prices is demand but that's always up at a more or less constant rate. This is a topic that has a lot of discussion lately in financial circles. Here are two articles about this topic but I'm not convinced the author is completely serious hence the \"\"worst-case scenario\"\" title. These are interesting reads but again, take this with a grain of salt. You should follow the links in the articles because they give a more nuanced understanding of each potential issue. One thing that's important is that the reality is nothing like what I outline above. One of the links in these articles that is interesting is the one that talks about how we now have more indexes than stocks on the US markets. The writer points to this as a problem in the first article, but think for a moment why that is. There are many different types of strategies that active managers follow in how they determine what goes in a fund based on different stock metrics. If a stocks P/E ratio drops below a critical level, for example, a number of indexes are going to sell it. Some might buy it. It's up to the investors (you and me) to pick which of these strategies we believe in. Another thing to consider is that active managers are losing their clients to the passive funds. They have a vested interest in attacking passive management.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c13c73a337f0b416dd0e626ae4d9b7cf", "text": "To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c32b346f9673dd384bb14d3388462a3c", "text": "\"The company was paying \"\"only\"\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \"\"too high,\"\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \"\"most\"\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \"\"stingy,\"\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7008b550403bc155de22a04bc7a30bb3", "text": "\"There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said \"\"Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10\"\". A few days later he comes back to me and says \"\"There are none\"\". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d", "text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52019f47440bfdf80c964bad8ededcdd", "text": "\"That's the key to modern finance: removing undesirable conditions until the model outcome supports the desired policy or sales pitch. We're safe because our model says so, and if it doesn't, change the model until it does. Anything that negatively affects the outcome is an \"\"anomaly\"\" - that anomalies are unavoidable, and will recur, is just an inconvenience better left out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd776fcff508cdba217b9e0a172c38b4", "text": "\"Been a long while since I've read it but if I remember correctly with quotational loss Graham refers to an unjustified decline in stock price because of Mr. Market's fear and loathing where the business prospects of the company are actually still sound. This is opposed to \"\"actual\"\" loss of capital which he would consider to be a company going bankrupt or just more generally turning out to have way worse business prospects than expected with the justified decline in stock price that entails.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5c68f7a836d8c0a564ba43d7b56ddf61	What is the difference between equity and assets?	[ { "docid": "8e67b6911d14a79d53b0b47b4fdd2ac1", "text": "\"Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being \"\"what my stuff is worth\"\" and equity and liabilities together as being \"\"who owns it.\"\" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "052392f5d66b263d95bf4d5e2838e319", "text": "\"Equity does not represent production divisions in a company (i.e. chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla does not make sense). In Sole proprietorship, equity represents 1 owner. In Partnership, equity has at least two sub-accounts, namely Partner 1 and Partner 2. In Corporations, equity may have Common Stockholders and Preferred Stockholders, or even different class of shares for insiders and angel investors. As you can see, equity represents who owns the company. It is not what the company does or manufactures. First and foremost, define the boundary of the firm. Are your books titled \"\"The books of the family of Doe\"\", \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe\"\", or \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe & Sons\"\". Ask yourself, who \"\"owns\"\" this family. If you believe that a marriage is perpetual until further notice then it does not make any sense to constantly calculate which parent owns the family more. In partnership, firm profits are attributed to partner's accounts using previously agreed ratio. For example, (60%/40% because Partner 1 is more hard working and valuable to the firm. Does your child own this family? Does he/she have any rights to use the assets, to earn income from the assets, to transfer the assets to others, or to enforce private property rights? If they don't have a part of these rights, they are certainly NOT part of Equity. So what happens to the expenses of children if you follow the \"\"partnership\"\" model? There are two ways. The first way is to attribute the Loss to the parents/family since you do not expect the children to repay. It is an unrecoverable loss written off. The second way is to create a Debtor(Asset) account to aggregate all child expense, then create a separate book called \"\"The books Children 1\"\", and classify the expense in that separate book. I advise using \"\"The family of Doe\"\" as the firm's boundary, and having 1 Equity account to simplify everything. It is ultimately up to you to decide the boundaries.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "909417d8d10021a49861245cd34381e3", "text": "\"Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question \"\"Where is the value of the company coming from?\"\" This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments. In the current moment, it can also be defined as \"\"Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses\"\" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of \"\"Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)\"\", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc. Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts. At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense. However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances. When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: \"\"How much is the company worth at this moment?\"\", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out. In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for. This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity. This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out. The account which represents X in gnucash is called \"\"Equity\"\", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years. While the name would more accurately be called \"\"Starting Equity\"\", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named \"\"Equity\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1828d0f73127846d23d4eaf92134d5fc", "text": "Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c96e617f294c24e6721181ac817418af", "text": "First, A credit account is increased by credit transactions and decreased by debits. Liabilities is a credit account and should be a positive number. A debit account is increased by debit transactions and decreased by credit. Assets is a debit account and should be a positive number. Equity = Assets (debit) - Liabilities (credit) may be positive or negative. You currently are subtracting a negative number for a net positive, since your Liabilities is set as a debit account. How you currently are set -> Equity = Assets (debit) - Liabilities (debit) It is easier to understand if you change the columns from Increase/Decrease to Credit/Debit. I believe this is changed through Edit > Preferences > Accounts > Labels > Use formal accounting labels. To fix your situation, open up the Loan account and switch columns on the amounts. This will decrease Opening Balances and increase the loan, per your current column headings. This is a snippet of Opening Balances. You see that Opening Balances is debited and the Loan/Liability account credited. I included Petty Cash to show the reverse. Petty Cash is an asset, so it credits Opening Balances and debits Petty cash. This is a student loan Liability account. As you see, the Opening Balance is debited and decreased. The loan is credited and Liabilities increased. As payments are made, the reverse happens. The loan, being a credit account, is debited and the balance decreases. Opening Balances moves closer to 0 as well. The savings account, being a debit account, is credited and the balance decreases. There has been no change in Equity since Liabilities and Assets decresed by the same amount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98c5dcb0d753943e9231dbea1e0df135", "text": "\"Instead of \"\"stocks\"\" I would refer to that asset class as \"\"equity.\"\" Instead of bonds, I would refer to that asset class as \"\"fixed income.\"\" Given that more general terminology, GICs would fit into fixed income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f7ed281d9e2247fd4711722f1855ffd", "text": "Private Equity is simply some type of an investment company, which is owned in a way not accessible to the public. ie: Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hatheway, which is an investment company which itself is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This means that anyone can buy shares in the company, and own a small fraction of it. If Warren Buffet owned all the shares of Berkshire Hatheway, it would be a Private Equity company. Note that 'Equity' refers to the ownership of the company itself; a private investment company may simply buy Bonds (which are a form of Debt), in which case, they would not be technically considered a 'Private Equity' company. A Hedge Fund is a very broad term which I don't believe has significant meaning. Technically, it means something along the lines of an investment fund (either public or private) which attempts to hedge the risks of its portfolio, by carefully considering what type of investments it purchased. This refers back to the meaning of 'hedge', ie: 'hedging your bets'. In my opinion, 'Hedge Fund' is not meaningfully different from 'investment fund' or other similar terms. It is just the most popular way to refer to this type of industry at the present time. You can see the trend of using the term 'investment fund' vs 'hedge fund' using this link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=hedge%20fund,investment%20fund Note that the high-point of the use of 'hedge fund' occurred on October 2008, right at the peak of the global financial crisis. The term evokes a certain image of 'high finance' / 'wall-street types' that may exploit various situations (such as tax legislation, or 'secret information') for their own gain. Without a clear definition, however, it is a term without much meaning. If you do a similar comparison between 'hedge fund' and 'private equity', you can see that the two correlate very closely; I believe the term 'private equity' is similarly misused to generally refer to 'investment bankers'. However in that case, 'private equity' has a more clear definition on its own merits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c0799dfc1e51a71540e0aa8aa6cb460", "text": "Some qualitative factors to consider when deciding whether to finance with equity vs debt (for a publicly traded company): 1) The case for equity: Is the stock trading high relative to what management believes is its intrinsic value? If so, raising equity may be attractive since management would be raising a lot of $$$, but the downside is you give up future earnings since you are diluting current ownership 2) The case for debt: What is the expected return for the project in which the raised capital will be utilized for? Is its expected return higher than the interest payments (in % terms)? If so raising debt would be more attractive than raising equity since current ownership would not be diluted That's all I can think of off the top of my head right now, I'm sure there are a few more qualitative factors to consider but I think these two are the most intuitive", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86d74c5991c11c86aa22cd43a0a6a4f4", "text": "\"Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting. By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is \"\"very similar\"\" to Asset. You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0. You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset. Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet. You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting. Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5247db998a4f01acf8bf2c77b04a6b9a", "text": "\"Invest in productive assets and by that I mean companies. Edit: I'll elaborate on \"\"productive assets\"\": any asset that produces something; whether it produces cash or a commodity, you'll automatically accumulate more of its byproduct in the future. The rest is self explanatory\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "980e48c749e05c0432b46adffc11cd8a", "text": "Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions. So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company. What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "868c867800a21fde2d526c8ca2aa5885", "text": "Bank assets are debt. Thus bank equity is a claim on debt. Note also that QE etal dropped interest rates, compressing interest rate spreads and making it harder for banks to make money. Banks do well when interest rates increase", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff", "text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAVshares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1140caa8335ae427e6326430838e159", "text": "\"Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's \"\"worth.\"\" The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows: Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets Enterprise value is essentially \"\"how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital.\"\" It can be viewed as \"\"if I wanted to buy the entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "118c4f391c47a9cef09d2b7a8617650b", "text": "Assuming you're in the United States, then International Equity is an equity from a different country. These stocks or stock funds (which reside in a foreign country) are broken out seperately becuase they are typically influenced by a different set of factors than equities in the United States: foreign currency swings, regional events and politics of various countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f84a8ee420e08c0f644f89ae9183c0bb", "text": "What exactly does the balance sheet of a software company tell you? The majority of meaningful assets are inside your employees' heads. You can't capitalize R&D and depreciate it, it's a straight flow through to the income statement. And you can't put human capital on a balance sheet. Software firms generally carry little to no debt and their cap structure is almost all equity. What are you going to put up for collateral when your product is bits and bytes?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b93de284953fa5486669f0c77bcc3907", "text": "You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy. I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”. It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86002c2881dc80cdb1d691a332a2557e", "text": "\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \"\"beginning\"\" of the process.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4d796475e45756d96812ce214257eadb	What are my investment options in real estate?	[ { "docid": "f20fdb3b3ea6780e82c610fcb1950bd8", "text": "Your post seems to read as if you want to invest only in real estate rental properties as a start because they will be a reliable investment guaranteed to generate profits that you will be plowing back into buying even more rental properties, but you are willing to consider (possibly in later years) other forms of investment (in real estate) that will not require active participation in the management of the rental properties. While many participants here do own rental real estate and even manage it entirely, for most people, that is only a small part of their investment portfolio, and I suspect that hardly any will recommend real estate as the only investment the way you seem to want to do. Also, you might want to look more closely at the realities of rental real estate operations before jumping in. Things are not necessarily as rosy as they appear to you now. Not all your units will be rented all the time, and the rental income might not always be enough to cover the mortgage payments and the property taxes and the insurance payments and the repairs and maintenance and ... Depreciation of the property is another matter that you might not have thought about. That being said, you can invest in real estate through real estate investment trusts (REITs) or through limited partnerships where you have only a passive role. There are even mutual funds that invest in REITs or in REIT indexes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82cce7e98f05e442a949f64095925756", "text": "\"I compared investing in real estate a few years ago to investing in stocks that paid double digit dividends (hard to find, however, managing and maintaining real estate is just as hard). After discussing with many in the real estate world, I counted the average and learned that most averaged about 6 - 8% on real estate after taxes. This does not include anything else like Dilip mentions (maintenance, insurance, etc). For those who want to avoid that route, you can buy some companies that invest in real estate or REIT funds like Dilip mentions. However, they are also susceptible to the problems mentioned above this. In terms of other investment opportunities like stocks or funds, think about businesses that will always be around and will always be needed. We won't outgrow our need for real estate, but we won't outgrow our need for food or tangible goods either. You can diversify into these companies along with real estate or buy a general mutual fund. Finally, one of your best investments is your career field - software. Do some extra work on the side and see if you can get an adviser position at a start-up (it's actually not that hard and it will help you build your skill set) or create a site which generates passive revenue (again, not that hard). One software engineer told me a few years ago that the stock market is a relic of the past and the new passive income would be generated by businesses that had tools which did all the work through automation (think of a smart phone application that you build once, yet continues to generate revenue). This was right before the crash, and after it, everyone talked about another \"\"lost decade.\"\" While it does require extra work initially, like all things software related, you'll be discovering tools in programming that you can use again and again in other applications - meaning your first one may be the most difficult. All it takes in this case is one really good idea ...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06e1b8afb9052c723e8242b969dd441f", "text": "Real estate investment is a proven creator of wealth. Check into the history of the rich and you will find real estate investment. Starting your investment in multi-family is a great idea. It is a good way to gain experience in real estate while exponentially increasing cash flow. If you turn the properties over to a reputable property management company, your cash flow will be a little less but so will your headaches. (Expect to pay 8 - 10% of gross income.) You could start investing now by looking into discounted real estate such as foreclosures, tax sales, short sales etc while the market is still depressed. This way your return on investment should be higher. From there you could expand into land development (i.e. subdivision) or commercial investments. Commercial properties with triple net leases can be a great low-stress investment opportunity (but they take more cash upfront). Attending some local real estate investment classes would be a great idea for starters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e469606ed367da67077be8954d5324b4", "text": "\"If you're looking for a well-rounded view into what it's like to actually own/manage real-estate investments, plus how you can scale things up & keep the management workload relatively low, have a look at the Bigger Pockets community. There are blogs, podcasts, & interviews there from both full-time & part-time real estate investors. It's been a great resource for me in my investments. More generally, your goal of \"\"retiring\"\" within 20 years is very attainable even without getting extravagant investment returns. A very underrated determinant in how quickly you build wealth is how much of your income you are contributing to investments. Have a look at this article: The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c57aed130745f7340909eab64d045c58", "text": "\"My suggestion would be to do the math. That is the best advice you can get when considering any investment. There are other factors you haven't considered, too... like the fact that interest rates are at extremely low levels right now, so borrowing money is relatively cheap. If you're outside the US though, that may be less of a consideration as the mortgage lending institutions in Europe only tend to give 5-year locks on loan rates without requiring a premium. You may be somewhere else in the world. You will probably struggle to do the actual math about the probability of the market going down or up, but what you can do is this: Figure out what it would cost you to cash out the investments. You say your balance is $53,000 in various items. (Congrats! That's a nice chunk of money.) But with commissions and taxes and etc., it may reduce the value of your investments by 10% - 25% when you try to cash out those investments. Paying $3,000 to get that money out of the investments is one thing... but if you're sending $10,000 to the tax man when you sell this all off, that changes the economics of your investments a LOT. In that case you might be better off seeing what happens if the markets correct by 10%... you'd still have more than if you sold out and paid major taxes. Once you know your down payment, calculate the amount of property you could afford. You know your down payment could be somewhere around $50,000 after taxes and other items... At an 80:20 loan-to-value ratio that's about $250,000 of a property that you can qualify for, assuming you could obtain the loan for $200,000. What could you buy for that? Do some shopping and figure out what your options are... Once you have two or three potential properties, figure out the answer to \"\"What would the property give you?\"\" Is it going to be rented out? Are you going to live there? Both? If you're living in it, then you come out ahead if the costs for the mortgage debt and the ongoing maintenance and repairs are less than what you currently pay in rent. Figure out what you pay right now to put a roof over your head. Will the place you could buy need repairs? Will you pay more on a mortgage for $200,000 USD (in your local currency) than what you currently do for housing? Don't even factor in the possible appreciation of a house you inhabit when you're making this kind of investment decision... it could just as easily burn down as go up in value. If you would rent it, what kind of rental would that be? Long-term rental? Expect to pay for other people to break your stuff. Short-term rental? You can collect more money per tenant per day, but you'll end up with higher vacancy rates. And people still break your stuff. But do the math and see if you could collect enough in rent from a tenant (person or business or whatever the properties are you could buy) to cover the amount you are paying in debt, plus what you would pay in taxes (rent is income), plus what you would need for maintenance, plus insurance. IF the numbers make sense, then real estate can be a phenomenally lucrative investment. I own some investment properties myself. It is a great hedge against inflation (you can raise rents when contracts lapse... usually) and it is an excellent way to own a tangible item. But if you don't know the numbers and exactly how it would make you better off than sitting and hoping that the markets go up, because they generally do over time, then don't take the jump.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f84220fd43bec9562e69e878985ace2e", "text": "Insurance - get estimate from an insurance agent who works with policies for commercial real estate. See comments below regarding incorporation. Taxes - if this was basic income for a simple LLC, estimating 25-40% and adjusting over time might work. Rental property is a whole different prospect. Financial experts who specialize in rental properties would be a good source of advice, and worth the cost. See below regarding incorporating. Real estate appreciation - not something you can count on for developed property. Appreciation used to be almost guaranteed to at least keep up with inflation. Now property values are not even guaranteed to go up. Never have been but the general rule was improved real estate in good repair appreciated in price. Even if property values increase over time, rental properties depreciate. In fact, for rental properties, you can claim a certain rate of depreciation over time as an expense on taxes. This depreciation could mean selling for less than you paid for the property after a number of years, and owing capital gains taxes, since you would owe the difference between the depreciated value and the sale price. Related to taxes are local codes. Some areas require you to have a property management license to handle buildings with more than a certain number of units. If you are going to own rental properties, you should protect your private financial life by incorporating. Form a company. The company will own the property and hire any maintenance people or property managers or security staff or any similar employment activities. The company takes out the insurance and pays taxes. The company can pay you a salary. So, bottom line, you can have the company pay all the expenses and take all the risks. Then, assuming there's any money left after expenses, the company can pay you a manager's salary. That way if the worst happens and a tenant breaks their hip in the shower and sues you for ONE MILLION DOLLARS and wins, the company folds and you walk away. You might even consider two companies. One to own the property and lease it to a property management company. The property management company can then go bankrupt in case of some sort of liability issue, in which case you still keep the property, form a new management company, repaint and rename the property and move on. TL;DR: Get insurance advice from insurance agent before you buy. Same for taxes from an accountant. Get trained as a property manager if your local codes require it (might be a good idea anyway). Incorporate and have the company take all the risks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eeab1aacfb9f67c350b65bcfffaba13", "text": "To invest relatively small amounts in the real estate market, you could buy shares in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), a type of mutual fund. Admittedly that's a very different proposition from trying to become a landlord; lower risk but lower return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0a18cc899a00d5fae3a6011f519d2c1", "text": "\"A REIT is a real estate investment trust. It is a company that derives most of its gross income from and holds most of its assets in real estate investments, which, in this case, include either real property, mortgages, or both. They provide a way for investors to get broad exposure in a real estate market without going to buy a bunch of properties themselves. It also provides diversification within the real estate segment since REITs will often (but not necessarily) have either way more properties than an individual could get or have very large properties (like a few resorts) that would be too expensive for any one investor. By law, they must pay at least 90% of their taxable income as dividends to investors, so they typically have a good dividend rate (possibly but not necessarily) at the expense of growth of the stock price. Some of those dividends may be tax advantaged and some will not. An MLP is a master limited partnership. These trade on the exchange like corporations, but they are not corporations. (Although often used in common language as synonyms, corporation and company are not the same thing. Corporation is one way to organize a company under the law.) They are partnerships, and when you buy a share you become a partner in the company. This is an alternative form of ownership to being a shareholding. In this case you are a limited partner, which means that you have limited liability as with stock. The shares may appreciate or not, just like a stock, and you can generally sell them back to the market for a capital gain or loss under the same rules as a stock. The main difference here from a practical point of view is taxes: Partnerships (of any type) do no pay tax - Instead their income and costs are passed to the individual partners, who must then include it on their personal returns (Form 1040, Schedule E). The partnership will send each shareholder a Schedule K-1 form at tax time. This means you may have \"\"phantom income\"\" that is taxable even though cash never flowed through your hands since you'll have to account for the income of the partnership. Many partnerships mitigate this by making cash distributions during the year so that the partners do actually see the cash, but this is not required. On the other hand, if it does happen, it's often characterized as a return of capital, which is not taxable in the year that you receive it. A return of capital reduces your cost basis in the partnership and will eventually result in a larger capital gain when you sell your shares. As with any investment, there are pros and cons to each investment type. Of the two, the MLP is probably less like a \"\"regular\"\" stock since getting the Schedule K-1 may require some extra work at tax time, especially if you've never seen one before. On the other hand, that may be worth it to you if you can find one that's appreciating in value and still returning capital at a good rate since this could be a \"\"best of everything\"\" situation where you defer tax and - when you eventually do pay, you pay at favorable capital gains rates - but still manage to get your cash back in hand before you sell. (In case not clear, my comments about tax are specific to the US. No idea how this is treated elsewhere.) By real world example, I guess you meant a few tickers in each category? You can find whole lists online. I just did a quick search (\"\"list of MLP\"\" and \"\"list of REIT\"\"), found a list, and have provided the top few off of the first list that I found. The lists were alphabetical by company name, so there's no explicit or implicit endorsement of these particular investments. Examples of REIT: Examples of MLP:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1c24e36f701c54d0d64e560d2838b03", "text": "\"There's a hellova lot to be said for investing in real estate (simple residential real estate), even though it's grandma's advice. The two critical elements are 1) it's the only realistic way for a civilian to get leverage. this is why it almost always blows away \"\"tinkering in the stock markets\"\" in the 10-year frame. 2) but perhaps more importantly - it's a really \"\"enforced\"\" saving plan. you just have to pay it off every month. There are other huge advantages like, it's the best possible equity for a civilian, so you can get loans in the future to start your dotcom, etc. Try to buy yourself a very modest little flat (perhaps to rent out?) or even something like a garage or storeroom. Real estate can crash, but it's very unlikely; it only happens in end of the world situations where it won't matter anyway. When real estate drops say 30% everyone yells about that being a \"\"crash\"\" - I've never, ever owned a stock that hasn't had 30% down times. Food for thought!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "133154f62f8331a8df866bfc4aab2f0b", "text": "\"The trade-off seems to be quite simple: \"\"How much are you going to get if you sell it\"\" against \"\"How much are you going to get if you rent it out\"\". Several people already hinted that the rental revenue may be optimistic, I don't have anything to add to this, but keep in mind that if someone pays 45k for your apartment, the net gains for you will likely be lower as well. Another consideration would be that the value of your apartment can change, if you expect it to rise steadily you may want to think twice before selling. Now, assuming you have calculated your numbers properly, and a near 0% opportunity cost: 45,000 right now 3,200 per year The given numbers imply a return on investment of 14 years, or 7.1%. Personal conclusion: I would be surprised if you can actually get a 3.2k expected net profit for an apartment that rents out at 6k per year, but if you are confident the reward seems to be quite nice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da2523eb4bc3dc71b2bdad2079ee2ec5", "text": "\"Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free. This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef064ae7e68cf30d539f1a7323d318ef", "text": "\"In addition to Alex B's excellent overview, I'd like to add a few more bits of advice. First of all, one term you should know is \"\"commercial real estate\"\" - which is precisely what this is. There is a business element, but it is strictly (and almost entirely) intertwined to the underlying real estate, which makes this a special category of business which is generally considered simply \"\"commercial real estate\"\" (just like office buildings, shopping malls, etc). All real estate and businesses value are based on alternatives - what other options are there? In appraisal, these are generally called \"\"comparables\"\". A professional appraiser is generally available for commercial real estate of this type. While a full, official commercial appraisal can run into the thousands, many/most (all?) appraisers are willing to sell you a simplified version of their service, which can be called a \"\"letter of opinion\"\" and can help you get an idea for the market price (what other similar commercial properties are running for). A loan company would strictly require this, but if you are thinking of an all cash or form of seller-financing this would technically be optional. Your best bet is to read about some of what is involved in commercial real estate appraisal and evaluation, and you may even want to speak with commercial loan officers - even if you don't know that you want to get a loan to acquire the property! It's their job to help inform you about what is required and what they look for, so they can be a potential resource beyond your own research as well. With this said, the only way to estimate value (and, conveniently, the best way) is to look at other properties! And by \"\"others\"\", I mean that you should really not consider buying absolutely anything until you've viewed at least 6-10 other options in some depth - and you probably want to double or triple that number if you are looking to make this the last big business transaction of your life. If you don't you'll be relying on little more than dumb luck to carry you through - which in this area of business, you don't want to do because the dollar amounts and liabilities involved can bankrupt you in no time flat. With that general advice out of the way, here's a tiny nutshell version of valuation of commercial real estate. There are a few key parts involved in commercial real estate: land, improvements (buildings, docks, stuff like that), income, and wages. Land: the value of the land is based upon what you could sell it for, as-is. That is to say - who else might want it? This alone has many important factors, such as zoning laws, the neighborhood (including your neighbors), water/utilities, pacts on the land (someone may have insisted the land not be paved into a parking lot, or really anything like that), alternative uses (could you put a golf course on it, or is the land suitable for a big building or farming?), etc. And is this in a growing area, where you might hope the value will increase over the next decade, or decrease, or basically stay flat (and possibly cause losses compared to inflation)? Improvements: anything on the land is both an asset and a liability. It's an asset because it could add to the value of the land, but it might also reduce the land value if it interferes with alternate land uses. It's a liability, both in the legal sense and in that it requires maintenance. If you want to rent them out, especially, that means concern about any foundations involved, termites, roofs, sewage/septic tanks, utilities that are your responsibility (pipes, poles, wires), as well as any sort of ac/heating you may have, docks, and so on. These things are rarely free and absolutely can eat you alive. Income: Ah, the best part, the constant influx of cash! But wait, is it a constant influx? Some businesses are purely seasonal (summer only, winter only), some are year-round but have peak times, and others don't really have a \"\"peak\"\" to speak of. If you are renting, are there issues collecting, or with people over-staying? How about damage, making a mess, getting rowdy and disturbing others? Regardless, there is obviously some income, and this is usually the most dangerous part of the equation. I say \"\"dangerous\"\", because people absolutely lie like dogs on this part, all the time. It's easy to cook the books, assuming they even attempt to keep proper books in the first place! Businesses of this form often have a lot of cash business that's easy to hide (from Uncle Sam, or sometimes even the owners themselves if there are employees involved) - and fake! And some people are just shoddy bookkeepers and the info is just wrong. But, there will clearly be some kind of yearly income involved. What does this matter? Well...how much is there? How much is tied to the owners (personal friends do business and they will leave if the ownership/management changes)? In commercial real estate the income will be calculated for a fiscal year, and then there is something called a \"\"multiple\"\", which is market dependent. Let's say the whole place takes in $100k in rent a year. As part of buying this business, you are buying not just assets, but expected future income. In some commercial areas the multiple is as little as .5 to 2 - which means that the going rate is about 6-24 months worth of income, as part of the purchase price. So with 100k rent a year, that means 50k-200k of the purchase price is attributable to the income of the business. And if business is half of what you thought it would be? That means the net value of the whole enterprise decreases by 25k-100k - on top of the reduced income every year you own it! Income provides cash flow, which should pay all the expenses (cleaning up from wind storms, replacing windows that are broken, hauling off trash, replacing a well that ran dry), and then the extra that remains is positive cash flow. If you take out a loan, then ideally the cash flow would also pay that completely so long as you don't have any big unexpected expenses in the year - and still have some left over for yourself. Wages: Well, that money doesn't collect itself! There's sales, keeping the books, collecting the rent, performing maintenance, customer service, cleaning, paying the bills, keeping the insurance people happy, handling emergencies, and everything else involved with running the business. Someone is going to do it, and the biggest error people make here is not to put any value on their time - and to make it so they can never afford to take a vacation again! Pay yourself, and give yourself the flexibility to pay others when you can't (or don't want) to do it all yourselves. So, what's the point of all this? How do you actually make any money? In two ways: 1) selling the whole thing later, and 2) cash flow. For 1, it's important that you not be in a situation where you are betting that in the future there will be a \"\"person richer, and dumber, than I am now\"\". If the current owner wanted 2 million, then 1 mil, then less, over multiple years...this suggests either he is delusional about the value of his place (and most property owners are), or that its actually hard to find a buyer for such a business. You are going to want to make sure you understand why that is, because most of the value of real estate is...well, in the real estate itself! For 2, you need cash coming in that's considerably more than the cost of running the place. Also, cash flow can strongly change the value of the business for resale (depending on the multiple, this can make a huge difference or prevent you from selling the thing at all). You mentioned you want to put in more cabins, more marketing/sales efforts, etc. That's great, but first, that would mean added investment beyond the purchase price. Is it legally and physically practical to add more cabins, and what is their current utilization rate? If they are only renting 10% of their current capacity, increasing capacity may be premature. This will also vary through the year, so you may find there is a problem with being sold out sometimes...but only for a small percentage of the time. Which means you'll be adding buildings only to have them used for a fraction of the year, which will be very hard to make a profit from. If cash flow is good, ideally even being enough to cover a loan payment to help cover the purchase price (and remember that commercial real estate loans are much smaller loan-to-value ratios than in residential real estate), there is one final barrier to making money: the damn non-regular maintenance! Roofs, wells, and wooden walls all have a sad tendency to cost you nothing right up until the point they cost you $30k+ on a single day. Is there enough cash flow to make these sort of certainties (and if you plan to be there for years, they are a certainty) not put you in the poor house? This was rather long, but I hope this overview helps you appreciate all that you'll need to look into and be cautious of during your future en-devour! Commercial real estate is generally costly and high-risk, but also can be high reward. You'll need to compare many opportunities before you can get a \"\"feel\"\" for what is a good deal and what is a terrible one. You'll need to consider many factors, such as resale value and cash flow/income (which they will have to tell you and you can assume is not true, due to ignorance or malice), as well as maintenance and liabilities, before you can begin to really estimate the value of an enterprise of this sort. There are people who can help you, like appraisers and commercial brokers, but ultimately you'll need to do a lot of research and comparisons yourself to help you make a good decision. Finally, there is no very simple method for evaluating commercial real estate value. You need a variety of information, and you must be skeptical of what you are told because of the very large sums of money involved. It is doable (lots of people do it), but you must take care and do your due diligence so you don't get bankrupted by a single bad purchase.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4bf0dcb96ce68979ca1b604142bb2d7", "text": "\"Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of \"\"here is a nice house, live in it\"\". Which do you need more of? If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0129ccf189b8444f3ea2693d965ba8", "text": "\"First off, I would label this as speculation, not investing. There are many variables that you don't seem to be considering, and putting down such a small amount opens you to a wide variety of risks. Not having an \"\"emergency fund\"\" for the rental increases that risk greatly. (I assume that you would not have an emergency fund based upon \"\"The basic idea is to save up a 20% down payment on a property and take out a mortgage\"\".) This type of speculation lent a hand in the housing bubble. Is your home paid off? If not you can reduce your personal risk (by owning your home), and have a pretty safe investment in real estate. Mission accomplished. My hope for you would be that you are also putting money in the market. Historically it has performed quite well while always having its share of \"\"chicken littles\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1dafd282bb5c66c61fbf2635c3adf89c", "text": "As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12b393f48f29a67fb2145c2685cdab24", "text": "\"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is \"\"too good to not get into\"\" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e97b9935d422e0a08f35ada912eecf77", "text": "With an appropriate selection within a 401K and if operating expenses are low, you get tax deferred savings and possibly a lower tax bracket for now. The returns vary of course with market fluctuations but for almost 3 years it has been double digit growth on average. Some health care sector funds were up over 40% last year. YMMV. With stocks and mutual funds that hold them, you also are in a sense betting that people want their corporations to grow and succeed. Others do most of the work. Real estate should be part of your savings strategy but understand that they are not kidding when they talk about location. It can lose value. Tenants tend to have some problem part of the year such that some owners find it necessary to have a paid property manager to buffer from their complaints. Other owners get hauled into court and sued as slum lords for allegedly not doing basics. Tenants can ruin your property as well. There is maintenance, repair, replacement, insurance against injury not just property damage, and property taxes. While some of it might be deductible, not all is. You may want to consider that there are considerable ongoing costs and significant risks in time and money with real estate as an investment at a level that you do not incur with a 401K. If you buy mainly to flip, then be aware that if there are unforeseen issues with the house or the market sours as it can, you could be stuck with an immovable drain on your income. If you lose your job could you make payments? Many, many people sadly lost their homes or investment properties that way in 2008-2010.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55ecdda1e229a73cd562b64220076832", "text": "As user14469 mentions you would have to decide what type of properties you would like to invest in. Are you after negatively geared properties that may have higher long term growth potential (usually within 15 to 20km from major cities), or after positive cash-flow properties which may have a lower long term growth potential (usually located more than 20km from major cities). With negative geared properties your rent from the property will not cover the mortgage and other costs, so you will have to supplement it through your income. The theory is that you can claim a tax deduction on your employment income from the negative gearing (benefits mainly those on higher tax brackets), and the potential long term growth of the property will make up for the negative gearing over the long term. If you are after these type of properties Michael Yardney has some books on the subject. On the other hand, positive cash-flow properties provide enough rental income to cover the mortgage and other costs. They put cash into your pockets each week. They don't have as much growth potential as more inner city properties, but if you stick to the outer regions of major cities, instead of rural towns, you will still achieve decent long term growth. If you are after these type of properties Margaret Lomas has some books on the subject. My preference is for cash-flow positive properties, and some of the areas user14469 has mentioned. I am personally invested in the Penrith and surrounding areas. With negatively geared properties you generally have to supplement the property with your own income and generally have to wait for the property price to increase so you build up equity in the property. This then allows you to refinance the additional equity so you can use it as deposits to buy other properties or to supplement your income. The problem is if you go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth, you may have to wait quite a few years for your equity to increase substantially. With positively geared properties, you are getting a net income from the property every week so using none of your other income to supplement the property. You can thus afford to buy more properties sooner. And even if the properties go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth you are still getting extra income each week. Over the long term these properties will also go up and you will have the benefit of both passive income and capital gains. I also agree with user14469 regarding doing at least 6 months of research in the area/s you are looking to buy. Visit open homes, attend auctions, talk to real estate agents and get to know the area. This kind of research will beat any information you get from websites, books and magazines. You will find that when a property comes onto the market you will know what it is worth and how much you can offer below asking price. Another thing to consider is when to buy. Most people are buying now in Australia because of the record low interest rates (below 5%). This is causing higher demand in the property markets and prices to rise steadily. Many people who buy during this period will be able to afford the property when interest rates are at 5%, but as the housing market and the economy heat up and interest rates start rising, they find it hard to afford the property when interest rate rise to 7%, 8% or higher. I personally prefer to buy when interest rates are on the rise and when they are near their highs. During this time no one wants to touch property with a six foot pole, but all the owners who bought when interest rates where much lower are finding it hard to keep making repayments so they put their properties on the market. There ends up being low demand and increased supply, causing prices to fall. It is very easy to find bargains and negotiate lower prices during this period. Because interest rates will be near or at their highs, the economy will be starting to slow down, so it will not be long before interest rates start dropping again. If you can afford to buy a property at 8% you will definitely be able to afford it at 6% or lower. Plus you would have bought at or near the lows of the price cycle, just before prices once again start increasing as interest rates drop. Read and learn as much as possible from others, but in the end make up your own mind on the type of properties and areas you prefer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e0f31f94cf52b627aa07e0d9adb7d98", "text": "\"Find a stock screener that has data for the BSE and NSE. You may be able to look directly at volatility but a good stock screener will have the technical analysis indicator called \"\"average true range\"\", ATR for short. This will let you see the average range of price moves over several days.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
21f6c2d9117abd3e513148ca181ed668	Tax Form 1099 and hourly worker do i file a W-2 if my employer filed the 1099 for me?	[ { "docid": "97cbde3c965690a53a5b344eaf7ebe19", "text": "Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c14d942d1cffc6f843d1aefbbc04b1f5", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59e75daa5e86124187e195b99c1a93f1", "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: 260848 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240850 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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fde0a3995bf32d9d9647f1f627bac675", "text": "Am I required to send form 1099 to non-US citizens who are not even residing in the US? Since they're not required to file US taxes, do I still have to send the form to them? That's tricky. You need to get W8/W9 from them, and act accordingly. You may need to withhold 30% (or different percentage, depending on tax treaty they claim on W8). If you withhold taxes, you also need to file form 1042. I suggest you talk to a tax professional. Is it fine to expose my ITIN (taxpayer identification number) to individuals or companies who I send the form to them. Since the form requires me to write my TIN/EIN, what would be the risks of this and what precautions should be taken to avoid inappropriate/illegal use? No, it is not OK. But if you pay these people directly - you don't have much choice, so deal with it. Get a good insurance for identity theft, and don't transact with people you don't trust. One alternative would be to pay through a payment processor (Paypal or credit cards) - see your next question. I send payments via PayPal and wire transfer. Should I send form 1099-MISC or 1099-K? Paypal is a corporation, so you don't need to send 1099 to Paypal. Whatever Paypal sends to others - it will issue the appropriate forms. Similarly if you use a credit card for payment. When you send money through Paypal - you don't send money directly to your business counterparts. You send money to Paypal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4541068da76cb92f024a769b9d81d85d", "text": "You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fb8ad9020bf14fbf901fe9c1f18a4c4", "text": "\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \"\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... 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).\"\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \"\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7774c2bceeeac395e113b4bb31b43ee7", "text": "Many of the custodians (ie. Schwab) file for an extension on 1099s. They file for an extension as many of their accounts have positions with foreign income which creates tax reporting issues. If they did not file for extension they would have to send out 1099s at the end of January and then send out corrected forms. Obviously sending out one 1099 is cheaper and less confusing to all. Hope that helps,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f012c327a053717409f2d055434bc7a", "text": "Basically, it will depend on the documents your employer gives you. If your employer gives you a 2015 W-2 then you would claim it as income on your 2015 taxes. If the first W-2 they give you is for 2016, then you claim it on your 2016 taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b17812fbcc51ba2eaa7f18c455796b30", "text": "Should I have a W-2 re-issued? A W-2 can be corrected and a new copy will be filed with the IRS if your employer incorrectly reported your income and withholding on a W-2 that they issued. In this case, though the employer didn't withhold those taxes, they should not reissue the W-2 unless they plan to pay your portion of the payroll taxes that were not withheld. (If they paid your share of the taxes, that would increase your gross income.) Who pays for the FICA I should have paid last year? Both you and your employer owe 7.65% each for FICA taxes. By law your employer is required to pay their half and you are required to pay your half. Both you and your employer owe additional taxes because of this mistake. Your other questions assume that your employer will pay your portion of the taxes withheld. You employer could decide to do that, but this also assumes that it was your employer's fault that the mistakes were made. If you transitioned to resident alien but did not inform your employer, how is that your employer's fault?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dab4f4eba07fe5cdd610a1ed0521d85", "text": "You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c68cedbd4aa170b06821aa99ccc65c1", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f32d820d97c3f202be1a3c1a88a1820b", "text": "\"Does he need to file a tax return in this situation? Will the IRS be concerned that he did not file even if he received a 1099? No. However, if you don't file the IRS may come back asking why, or \"\"make up\"\" a return for you assuming that the whole amount on the 1099-MISC is your net earnings. So in the end, I suspect you'll end up filing even though you don't have to, just to prove that you don't have to. Bottom line - if you have 1099 income (or any other income reported to the IRS that brings you over the filing threshold), file a return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b01955977794a02a7d27bdbfa46c7c1", "text": "Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "938db83ce9d0d8d64a670ca38b919a3b", "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).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64ff7d85368c789defd8b35ea3d24c03", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "046c3a367b30527c5d320c397e8de7c7", "text": "If you are in the US and a regular employee, this will have to show up on your year-end W2 form as income. If it doesn't, there is some funky accounting business going and you should probably consult a professional for advice.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
34a59182681916c47be07657e67c4479	Are stock investments less favorable for the smaller investor?	[ { "docid": "c3659ad6a4c1d4d2f9e0aa0439187186", "text": "You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e3309d191d613404bd65a9a8a47dd1f", "text": "If you are looking at long-term investments then you can look to Dheer's answer and see that it doesn't matter whether the money is large or small, the return will be the same. When it comes to shorter-term investments, it can actually pay to be a smaller investor. Consider a stock that may not be trading in high volume. If I want to take a position for 2,000 shares, I can probably buy it quite quickly without moving the market considerably. If I was managing your hypothetical portfolio opening a position for 1,000,000 shares, it can cause the price to go up significantly because I have to execute the order very carefully in order to not tip my hand to the market that I want a million shares. Algorithmic traders will see the volume increasing on those shares and will raise their asking price. High speed traders and market makers will also cause a lot of purchasing overhead. Then later when it comes time to sell, I will lose a percentage to the price drop as I start flooding the market with available shares.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "21253916624b7918f6c3709e9a984172", "text": "Its pretty much always a positive to have large institutional investors. Here's a few cases where I can see an argument against large institutional investors: In recent years, we've seen corporate raiders and institutional investors that tend to influence management in ways that are focused on short term gain. They'll often go for board seats and disrupt the existing management team. It can serve as a distraction and really hurt morale. Institutional investors also have rules in their prospectus that they are required to abide by. For example, some institutional investors will not hold on to stock below $5. This really affected major banking stocks, some of which ended up doing reverse stock splits to keep their share price high. Institutional investors will also setup specific funds that require a stock to be listed as part of an index (i.e. the SPY, DJIA etc.,). When a stock is removed from an index, big investors leave quickly and the share price suffers. In recent months, companies like Apple have made their share price more affordable to attract retail investors. It gives an opportunity for retail to feel even more connected to the company. I'm not sure how much this affects overall sales... Generally, a good stock should be able to attract both retail and institutional investors. If there's not a good mix, then its usually a sign that somethings amiss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de2442349928571c8c1fd0025617a775", "text": "More questions! 1.) I thought the criticism of the Dow was that it's much smaller than other indexes and thus less representative of the market as a whole? 2,) When you say private investors are you talking about a few specific people? Or anyone who invests at all? Thanks", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea17710a4fd7f5570df071d180f65a63", "text": "\"It appears that there's a confusion between the different types of average. Saying \"\"the average investor\"\" generally means the most common type of small-scale unsophisticated investor - the mode (or possibly median) investor. However, while this class of investors is numerous, each of them has assets that are quite small compared to some other types of investors; and the market average performance is determined proportionally to the amount of assets held, not to the number of holders; so the performance of large investors \"\"counts\"\" that much more. For any measure, the mode of performance can be (and often is) different from the mean performance - in this case, Dalbar is saying that the most common results are lower than the (weighed) average results.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c6ab5bb3293780622eb0644d28f7890", "text": "The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f8322c9d7eca2e486c8147430074bb7", "text": "One implication is the added fees if you are investing in something with a trading cost or commission, such as your stock purchase. If you pay low costs to trade (e.g. with a discount broker) and don't switch your investments often, then costs overall should remain reasonable .. but always be aware of your costs and seek to minimize them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ef5ae799f8b31bb763122fa08838f1e", "text": "Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642605635985e7e03e7dea5aa0e99d77", "text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8857170018f503149b7d0033ac8cbc9f", "text": "It's great that you have gotten the itch to learn about the stock market. There are a couple of fundamentals to understand first though. Company A has strong, growing, net earnings and minimal debt, it's trading for $100 per share. Company B has good revenue but high costs of goods and total liabilities well in excess of total assets, it's trading for $0.10 per share. There is no benefit to getting 10,000 shares or 10 shares for your $1,000. Your goal is to invest in companies that have valuable products and services run by competent management teams. Sure, the number of shares you own will dictate what percentage of the company you own, and in a number of cases, your voting power. But even a penny stock will have a market capitalization of several million dollars so voting power isn't really a concern for your $1,000 investment. There is a lot more in the three basic financial statements (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows) than revenue. Seasoned accountants can have a hard time parsing out where money is coming from and where it's going. In general there are obvious red flags, like a fast declining cash balance against a fast growing liabilities balance or expenses exceeding revenue. While some of these things are common among new and high growth companies, it's not the place for a new investor with a small bankroll. A micro-cap company (penny stocks are in this group) will receive rounds of financing via issuing preferred convertible shares which may include options on more shares. For a company worth $20mm a $5mm financing round can materially change the finances of a company, and will likely dilute your holdings in common stock. Small growth companies need new financing frequently to fund their growth strategies. Revenue went up, great... why? Did you open another store? Did you open another sales office? Did the revenue increase this quarter based on substantially the same operation that existed last quarter or have you increased the capacity of your operation? If you increased the capacity of your operation what was the cost of the increase and did revenue increase as expected? Can you expect revenue to continue to grow at this rate or was it a one time windfall from an unusual order? Sure, there are spectacular gains to be had in penny stocks. XYZ Pharma Research (or whatever) goes from $0.05 to $0.60 and you've turned your $1,000 in to $12,000. This is a really unlikely event... Buying penny stocks is akin to buying lottery tickets. Unless you are a high ranking employee at the company capable of making decisions, or one of the investors buying the preferred shares mentioned in point 3, or are one of the insiders of a pump and dump scam on the stock, penny common stocks are not a place to invest. One could argue that even a company insider should probably avoid buying common stock. Just to illustrate the points above, you mention: Doing some really heavy research into this stock has made me question the whole penny stock market. Based on your research what is the enterprise value of the company? What were the gross proceeds of the last financing round, how many shares were issued and were there any warrants attached? What do you perceive to be heavy research? What background do you have in finance/accounting to give weight to your ability to perform such research? Crawl. Walk. Then run. Don't kid yourself in to thinking that since you have some level of education you understand the contracts involved in enterprise finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "951b9b0fce84b385eb005e407056b51a", "text": "Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02cf1973bc8bfdb5930a3f0b20037ecd", "text": "By exploiting institutional investors, HFT does hurt small investors. People with pension, mutual, and index funds get smaller returns. Endowment funds are also going to get hurt which hurts hospitals, schools, charities, and other institutions that work for the public good. I agree with you though. At this point we would likely be just arguing semantics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2900a922d243bb2b0282f4fcec6579b", "text": "\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cf18975c984604687f3099d5817b239", "text": "Yes, you should own a diverse mix of company sizes to be well diversified. While both will probably get hit in a recession, different economies suit different sized companies very differently in many cases, and this diversity positions you best to not only not miss out in cases where small companies do better out of recessions than large, but also in environments where small companies rate of growth is larger in bull markets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7edf5d450d98f1513b4faaa546c6202e", "text": "No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "699cc6e9542068712bf23b3cc1e56b16", "text": "\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9", "text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
585e5d7dee99cf0d0a25c6c5e6970a0c	Mailed in One-time Payment by Check	[ { "docid": "dbc64c870685d9d3c4e4e506ee4e6c5f", "text": "I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4f03c1b110541156fe89f80e845b9001", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c970e9e4752025f14c6a88559265046", "text": "\"The store owners don't know what your intentions are. All they know is they gave you good cash for a bad check. Part of this is that you're paying for the bad acts of others in the past, and these people aren't in the business of trying to understand your intentions. If you show good faith by going in and paying whatever you can, it will go a long way toward getting them to work with you on the balance. I don't know if they'd have much of a criminal case if the check you gave them was clearly marked as \"\"void\"\" and you've shown a willingness to resolve the situation. Of course you can't blame them for not wanting to accept another check from you. Good old hard cash, even if it isn't the full amount, will be a better sign of your intent to repay the debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "719f1685a89d9fb9de133c901e3092fc", "text": "Have the check reissued to the proper payee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b43468d17ae30e808449541d67848ad", "text": ">I might have an answer! I imagine they're capitalizing on people's laziness. I live in the Bay Area where some people probably don't mind paying $35 to not have to walk 100 feet to the office and drop off a check. Except that at their end they then have to deal with the cheques, have someone to receive them and so on, deal with the inevitable bounced cheques too.. Seems like a shitty plan, but yeah, I suppose if someone can gouge you they may well do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3b115181031954eaaccb2a341b09b63", "text": "While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e50f6d3b54844133f771525f6a664b3b", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ee8c8550decc2affbf4a6d32464e470", "text": "Several options: Banks - ask in the branches near to you if any of them would do that. They generally only service their account members, but if you smile and talk nicely to the tellers they might do that for you. It may involve some nominal commission. Check cashing places - they're everywhere, and they carry large denomination bills. They will probably do that, but will likely charge a commission. Money orders - if you don't want to give a personal check, buy a money order at the post office, and dump the cash on them. It costs a nominal fee ($1.60 at USPS).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ef100bc0d7e435fdc5fbb103eef4366", "text": "\"It's a scam. The cashier's check will be forged. Craigslist has a warning about it here (item #3). What kind of payment do you think is not fakable? Or at least not likely to be used in scams? When on craigslist - deal only locally and in person. You can ask to see the person's ID if you're being paid by check When being paid by check, how can seeing his/her ID help? In case the check isn't cashable, I can find that person by keeping record of his/her ID? If you're paid by check, the payers details should be printed on the check. By checking the ID you can verify that the details match (name/address), so you can find the payer later. Of course the ID can be faked too, but there's so much you can do to protect yourself. You'll get better protection (including verified escrow service) by selling on eBay. Is being paid by cash the safest way currently, although cash can be faked too, but it is the least common thing that is faked currently? Do you recommend to first deposit the cash into a bank (so that let the bank verify if the cash is faked), before delivering the good? For Craigslist, use cash and meet locally. That rules out most scams as a seller. What payment methods do you think are relatively safe currently? Then getting checks must be the least favorite way of being paid. Do you think cash is better than money order or cashier order? You should only accept cash. If it is a large transaction, you can meet them at your bank, have them get cash, and you receive the cash from the bank. Back to the quoted scam, how will they later manipulate me? Are they interested in my stuffs on moving sale, or in my money? They will probably \"\"accidentally\"\" overpay you and ask for a refund of some portion of the overpayment. In that case you will be out the entire amount that you send back to them and possibly some fees from your bank for cashing a bad check.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e0ecaebd4337c74aafc2816abb535ab", "text": "\"I signed the checks \"\"JoeTaxpayer, parent\"\" and never had an issue with my bank. Note, I am in the US, and my experience may just be with my particular bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd7362d8729d8ff0c1f67fb347742f71", "text": "WE're talking about companies. Cooperate companies. What cooperate company is issuing bounced or fake checks to their employees that can also issue debit cards as payments? None. You're trying to split hairs between personal cashed checks and pay roll checks. They aren't the same at all. Payroll checks don't require a 3 day waiting period before the balance is moved to your account, personal checks that don't have a history of bouncing do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb1508ea931882b83665fb6c454f4549", "text": "For an individual its not automatic. One needs to ask the Bank, return the check. For Corporate Customer depending on how big the relationship is, many a times this is given as a service and there is an automatic return", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37c92235ba646978f24e7933ffa9da44", "text": "No, we did not apply for the loan. So, this is why we thought it was a bit strange a company just sending you a real check for $30K. It does not say anywhere in big red letters that it is a loan. Probably something in very small letters on a back of a paper. This is really horrible. Especially,if your customers do pay you by check and small business relies on online statement to determine who paid what. I can easily imagine a small outfit that just takes all the checks to the bank, cash them, and then use online statement to update their books. I do not see how it is helpful to businesses to receive pre-approved credit that is so poorly marked. Especially in the age of electronic transfers!!! I am trying to understand why I feel so offended by this, and I guess it all comes down to disgust: I refuse to believe that any serious company would use these sort of tactics and instead of us spending more time developing a better product, we have to put more time and effort into ensuring we do not fall victim to this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17609ed5dd1c22d3b7733a7358c9a2a2", "text": "\"I expect the company wanted to pay you for a product (on a purchase order) rather than as a contract laborer. Whatever. Would they be willing to re-issue the check to you as a sole proprietor of a business named ABC Consulting (or anything like that)? You can register your sole proprietor business with the state using a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA, or fictitious name), and then open the bank account for your business using the check provided by the customer as the first deposit. (There is likely a smaller registration fee for the DBA.) If they won't re-issue the check and you have to go the LLC route... Scrounge up $125 doing odd jobs or borrowing from a friend or parents. Seriously, anyone can earn that amount of money in a week or two. Besides the filing fee for the LLC, your bank may require you to provide an Operating Agreement (which is not required by the State). The Operating Agreement can be simple, or more complex if you have a partner (even if it's a spouse). If you do have a partner, it is essential to have such an agreement because it would specify the responsibilities and benefits allocated to each partner, particularly in the event of equity distributions (taking money out of the business, or liquidating and ending the LLC). There are websites that will provide you a boilerplate form for Operating Agreements. But if your business is anything more than just single member LLC, you should pay an attorney to draw one up for you so the wording is right. It's a safeguard against potential future lawsuits. And, while we're at it, don't forget to obtain a EIN (equivalent to a SSN) from the IRS for your LLC. There's no cost, but you'll have to have it to file taxes as a business for every year the LLC exists and has income. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab4e544caa7e8c7379f2f5832b9df854", "text": "\"Based on past case law, a check made payable to qualified charity and delivered (e.g., placed in the mail on 12/31 would count as delivered as it is out of the hands of the donor) would fall under the \"\"constructive receipt doctrine\"\". However, for non-charitable gifts (e.g., gifts to family members) it is the date the check is cashed (honored by the receiving bank). This is important as the annual gift exclusion is just that \"\"Annual\"\". Therefore, if I gift my child $14,000 by writing a check on 12/31/2014 but they deposit it on 1/3/2015 then I have used my annual gift exclusion for 2015 and not 2014. This means I could not gift them anything further in 2015. BTW the annual gift amount is for ALL gifts cash and non-cash. Most people don't seem to realize this. If I give $14,000 of cash to my child and then also give them Christmas gifts with a value of $1,000 I have exceeded my annual gift exclusion to that child. Usually there are ways around this issue as I can give $14,000 to each and every person I want and if married my spouse can do the same. This allows us to give $14,000 from each of us to each child plus $14,000 from each of us to their spouse if married and $14,000 from each of us to each of their children if they have any.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2661232f0ca4b7cb6063bd231cb62f70", "text": "In the United States, post-dating a check, on its own, has no valid use. It can be cashed at any time at the discretion of the bank. You would need to send a notice of postdating to your bank describing the check. This doesn't prevent the recipient of cashing the check, but it does prevent your bank from charging your account until the date you specify NOTE: This may be considered a form of stop payment, and you may be subject to the fees noted by your institution. Source: [Uniform Commercial Code - Article 4A § 4-401] (c) A bank may charge against the account of a customer a check that is otherwise properly payable from the account, even though payment was made before the date of the check, unless the customer has given notice to the bank of the postdating describing the check with reasonable certainty. [...] If a bank charges against the account of a customer a check before the date stated in the notice of postdating, the bank is liable for damages for the loss resulting from its act. The loss may include damages for dishonor of subsequent items under Section 4-402.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8ed69326033342048f4ff5475443c516	Do you have to be mega-rich to invest in companies pre-IPO?	[ { "docid": "93860154dd97e77e09750e016a2bb41c", "text": "\"Short answer: No. Being connected is very helpful and there is no consequence by securities regulators against the investor by figuring out how to acquire pre-IPO stock. Long answer: Yes, you generally have to be an \"\"Accredited Investor\"\" which basically means you EARN over $200,000/yr yourself (or $300,000 joint) and have been doing so for several years and expect to continue doing so OR have at least 1 million dollars of net worth ( this is joint worth with you and spouse). The Securities Exchange Commission and FINRA have put a lot of effort into keeping most classes of people away from a long list of investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d78280a06f17c17e2f6b70609018051", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b721bf929645a32770ca5320a4f2b5b7", "text": "There are a couple of ways to buy into a private company. First, the company can use equity crowd funding (approved under the JOBS act, you don't need to be an accredited investor for this). The offering can be within one state (i.e. Intrastate offerings) which don't have the same SEC regulations but will be governed by state law. Small companies (small assets, under $1 million) can be made under Regulation D, Rule 504. For assets under $5 million, there is Rule 505, which allows a limited number of non-accredited investors. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of 504 and 505 issues. Rule 506 issues are common, and it does allow a few non-accredited investors (I think 35), but non-accredited investors have to be given lots of disclosure, so often companies use a Rule 506 issue but only for accredited investors.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9a39855dd76f6d71894d271408f6887b", "text": "Yes. There are exceptions under the pre-JOBS laws to allow unaccredited investors (off the top of my head I don't remember the limit, but 35 sounds right). However, it increases the amount of information the company has to give to those investors. Post-JOBS you're allowed to have up to 500 unaccredited investors and as far as I know, it doesn't really change the information the company has to give.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ff8f21e99d612524de391740ba0928c", "text": "Two methods: 1: Become really close friend with Marky. Probably have to take a bullet for him or something. 2: Become a major client of the investment bank that will launch the IPO (most likely Goldman), and the bank will offer you some shares before the IPO. In order to become a major client you probably have to spend several millions per year in transaction fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96387f55bb095db0193bdbe95e7499a8", "text": "\"The \"\"coin flip\"\" argument made in the article is absurd. My old boss had a saying, \"\"the harder I work, the luckier I get.\"\" He came from nothing, worked maniacally to become an Olympian, and later in life became a multi-millionaire. This is a common story among self-made people. I DO think that the rich have significant advantages: education, contact networks, access to startup capital, etc. These are very helpful, but don't assure success. Their lack is not insurmountable by the ambitious. I also think those advantages have expanded in recent years. Monetary policy has resulted in a large pool of investable funds being made available to to the financial sector, who earn high incomes with rent-seeking tactics.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "899c9572b9f6b04a758c21d1e283dab3", "text": "\"Just skimming through the Wikipedia article on airberlin, I notice there is more to the story than simply \"\"airberlin's IPO failed, so they postponed it and did it anyways.\"\" 3 points to keep in mind about IPOs: 1) An IPO is the mechanism for taking a private company and setting it up for shares to be owned by \"\"the public\"\". 2) The process of selling shares to the public often allows original owners and/or early investors to \"\"cash out\"\". Most countries (including member nations of the EU) limit some transactions like pre-IPO companies to \"\"accredited investors\"\". 3) Selling shares to the public also can allow the company to access more funds for growth. This is particularly important in a capital-intensive business like an airline; new B737-MAX costs >$110M. New A320neo costs >$105M USD. Ultimately, the question of a successful IPO depends on how you define success. Initially, there was a lot of concern that the IPO was set up with too much focus on goal #2... allowing the management & owners to cash out. It looks like the first approach was not meeting good opinions in the market during 2006. A major concern was that the initial approach focused on management only cashing out its shares and no money actually going to the company to support its future. The investment bankers restructured the IPO, including the issuance of more new shares so that more $ could end up in the company's accounts, not just in the accounts of the management. If anything, it's still a pretty successful IPO given that the shares were successfully listed, the company collected the money it needed to invest and grow, and the management still cashed out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7967202b7921329aed481174711eebb7", "text": "Turukawa's answer is quite good, and for your own specific situation, you might begin by being sceptical about what you are getting for investing a few thousand dollars. With the exception of Paul Graham's Y-Combinator, there are very few opportunities to invest at that type of level, and Y-Combinator provides a lot of other assistance besides their modest initial investment. I can tell from your post that you think like an investor. It is highly unlikely that the entrepreneurial programmers that you will be backing will be wired that way. From the modest amount that you are investing, you are unlikely to be the lead investor in this opportunity. If you are interested in proceeding, simply stick along for the ride, examining the terms and documents that more significant investors will be demanding. Remain positive and supportive, but simply wait to sign on the dotted line until others have done the heavy lifting. For more insights into startups themselves, see Paul Graham's essays at www.paulgraham.com. He's the real deal, and his recent essays will provide you with current insights about software startups. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2f5def027a81c2bd2a43665ac808a3c", "text": "It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad8c31cf38ded9ae11e02d78b881164", "text": "\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c40f7111b9718afc316b8ae5b88bb84c", "text": "\"Previous answers have done a great job with the \"\"Should I invest?\"\" question. One thing you may be overlooking is the question \"\"Am I allowed to invest?\"\" For most offerings of stock in a startup, investors are required to be accredited by the SEC's definition. See this helpful quora post for more information on requirements to invest in startups. To be honest, if a startup is looking for investors to put in \"\"a few thousand dollars\"\" each, this would raise my alarm bells. The cost and hassle of the paperwork to (legitimately) issue shares in that small of number would lead me just to use a credit card to keep me going until I was able to raise a larger amount of capital.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba932ab7edd82cd583be7d0ce813cdbc", "text": "The most significant capability that an investor must have is the knowledge on the way to look for the high dividend stocks. Through accumulating good information relating to towards the stocks that you are finding is the better way of getting the perfect and profitable investments. It is really important to learn what makes a particular stock better and superior compared to other. Traders are essential to start a complete analysis and investigation before getting their money on any business projects. Obviously, investors certainly want to have an investment that could guarantee an effective expense for a very reasonable cost the moment of getting it. The chances of crucial to invest in a market that you might be aware and qualified about. So, creating a comparison and compare in one business to a different is totally essential so as to find the high dividend stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0e031045feb0f059b8f4d20233b164", "text": "\"We just got in an argument in another thread, and I don't necessarily want to continue it, but was browsing your comments and saw this. I can say from personal experience (I have several high net worth clients) that this isn't true. The rich do the opposite of leave their money laying around. They invest it to make more money. They buy office buildings, fund new companies, buy up stocks, and drive investment in general. Someone has to do these things. Office buildings can't just be owned by \"\"the people\"\". Someone with a ton of money has to come along and fund them. For example, one of my friends knows Elon Musk (founder of Pay-Pal, Tesla Motors, Solar City, and Space X). He is worth $2 billion, but was living on other people's couches (including my friend's) after he sold Pay-Pal because he had just poured all of his cash into starting Tesla Motors. He was a billionaire without a penny to his name (well I'm sure he had a little cash lying around, but was essentially asset rich, cash broke). THAT is what most ultra rich people are like. They invest their money, they don't just horde it away in a savings account. The things people like Musk do create jobs and sometimes entire industries (or three entire industries in his case). I'm by no means arguing that this is right or wrong, but to say rich people just have money lying around is absurd. You don't get rich by saving money in the bank, you get rich by spending it. I'm in my early 20's, but already own multiple apartment buildings. I'm not rich yet and am in the same boat as Musk was. I have tons of assets, but almost no cash I can spend. However, you bet my efforts are creating jobs. I'm employing people to renovate and people to repair and maintain these buildings. I'm helping stop the bleeding in the real estate market, but, according to the narrative, I'm evil because my \"\"income\"\" is six figures.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f130cbf649f1927e057d58350102db01", "text": "You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job. The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it. They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors. With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fbbb410b7ff1fb7eba4f60c84daad3f", "text": "There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f", "text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b31565f39a22a3c38bad6baeab2848a1", "text": "You can say it's a bad proxy but practically all the richest people have their money tied up in equities, and it would be foolish for them not to. You have to include that somehow. Net worth is not just liquid assets", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88ab9f9eb83e88b5b691d94aa1f7100e", "text": "Many CEOs I have heard of earn a lot more than 200k. In fact a lot earn more than 1M and then get bonuses as well. Many wealthy people increase there wealth by investing in property, the stock market, businesses and other assets that will produce them good capital growth. Oh yeh, and luck usually has very little to do with their success.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3c406daaad8198e5810c8e251b89b5e1	Recommended education path for a future individual investor?	[ { "docid": "b225057ac5a2daf8508875ece3977755", "text": "\"For a job doing that kind of stuff, what is PREFERRED is 4 year undergrad at ivy league school + 2 year MBA at ivy league school, and then several more years of experience, which you can sort of get by interning while in school this will of course saddle you with debt, which is counterintuitive to your plans basically, the easy way up is percentage based compensation. without knowing the right people, you will get a piss poor salary regardless of what you do, in the beginning. so portfolio managers earn money by percentage based fees, and can manage millions and billions. real estate agents can earn money by percentage based commissions if they close a property and other business venture/owners can do the same thing. the problem with \"\"how to trade\"\" books is that they are outdated by the time they are published. so you should just stick with literature that teaches a fundamental knowledge of the products you want to trade/make money from. ultimately regardless of how you get/earn your initial capital, you will still need to be an individual investor to grow your own capital. this has nothing to do with being a portfolio manager, even highly paid individuals on wall street are in debt to lavish expenditures and have zero capital for their own investments. hope this helps, you really need to be thinking in a certain way to just quickly deduce good ideas from bad ideas\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b108040bd2c34ec920bd9d6ec5d7bbd", "text": "My plan is that one day I can become free of the modern day monetary burdens that most adults carry with them and I can enjoy a short life without these troubles on my mind. If your objective is to achieve financial independence, and to be able to retire early from the workforce, that's a path that has been explored before. So there's plenty of sources that you might want to check. The good news is that you don't need to be an expert on security analysis or go through dozens of text books to invest wisely and enjoy the market returns. This is the Bogleheads philosophy. It's widely accepted by people in academia, and thoroughly tested. Look into it further if you want to see the rationale behind, but, to sum it up: It doesn't matter how expert you are. The idea of beating the market, that an index fund tracks, is about 'outsmarting' the rest of investors. That would be difficult, even if it was a matter of skill, but when it comes to predicting random events we're all equally clueless. *Total Expense Ratio: It gives an idea of how expensive is a given fund in terms of fees. Actively managed funds have higher TER than indexed ones. This doesn't mean there aren't index funds with, unexplainable, high TER out there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cd9c2b35628903a560ac635280aedbe", "text": "It depends on whether you want a career as a fund manager/ analyst or if you want to be an investor/ trader. A fund manager will have many constraints that a private investor doesn’t have, as they are managing other people’s money. If they do invest their own money as well they usually would invest it differently from how they invest the fund's money. Many would just get someone else to invest their money for them, just as a surgeon would get another surgeon to operate on a family member. My suggestion to you is to find a job you like doing and build up your savings. Whilst you are building up your savings read some books. You said you don’t know much about the financial markets, then learn about them. Get yourself a working knowledge about both fundamental and technical analysis. Work out which method of analysis (if not both) suits you best and you would like to know more about. As you read you will get a better idea if you prefer to be a long term investor or a short term trader or somewhere in-between or a combination of various methods. Now you will start to get an idea of what type of books and areas of analysis you would like to concentrate on. Once you have a better idea of what you would like to do and have gained some knowledge, then you can develop your investment/trading plan and start paper trading. Once you are happy with you plan and your paper trading you can start trading with a small account balance (not more than $10,000 and preferably under $5,000). No matter how well you did with paper trading you will always do worse with real money at first due to your emotions being in it now. So always start off small. If you want to become good at something it takes time and a lot of hard work. You can’t go from knowing nothing to making a million dollars per year without putting in the hard yards first.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a6538981686b2af921afea0fb21d7b9c", "text": "\"Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally \"\"out of sight - out of mind\"\", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f4d2782016a99449f0364ecead401b2", "text": "https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/most-important-finance-books-2017-1 Bloomberg, finacial times, chat with traders, calculated risk, reuters, wsj, cnbc(sucks), bnn (if canadian) Audio books on youtube helped me read a lot of finance books in a short amount of time, listen while working out. One thing that helped me stand out at my student terms (4th year here) was learning outside of the classroom and joining an investment club. Learning programming can help if thats a strength, but its really not needed and it can waste time if yoi wont reach a point to build tools. Other than that at 18 you have more direction than i did, good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29a40af24f93fca95608892442b874f3", "text": "There are all sorts of topics in finance that take a lot of time to learn. You have valuation (time value of money, capital asset pricing model, dividend discount model, etc.), financial statement analysis (ratio analysis, free cash flow & discounted cash flow, etc.) , capital structure analysis(Modgliani & Miller theories of capital structure, weighted average cost of capital, more CAPM, the likes), and portfolio management (asset allocation, security selection, integrates financial statement analysis + other fields like derivatives, fixed income, forex, and commodity markets) and all sorts. My opinion of Investopedia is that there is a lot of wheat with the chaff. I think articles/entries are just user-submitted and there are good gems in Investopedia but a lot of it only covers very basic concepts. And you often don't know what you don't know, so you might come out with a weak understanding of something. To begin, you need to understand TVM and why it works. Time value of money is a critical concept of finance that I feel many people don't truly grasp and just understand you need some 'rate' to use for this formula. Also, as a prereq, you should understand basics of accrual accounting (debits & credits) and how the accounting system works. Don't need to know things like asset retirement obligations, or anything fancy, just how accounting works and how things affect certain financial statements. After that, I'd jump into CAPM and cost of capital. Cost of capital is also a very misunderstood concept since schools often just give students the 'cost of capital' for math problems when in reality, it's not just an explicit number but more of a 'general feeling' in the environment. Calculating cost of capital is actually often very tricky (market risk premium) and subjective, sometimes it's not (LIBOR based). After that, you can build up on those basic concepts and start to do things like dividend discount models (basic theory underlying asset pricing models) and capital asset pricing models, which builds on the idea of cost of capital. Then go into valuation. Learn how to price equities, bonds, derivatives, etc. For example, you have the dividend discount model with typical equities and perpetuities. Fixed income has things like duration & convexity to measure risk and analyze yield curves. Derivatives, you have the Black-Scholes model and other 'derivatives' (heh) of that formula for calculating prices of options, futures, CDOs, etc. Valuation is essentially taking the idea of TVM to the next logical step. Then you can start delving into financial modelling. Free cash flows, discounted cash flows, ratio analysis, pro forma projections. Start small, use a structured problem that gives you some inputs and just do calculations. Bonuses* would be ideas of capital structure (really not necessary for entry level positions) like the M&M theorems on capital structure (debt vs equity), portfolio management (risk management, asset allocation, hedging, investment strategies like straddles, inverse floaters, etc), and knowledge of financial institutions and banking regulations (Basel accords, depository regulations, the Fed, etc.). Once you gain an understanding of how this works, pick something out there and do a report on it. Then you'll be left with a single 'word problem' that gives you nothing except a problem and tells you to find an answer. You'll have to find all the inputs and give reasons why these inputs are sound and reasonable inputs for this analysis. A big part that people don't understand about projections and analysis is that inputs don't exist in plain sight. You have to make a lot of judgment calls when making these assumptions and it takes a lot of technical understanding to make a reasonable assumption--of which the results of your report highly depend on. As a finance student, you get a taste for all of this. I'm gonna say it's going to be hard to learn a lot of substantial info in 2 months, but I'm not exactly sure what big business expects out of their grunts. You'll mostly be doing practical work like desk jockey business, data entry, and other labor-based jobs. If you know what you're talking about, you can probably work up to something more specialized like underwriting or risk management or something else. Source: Finance degree but currently working towards starting a (finance related) company to draw on my programming background as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40965c0ba17523dcab20b0d0a7b79a96", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d356e065a65de9c35e9d108e23d322f2", "text": "2 + 20 isn't really a investment style, more of a management style. As CTA I don't have specific experience in the Hedge Fund industry but they are similar. For tech stuff, you may want to check out Interactive Brokers. As for legal stuff, with a CTA you need to have power of attorney form, disclosure documents, risk documents, fees, performance, etc. You basically want to cover your butt and make sure clients understand everything. For regulatory compliance and rules, you would have to consult your apporiate regulatory body. For a CTA its the NFA/CFTC. You should look at getting licensed to provide crediabilty. For a CTA it would be the series 3 license at the very least and I can provide you with a resource for study guides and practice test taking for ALL licenses. I can provide a brief step by step guide later on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa0b060c38ae220ba77f07ca36750b24", "text": "I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5441f74c31fd065e750dc107af1495a4", "text": "\"This may be a great idea, or a very bad one, or it may simply not be applicable to you, depending on your personal circumstances and interests. The general idea is to avoid passive investments such as stocks and bonds, because they tend to grow by \"\"only\"\" a few percent per year. Instead, invest in things where you will be actively involved in some form. With those, much higher investment returns are common (but also the risk is higher, and you may be tied down and have to limit the traveling you want to do). So here are a few different ways to do that: Get a college degree, but only if you are interested in the field, and it ends up paying you well. If you aren't interested in the field, you won't land the $100k+ jobs later. And if you study early-childhood education, you may love the job, but it won't pay enough to make it a good investment. Of course, it also has to fit with your life plans, but that might be easier than it seems. You want to travel. Have you thought about anthropology, marine biology or archeology? Pick a reputable, hard-to-get-into, academic school rather than a vocation-oriented oe, and make sure that they have at least some research program. That's one way to distinguish between the for-profit schools (who tend to be very expensive and land you in low-paying jobs), and schools that actually lead to a well-paying future. Or if your interest runs more in a different direction: start a business. Your best bet might be to buy a franchise. Many of the fast-food chains, such as McDonalds, will let you buy as long as you have around $300k net worth. Most franchises also require that you are qualified. It may often make sense to buy not just one franchised store, but several in an area. You can increase your income (and your risk) by getting a loan - you can probably buy at least $5 million worth of franchises with your \"\"seed money\"\". BTW, I'm only using McDonalds as an example. Well-known fast food franchises used to be money-making machines, but their popularity may well have peaked. There are franchises in all kinds of industries, though. Some tend to be very short-term (there is a franchise based on selling customer's stuff on ebay), while others can be very long-lived (many real-estate brokerages are actually franchises). Do be careful which ones you buy. Some can be a \"\"license to print money\"\" while others may fail, and there are some fraudsters in the franchising market, out to separate you from your money. Advantage over investing in stocks and bonds: if you choose well, your return on investment can be much higher. That's generally true for any business that you get personally involved in. If you do well, you may well end up retiring a multimillionaire. Drawback: you will be exposed to considerable risk. The investment will be a major chunk of your net worth, and you may have to put all your eggs in none basket. If your business fails, you may lose everything. A third option (but only if you have a real interest in it!): get a commercial driver's license and buy an 18-wheeler truck. I hear that owner-operators can easily make well over $100k, and that's with having to pay off a bank loan. But if you don't love trucker culture, it is likely not worth doing. Overall, you probably get the idea: the principle is to use your funds as seed money to launch something profitable and secure, as well as enjoyable for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24", "text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ca0852fdce161b965d5715975eb9a33", "text": "\"As foundational material, read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bf0ea6249344325dfb4fe3bbd68350f", "text": "If you want to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds I would suggest you take a portion of your inheritance and use it to learn how to invest in this asset class wisely. Take courses on investing and trading (two different things) in paper assets and start trading on a fantasy exchange to test and hone your investment skills before risking any of your money. Personally I don't find bonds to have a meaningful rate of return and I prefer stocks that have a dividend over those that don't. Parking some of your money in an IRA is a good strategy for when you do not see opportunities to purchase cashflow-positive assets right away; this allows you to wait and deploy your capital when the opportunity presents itself and to educate yourself on what a good opportunity looks like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf230205bb1a357e7a52292f2a695eb", "text": "\"There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the \"\"high-frequency trading\"\" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f43694d6b791a3c2cd5acf2302cdeffa", "text": "Investopedia does have tutorials about investments in different asset classes. Have you read them ? If you had heard of CFA, you can read their material if you can get hold of it or register for CFA. Their material is quite extensive and primarily designed for newbies. This is one helluva book and advice coming from persons who have showed and proved their tricks. And the good part is loads of advice in one single volume. And what they would suggest is probably opposite of what you would be doing in a hedge fund. And you can always trust google to fish out resources at the click of a button.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f06a650f6e12c270ce086e21c87761e3", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b59fe9786d6d48d78ed18f3cca1785d1", "text": "Probably marketing if the degree is of high quality. Marketing is a the bottleneck of many businesses. But there are at least some things about entrepreneurship he should learn, like customer development by steve blank. But i actually think instead of learning, trying hard to think of a good business , and succeeding in getting into a good accelerator, like y-combinator, is the best education for funding a growth startup.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2", "text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4d9710f0469b5fb40e57dbb86606ddc9	Investing in low cost index fund — does the timing matter?	[ { "docid": "7c1e38777f47d8af6a0319a751443f2a", "text": "If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging). The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly. The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what. If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect. It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now. But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows. (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cce4d8af23bd44fdbf5219beb2a22e5b", "text": "Yes timing does matter. Using a simple Rate of Change indicator over the past 100 days and smoothed out with a 50 day Moving Average, I have plotted the S&P 500 since the start of 2007. The idea is to buy when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. I have compared the results below of timing the markets from the start of 2007 to dollar cost averaging starting from the start of 2007 and investing every 6 months. $80k is invested in both cases. For the timing the market option $80k was invested at the start of 2007, then the total figure was sold out when a sell signal was given, then the total amount reinvested when a new buy signal was given. For the DCA option $5000 was invested every 6 months starting from the start of 2007 until the last investment at the start of July 2014. The results are below: Timing the markets results in more than double the returns (not including dividends and brokerage). Edit It has been brought up that I haven't considered tax in my Timing the Market option. So I have updated my timing the market spread-sheet to take into account both long-term and short-term CGT in the USA for someone on the highest tax bracket. The results are below: The result is still almost a 2x higher returns for the timing the markets option. Also note that even with the DCA option you will have to sell one day and pay CGT on any profits there. However, the real danger with the DCA option is if you need to sell during a market downturn and not make any profits at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "381ec6f947d378c9d3e409794f266954", "text": "When you start investing makes a very large difference to the outcome, but that is on the time scale of what generation you were born into, not what week you choose to open your 401(k). As you note in your last sentence, there is nothing that you can do about this, so there is no point in worrying about it. If you could successfully market time successfully, then that would make a difference even at smaller time scales. But you probably can't, so there is no point in worrying about that either. As BrenBarn points out, your statement about not regaining their net worth until 2013 applies to someone who invested a lump sum at the 2007 peak, not to someone who invested continuously throughout. By my calculation, if you started continuously investing in a broad market index at the peak (around Jun 4, 2007), you would have recovered your net worth (relative to investing in a safe instrument that merely kept up with inflation, a hard thing to find these days) around April 12, 2010. I've done the computation on each business day because that is easier, so it might be slightly worse if do the periodic investment on each payday which is much more realist for a 401(k). (And of course if you need to preserve/recover you net worth in 3 years, you shouldn't be in stocks in the first place)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2875e76becfe37726ffc8acfec2224e", "text": "A much less verbose answer is. Don't worry about buying low. You have a whole lifetime to dollar cost average your retirement dollars.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "871395ecfbafbbcb330ce375e66550b0", "text": "\"Kind of matters because your definition of \"\"cost\"\" is solely based on a hindsight view of market movement. Lack of gain is not cost except from an inflationary perspective, versus actual value loss of entering near a top. On a long time scale, yes, the market will probably go up and value will return - but telling someone that now is the perfect time to enter is entirely debatable. Momentum is not fundamental and could reverse tomorrow for all you know.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d233b4aaff599f1666c92147468e89e", "text": "The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8", "text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80df8f80a32972fa0445cd1e0d529ac9", "text": "This is the chart going back to the first full year of this fund. To answer your question - yes, a low cost ETF or Mutual fund is fine. Why not go right to an S&P index? VOO has a .05% expense. Why attracted you to a choice that lagged the S&P by $18,000 over this 21 year period? (And yes, past performance, yada, yada, but that warning is appropriate for the opposite example. When you show a fund that beat the S&P short term, say 5 years, its run may be over. But this fund lagged the S&P by a significant margin over 2 decades, what makes you think this will change?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "418c1aba4dd73fbeabded92cc00ddb0c", "text": "The question is valid, you just need to work backwards. After how much money-time will the lower expense offset the one time fee? Lower expenses will win given the right sum of money and right duration for the investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51ba00c23f92bc5cdada42a26cbd229f", "text": "What you choose to invest in depends largely on your own goals and time horizon. You state that your time horizon is a few decades. Most studies have shown that the equity market as a whole has outperformed most other asset types (except perhaps property in some cases) over the long term. The reason that time horizon is important is that equities are quite volatile. Who knows whether your value will halve in the next year? But we hope that over the longer term, things come out in the wash, and tomorrow's market crash will recover, etc. However, you must realize that if your goals change, and you suddenly need your money after 2 years, it might be worth less in two years than you expect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f5297c019677d5e757c6de33dcde6e5", "text": "When you are putting your money in an index fund, you are not betting your performance against other asset classes but rather against competing investments withing the SAME asset class. The index fund always wins due to two factors: diversity, and lower cost. The lower cost attribute is essentially where you get your performance edge over the longer run. That is why if you look at the universe of mutual funds (where you get your diversification), very few will have beaten the index, assuming they have survived. -Ralph Winters", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc493cfe1797cefdcc73b62863b7e062", "text": "The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1dfb162d65f623da2b72fdde166cbe5", "text": "This is largely dependent on your overall investment goals. GIC's provide protection of the invested capital and a guaranteed return at the end of the term. However, in real terms, 1.4% over 18 months results in a loss of capital in real terms. This is because inflation in Canada is just about at or higher than 1.4% per year. In other words, at best, you are equalling inflation and gaining nothing in those 18 months. If their typical rate is 1.2% over 12 months, you are only gaining an additional 0.2% for the additional 6 months. You know as well as I do, 0.2% for 6 months is abysmal. If you have no use for the money in the medium to long term, you should look in to an index fund that is balanced, and diversified and more likely to get you a higher real return over the time period of a few years. Look in to: If you want to preserve the capital over the short term because you might need it after the 18 months period, the GIC is the safer and recommended option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fabea6350f01303b2b65be7350ad13c9", "text": "Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f4ac385f7644ab2dc73f205d9ff41c2", "text": "Timing the market and by extension the efficient market hypothesis is one of the most hotly debated subjects in finance academia. If you are to believe the majority of finance professors and PHD's out there chances of timing a market like the NYSE, NASDAQ or LSE is not possible. If you are to take into account the huge amount of hedge funds and money managers who make it their job to prove the efficient market hypothesis wrong then you may have a chance. My opinion is that the EMH is true and that timing a highly efficient market like the NYSE is very difficult or impossible even for those who spend their whole lives trying to beat it. For someone whose primary job isn’t in investments I would put the idea of timing the markets out of your head.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a45d1335104ace690d1de07daca77cc3", "text": "\"I'd question whether a guaranteed savings instrument underperforming the stock market really is a risk, or not? Rather, you reap what you sow. There's a trade-off, and one makes a choice. If one chooses to invest in a highly conservative, low-risk asset class, then one should expect lower returns from it. That doesn't necessarily mean the return will be lower — stock markets could tank and a CD could look brilliant in hindsight — but one should expect lower returns. This is what we learn from the risk-return spectrum and Modern Portfolio Theory. You've mentioned and discounted inflation risk already, and that would've been one I'd mention with respect to guaranteed savings. Yet, one still accepts inflation risk in choosing the 3% CD, because inflation isn't known in advance. If inflation happened to be 2% after the fact, that just means the risk didn't materialize. But, inflation could have been, say, 4%. Nevertheless, I'll try and describe the phenomenon of significantly underperforming a portfolio with more higher-risk assets. I'd suggest one of: Perhaps we can sum those up as: the risk of \"\"investing illiteracy\"\"? Alternatively, if one were actually fully aware of the risk-reward spectrum and MPT and still chose an excessive amount of low-risk investments (such that one wouldn't be able to attain reasonable investing goals), then I'd probably file the risk under psychological risk, e.g. overly cautious / excessive risk aversion. Yet, the term \"\"psychological risk\"\", with respect to investing, encompasses other situations as well (e.g. chasing high returns.) FWIW, the risk of underperformance also came to mind, but I think that's mostly used to describe the risk of choosing, say, an actively-managed fund (or individual stocks) over a passive benchmark index investment more likely to match market returns.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4787628c60d6a60b91a5d4684dfa6b6", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f808b8d1725ffbfba52d761ec9baee52", "text": "I would say that the three most important skills are: Note that some costs are hidden. So, for example, a mutual fund investing in other countries than where you live in may mean the investment target country charges a certain percentage of dividends going to the mutual fund. The mutual fund company doesn't usually want to tell you this. There may be clever financial instruments (derivatives) that can be used to avoid this, but they are not without their problems. If you diversify into equities at low cost, you will have a very wealthy future. I would recommend you to compare two options: ...and pick from these options the cheaper one. If your time has a high value, and you wish to take this value into account, I would say it is almost always far better option to choose an index fund. Whatever you do, don't pay for active management! It is a mathematical truth that before costs, actively managed investments will yield the same return than indexed investments. However, the costs are higher in active management, so you will have less total return. Don't believe that good historical return would imply good future return. However, if for some reason you see an index fund that continuously loses to the index more than by the amount of stated costs, beware!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1402c618145c984650ff00198caab0f", "text": "Remember that unless you participate in the actual fund that these individuals offer to the public, you will not get the same returns they will. If you instead do something like, look at what Warren Buffet's fund bought/sold yesterday (or even 60 minutes ago), and buy/sell it yourself, you will face 2 obstacles to achieving their returns: 1) The timing difference will mean that the value of the stock purchased by Warren Buffet will be different for your purchase and for his purchase. Because these investors often buy large swathes of stock at once, this may create large variances for 2 reasons: (a) simply buying a large volume of a stock will naturally increase the price, as the lowest sell orders are taken up, and fewer willing sellers remain; and (b) many people (including institutional investors) may be watching what someone like Warren Buffet does, and will want to follow suit, chasing the same pricing problem. 2) You cannot buy multiple stocks as efficiently as a fund can. If Warren Buffet's fund holds, say, 50 stocks, and he trades 1 stock per day [I have absolutely no idea about what diversification exists within his fund], his per-share transaction costs will be quite low, due to share volume. Whereas for you to follow him, you would need 50 transactions upfront, + 1 per day. This may appear to be a small cost, but it could be substantial. Imagine if you wanted to invest 50k using this method - that's $1k for each of 50 companies. A $5 transaction fee would equal 1% of the value of each company invested [$5 to buy, and $5 to sell]. How does that 1% compare to the management fee charged by the actual fund available to you? In short, if you feel that a particular investor has a sound strategy, I suggest that you consider investing with them directly, instead of attempting to recreate their portfolio.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
984dc291c3c96d71ab6c506d3d910429	Are index trackers subject to insolvency risk?	[ { "docid": "9b71e9fe1fe68aa7cedc11fde57b91e3", "text": "The Financial Services Compensation Scheme says: Investments FSCS provides protection if an authorised investment firm is unable to pay claims against it. For example: for loss arising from bad investment advice, poor investment management or misrepresentation; when an authorised investment firm goes out of business and cannot return investments or money. Investments covered include: stocks and shares; unit trusts; futures and options; personal pension plans and long-term investments such as mortgage endowments. An index-tracking fund provided by an authorised investment firm would seem to qualify in the cases where: The critical points here then are: I can't find anything easily to hand about FSCS on Blackrock's website, so I would imagine that you'd need to consult the documentation on your investment product to be sure.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8", "text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e05c685c62c30e55083a20b8a08571f7", "text": "\"My original answer contained a fundamental error: it turns out that it is not true that any exchange can create its own product to track any underlying index. If the underlying index is copyrighted (such as the S&P indices, Russell indices, Dow Jones indices, etc.) then the exchange must enter into a licensing agreement (usually exclusive) with the copyright holder in order to use the index's formula (and name). Without such a license the exchange would only be able to approximate the underlying index, and I don't think that happens very much (because how would you market such a product?). The CME offers several futures (and other derivatives) whose face value is equivalent to some multiple of the S&P500's value on the date when the product expires. When such a product is actively traded, it may serve as a reasonable indicator of the \"\"market\"\"'s expectation of the S&P500's future value. So, you could pay attention to the front month of the CME's S&P 500 Mini future, which trades from 17:00-16:00 Chicago time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But remember that the prices quoted there are As another example, if you care about the Russell 2000 index, until 2017 the ICE Exchange happened to hold the license for its derivatives. They traded from 20:00-17:30 New York time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But in mid-2017 CME bought that license as well, so now you'll want to track it here. Moral: There's almost always some \"\"after hours\"\" product out there tracking whatever index you care about, but you may have to do some digging to find it, and it might not be all that useful for your specific purpose.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f48ee61d0fa063f3059b12daf532bf28", "text": "\"Oh please. Most of the unsecured creditors who get screwed in bankruptcy are large banks. They know the risk going in which is why unsecured lends at a high interest rate. Yes, trade creditors often do get screwed but it's a cost of doing business -- it's why a vendor needs to monitor its receivables and watch for signs of insolvency and adjust the terms of trade accordingly. You should have made sure you were covered by brokerage insurance before handing money to a company like that. The \"\"I'm the little guy\"\" argument is just weak.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cd5e8af0b5545ab3beca350d62578d0", "text": "Yes an index is by definition any arbitrary selection. In general, to measure performance there are 2 ways: By absolute return - meaning you want a positive return at all times ie. 10% is good. -1% is bad. By relative return - this means beating the benchmark. For example, if the benchmark returns -20% and your portfolio returns -10%, then it has delivered +10% relative returns as compared to the benchmark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e943b5dfc6ee58b28c96d9ace2cb507", "text": "Why would they do that? The data has value. Bankruptcy isn't just shutting the doors, it's selling off the data. I predict this will start a new firestorm around what happens to your data that you don't own. People are about to realize that they're going to be fucked both ways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20c9e9ae8c397b3bcdda3a75e314265a", "text": "You can write industry loss warrants. This is the closest thing I’ve found since I’ve been interested in this side of the ILS trade. Hedge funds and asset managers can do this. From what I understand it’s you selling the risk. Want to start a fund? 🤔", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3277d01f335f35f5d19c74329b26e4ea", "text": "\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \"\"clumping\"\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101539eaf2a1c7edd0566ddfeec41f5f", "text": "As an ordinary shareholder, yes you are protected from recourse by the debtors. The maximum amount you can lose is the amount you spent on the shares. The rules might change if you are an officer of the company and fraud is alleged, but ordinary stockholders are quite well protected. Why are you worried about this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f0601be1f9b011df688d8b6ebf0f923", "text": "An index will drop a company for several reasons: A fund decides how close they want to mirror the index. Some do so exactly, others only approximate the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c02eb5b892813e13c4810bef3b337252", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4746c7f0338bf0b473f7030d7e6dc408", "text": "You can obtain a stocklist if you file a lawsuit as a shareholder against the company demanding that you receive the list. It's called an inspection case. The company then has to go to Cede and/or the Depository Trust Company who then compiles the NOBO COBO list of beneficiary stockholders. SEC.gov gives you a very limited list of people who have had to file 13g or 13d or similar filings. These are large holders. To get the list of ALL stockholders you have to go through Cede.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88edd029ff0f292e8b015f2b0773a604", "text": "\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9810fb83e7253b932c4b16a16d9e55", "text": "\"Yes, many hedge funds (for example) did not survive 2008-2009. But hedge funds were failing both before and after that period, and other hedge funds thrived. Those types of funds are particularly risky because they depend so much on leverage (i.e. on money that isn't actually theirs). More publically-visible funds (like those of the big-name index fund companies) tended not to close because they are not leveraged. You say that \"\"a great many companies\"\" failed during the recession, but that's not actually true. I can't think of more than a handful of publically-traded companies that went bankrupt. So, since the vast majority of publically-traded companies stayed in business, their stocks kept some/most of their value, and the funds that owned those stocks stayed afloat. I personally did not see a single index fund that went out of business due to the recession.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0943e45e3c60536cea418a843e1c6250", "text": "There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "591f5e587da93d2643580b54097602c9", "text": "I have done this, and the reason is to make sure that I don't run out of money in my account to place the order if there is an unexpected upswing in price. Suppose I have $1000 in my account and I want to buy 10 shares of ABCD that are currently at $99. If the price doesn't change, then I am all set, but if the price goes up to $101 then I don't have sufficient funds to make the purchase. By placing a limit order at $100 I can ensure that I have enough money to place the order. In general, it is a rather unlikely scenario that it could happen, but placing the limit order is easy to do and it gives me peace of mind. I don't know what you mean about bypassing the queue.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
644256c4438825487c49b6d7781d9882	Why is Net Asset Value (NAV) only reported by funds, but not stocks?	[ { "docid": "145a5decacc13be14030121db03b4578", "text": "The (assets - liabilities)/#shares of a company is its book value, and that number is included in their reports. It's easy for a fund to release the net asset value on a daily basis because all of its assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) are given values every day by the market. It's also necessary to have a real time value for a fund as it will be bought and sold every day. A company can't really do the same thing as it will have much more diverse assets - real estate, cars, inventory, goodwill, etc. The real time value of those assets doesn't have the same meaning as a fund; those assets are used to earn cash, while a fund's business is only to maximize its net asset value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31ddc4ebffed415c057593a0a676c33a", "text": "Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks'). Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different. They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks. (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets. Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "81ec14fc701de02e845c914aa6aa8ca4", "text": "No, this is quite wrong. Almost all hedge funds (and all hedge fund investors) use Sharpe as a primary measure of performance. The fact that they don't consider themselves risk-free has no bearing on the issue (that's a bizarre line of reasoning - you're saying Sharpe is only relevant for assets that consider themselves risk-free?). And as AlphaPortfolio rightly points out, most funds have no explicit benchmark and they are usually paid for performance over zero. I've never seen a hedge fund use a benchmark relative information ratio - for starters, what benchmark would you measure a CB arb fund against? Or market neutral quant? Or global macro? Same for CTAs...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88df300e6b133556974c6289f78c352f", "text": "The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe7136d0ad975b808acb88e334ef023", "text": "The company that runs the fund (Vanguard) on their website has the information on the general breakdown of their investments of that fund. They tell you that as of July 31st 2016 it is 8.7% emerging markets. They even specifically list the 7000+ companies they have purchased stocks in. Of course the actual investment and percentages could [change every day]. Vanguard may publish on this Site, in the fund's holdings on the webpages, a detailed list of the securities (aggregated by issuer for money market funds) held in a Vanguard fund (portfolio holdings) as of the most recent calendar-quarter-end, 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, except for Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (60 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter), Vanguard index funds (15 calendar days after the end of the month), and Vanguard Money Market Funds (within five [5] business days after the last business day of the preceding month). Except with respect to Vanguard Money Market Funds, Vanguard may exclude any portion of these portfolio holdings from publication on this Site when deemed in the best interest of the fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6ff181f6984f73fd45717d9330d42c4", "text": "Mutual funds don't work like stocks in that way. The price of a mutual fund is set at the end of each day and doesn't fluctuate during the day. So no matter when you put in your order, it will be filled at the end of the day at whatever the closing price is for that day. Here is some good information on that There is no continuous pricing of fund shares throughout the trading day. When an investor places an order to buy or sell a fund's shares, the order is executed based on the NAV calculated at the end of that trading day, regardless of what time during the day the order was placed. On the other hand, if the investor were to check the price of his or her fund shares halfway through the business day, the price quoted would be the previous day's NAV because that was the last time the fund calculated and reported the value. -http://www.finweb.com/investing/how-mutual-funds-are-priced.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "402212bfb569a8f87f74352254c9928e", "text": "Yahoo's primary business isn't providing mutual fund performance data. They aim to be convenient, but often leave something to be desired in terms of completeness. Try Morningstar instead. Their mission is investment research. Here's a link to Morningstar's data for the fund you specified. If you scroll down, you'll see:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ede31fcc47e5b8ff627c7d2387e5796", "text": "Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f9c71289d37594b5040af9865061a3a", "text": "\"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page. (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"lit\"\" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other. Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"non-lit\"\" exchanges. These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA. There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF. They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're \"\"located at\"\" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring. (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further. (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.) I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities. Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dc0c905c71416bca38ebeb58f9d7f7c", "text": "You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c1812f3fbceba34e9a196440b30e9e3", "text": "Mutual funds don't have intraday prices. They have net asset values which are calculated periodically (daily or weekly or any other period depending on the fund).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d22e351c9ec928739d7ed725da136615", "text": "How is it possible that a publicly traded investment company's net asset value per share is higher than their share price? Wouldn't you (in theory) be able to buy the company and liquidate it to make a profit of (NAV/share - price/share)*number of shares, ignoring transaction costs and such? I realize that since part of their portfolio is in private equity, NAV is hard to calculate and hard to liquidate as well, but it doesn't really seem to make sense to me. Would love some input. The company I'm talking about in this instance is 180 Degree Capital Corp, but this isn't the first time I've seen this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20eaa2ce1822366372a8b6126a2f940c", "text": "There is a survivorship bias in the mutual fund industry. It's not about individual stocks in which those funds invest. Rather, it's in which funds and fund companies/families are still around. The underperforming funds get closed or merged into other funds. Thus they are no longer reported, since they no longer exist. This makes a single company's mutual funds appear to have a better history, on average, than they actually did. Similarly, fund companies that underperform, will go out of business. This could make the mutual fund industry's overall history appear to be better than it actually was. Most companies don't do this to deliberately game the numbers. It's rational on the part of fund companies to close underperforming funds. When a fund has a below average history, investors will likely not invest in it, and will remove their existing money. The fund will shrink while the overhead remains the same, making the fund unprofitable for the company to run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b0513ea719821872a14f80eda6c8c71", "text": "ACWI refers to a fund that tracks the MSCI All Country World Index, which is A market capitalization weighted index designed to provide a broad measure of equity-market performance throughout the world. The MSCI ACWI is maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is comprised of stocks from both developed and emerging markets. The ex-US in the name implies exactly what it sounds; this fund probably invests in stock markets (or stock market indexes) of the countries in the index, except the US. Brd Mkt refers to a Broad Market index, which, in the US, means that the fund attempts to track the performance of a wide swath of the US stock market (wider than just the S&P 500, for example). The Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, the Wilshire 5000 index, the Russell 2000 index, the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and the CRSP US Total Market Index are all examples of such an index. This could also refer to a fund similar to the one above in that it tracks a broad swath of the several stock markets across the world. I spoke with BNY Mellon about the rest, and they told me this: EB - Employee Benefit (a bank collective fund for ERISA qualified assets) DL - Daily Liquid (provides for daily trading of fund shares) SL - Securities Lending (fund engages in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) Non-SL - Non-Securities Lending (fund does not engage in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) I'll add more detail. EB (Employee Benefit) refers to plans that fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which are a set a laws that govern employee pensions and retirement plans. This is simply BNY Mellon's designation for funds that are offered through 401(k)'s and other retirement vehicles. As I said before, DL refers to Daily Liquidity, which means that you can buy into and sell out of the fund on a daily basis. There may be fees for this in your plan, however. SL (Securities Lending) often refers to institutional funds that loan out their long positions to investment banks or brokers so that the clients of those banks/brokerages can sell the shares short. This SeekingAlpha article has a good explanation of how this procedure works in practice for ETF's, and the procedure is identical for mutual funds: An exchange-traded fund lends out shares of its holdings to another party and charges a rental fee. Running a securities-lending program is another way for an ETF provider to wring more return out of a fund's holdings. Revenue from these programs is used to offset a fund's expenses, which allows the provider to charge a lower expense ratio and/or tighten the performance gap between an ETF and its benchmark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2051b0442778b10df3a99b7fb3ac4b96", "text": "\"That share class may not have a ticker symbol though \"\"Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index\"\" does have a ticker for \"\"Investor A\"\" shares that is BDOAX. Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways. Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider. Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8e6b1e733931958f9180e8ad4a2b7d7", "text": "No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6db8ff167a2027d4fa6c4eb9c132fc41", "text": "\"I think the key concept here is future value. The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities. For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom. I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously. A definition I like to use for market cap is \"\"the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company\"\"... so let's dissect that a little. The term \"\"present value\"\" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year. A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later. The \"\"all future earnings\"\" part is exactly what it sounds like. So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that \"\"the market\"\" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars).\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
753821c283ac64b64736d9ae2b544bcc	Is it correct to call an exchange-traded note a type of ETF?	[ { "docid": "6515286ee6ba2472db2ccfacf71192a3", "text": "They're exchange traded debt, basically, not funds. E.g. from the NYSE: An exchange-traded note (ETN) is a senior unsecured debt obligation designed to track the total return of an underlying market index or other benchmark, minus investor fees. Whereas an ETF, in some way or another, is an equity product - which doesn't mean that they can only expose you to equity, but that they themselves are a company that you buy shares in. FCOR for example is a bond ETF, basically a company whose sole purpose is to own a basket of bonds. Contrast that to DTYS, a bear Treasury ETN, which is described as The ETNs are unsecured debt obligations of the issuer, Barclays Bank PLC, and are not, either directly or indirectly, an obligation of or guaranteed by any third party. Also from Barclays site: Because the iPath ETNs are debt securities, they do not have any voting rights. FCOR on the other hand is some sort of company owned/managed by a Fidelity trust, though my EDGAR skills are rusty. AGREEMENT made this 18th day of September, 2014, by and between Fidelity Merrimack Street Trust, a Massachusetts business trust which may issue one or more series of shares of beneficial interest (hereinafter called the Trust), on behalf of Fidelity Corporate Bond ETF (hereinafter called the Fund), and Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc., a New Hampshire corporation (hereinafter called the Adviser) as set forth in its entirety below.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0e6602bd884bae5981aa067b8b0c3763", "text": "\"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield. Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got \"\"enhanced\"\" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument. Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly. I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual \"\"ease of transacting\"\") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to compare your alternatives before investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "413d3bf0ea58ed81d3f3075a50cae56d", "text": "Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a9e38527d7e1f9e8e0d36c2cc010dfc", "text": "\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "490bb8b4274d1c87b42ffd73851a06fd", "text": "\"This article fails to explain that paper gold doesn't \"\"necessarily\"\" guarantee the owner to physical gold. An index fund tracking the price of gold per ounce guarantees the owner the market value of gold at the termination of the contract. This keeps markets liquid, and allows investors to diversify into precious metals without the inconvenience of storage and delivery fees. As long as we are using currency that can be exchanged for gold this shouldn't pose a problem. If we move to a post currency world of barter and trade, you're better invested in weapons and ammunition.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6cf13ea4d096712e382bab3746657bf", "text": "\"BestInvest is a UK site looking at that URL, base on the \"\"co.uk\"\" ending. Yahoo! Finance that you use is a US-based site unless you add something else to the URL. UK & Ireland Yahoo! Finance is different from where you were as there is something to be said for where are you looking. If I was looking for a quarter dollar there are Canadian and American coins that meet this so there is something to be said for a higher level of categorization being done. \"\"EUN.L\"\" would likely denote the \"\"London\"\" exchange as tickers are exchange-specific you do realize, right?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f22e40edd6be3fb6f5e338904500d122", "text": "It depends on what site you're looking on and what exchange they're pulling the data from. Even though funds and stocks are called the same thing, they have different ticker symbols in each country's exchange or could be traded as pink sheet stocks in the US. If a company or fund is based in another country (like Canada or the UK) they probably also trade on that country's exchange (Toronto or London) under a different symbol. This can cause a lot of confusion when researching these tickers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6df9aaf93abcadc5cca5ee2fbf2dce9", "text": "\"An ETF does not track any one individual stock. It \"\"is a marketable security that tracks an index, a commodity, bonds, or a basket of assets like an index fund.\"\" Check out this link to learn more about ETFs. The easiest way see what ETF tracks a stock is to determine what sector and industry that company is in and find some ETF that trade it. The ETF will likely trade that stock, assuming that its market cap and exchange it trades on fits within the parameters of the ETF.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbae56ad4aca8a1caeb2c6a7ab08472", "text": "\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "704b6900ee772c3bc8f88707d1921036", "text": "I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f1adf878c5b0b42402fc0a764163ad9", "text": "Yes, it would be incorrect to refer to BATS Chi-X Europe as a market maker. Market makers make markets on BATS Chi-X Europe, which is a stock exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db1d6dbabfd82180886694f24033d49f", "text": "PST, or any of the Ultra Short/Long funds aren't actually holding any traditional securities -- just swaps that are betting on the underlying asset. They also don't track the value of the underlying security over time -- just for one day. (And they're not even guaranteed to do that!) IEF is an actual treasury bond fund that holds real-life treasury securities, not swaps. Shorting a fund like IEF is one option, another is to buy options on a fund like IEF. Be very careful investing with ETFs, and don't buy any until you fully read and understand the prospectus. I got burned by an Ultra Long ETF because I didn't do my homework.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbb037d43fbddf31cc04e52bfcb39196", "text": "\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdb0d925b58ea2b1b9af8fe85c545a4c", "text": "E&P can be valid throug Net Present Value methods, on a field-by-field basis. As no field is ever-lasting, and there Are not an unlimited number of fields, perpetuity-formulaes Are shitty. FCFF on a per-field basis with WC and Capex, with a definite lifetime. Thank you for the compliment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c630f8c6a118525e354eb02b4005abf8", "text": "No ETN or ETF yet. There are beta funds, that aim to track the market. What's really needed is a liquid market for cat risk trading/transfer, enabling users to buy protection, or take the other side. You can write cat swaps, so derivative forms, including ILW's or with parametric triggers. But these aren't liquid at all yet. Cat bonds are most liquid, but it dries up pretty quickly when events threaten as there's no true hedging market yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "793ccb71f403b6df10f6d9e5aeef7d72", "text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
38ab04ea302b9d66cf3bed53568b0342	How can you possibly lose on investments in stocks?	[ { "docid": "7586147cc335126f7bc08f20bff2f746", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c2dde5217bba8832a2d722576b1c794", "text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afb2b27ef5043f88ddb4453d7898f1c5", "text": "\"If you're talking about a single stock, you greatly underestimate the chances of it dropping, even long-term. Check out the 12 companies that made up the first Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1896. There is probably only one you've heard of: GE. Many of the others are long gone or have since been bought up by larger companies. And remember these were 12 companies that were deemed to be the most representative of the stock market around the turn of the 20th century. Now, if you're talking about funds that hold many stocks (up to thousands), then your question is a little different. Over the long-term (25+ years), we have never experienced a period where the overall market lost value. Of course, as you recognize, the psychology of investors is a very important factor. If the stock market loses half of its value in a year (as it has done a few times), people will be inundated with bad news and proclamations of \"\"this time it's different!\"\" and explanations of why the stock market will never recover. Perhaps this may be true some day, but it never has been thus far. So based on all the evidence we have, if you hold a well-diversified fund, the chances of it going down long-term (again, meaning 25+ years) are basically zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebc7a9bdb55bbc95582fbac9cab1c480", "text": "\"For whatever it's worth. Judging from the comments in the other answers, I think everyone is addressing your question, \"\"How can you possibly lose money,\"\" there are a lot of ways to possibly lose money in the stock market. Here are my thoughts. This is a chart of the S&P 500 from about 1996 to about 2012. At the top from the first arrow the entire S&P500 index fell about 45%. From the top of the second arrow the entire S&P500 index fell about 52%. It is really easy to look at our sustained bull market and feel invincible. And while I'll concede that not every company in the index fell over these two periods, bear in mind that the S&P500 index is a collection of the 500 largest companies in the United States, and the entire index lost half it's value twice. As the companies contained in the index shrink in value, they were replaced by companies that are the new biggest 500 in the country, then those fell too, and so on and so forth until the entire index lost half. Value is a funny thing because it isn't necessarily tied to the performance of the business (look at the current rosy valuations of all these non-earnings tech-companies). It could be that a company is still performing very well but there are just no buyers for the stock. So, how can you lose money in the stock market? Very easily. In A practical sense, it's when you need the money and can no longer weather the storm. People who went out for retirement around 2000 couldn't sit around and wait until 2007 for their account values to be replenished. This is why you roll off your stock exposure as you age. As you get older you don't have time and if you stop having income you can find yourself selling your assets at the least opportune time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b31af198fa10e9b9452c1f78618b999", "text": "I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover. Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier. Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bfc351c9143b98206dae397687e2531", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aedf2391fb10d1b8a89979464f555c0b", "text": "\"Easiest thing ever. In fact, 99% of people are loosing money. If you perform worse then 10% annually in cash (average over 5-10 years), then you better never even think about trading/investing. Most people are sitting at 0%..-5% annually. They win some, loose some, and are being outrun by inflation and commissions. In fact, fall of market is not a big deal, stock indexes are often jump back in a few months. If you rebalance properly, it is mitigated. Your much bigger enemy is inflation. If you think inflation is small, look at gold price over past 20 years. Some people, Winners at first, grow to +10%, get too relaxed and start to grow already lost position. That one loose trade eats 10% of their portfolio. Only there that people realize they should cut it off, when they already lost their profits. And they start again with +0%. This is hard thing to accept, but most of people are not made for that type of business. Even worse, they think \"\"if I had bigger budget, I would perform better\"\", which is kind of self-lie.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "50f0f55d05c9ca3afe2902f82d83e655", "text": "You can't have even a hundred dollars without it being invested somewhere. If it's cash, you're invested in some nation state's currency. If that currency is USD, you have lost about 6% so far this year. But what if you were in the stock market? It's been doing pretty well, no? Thing is, American stocks are priced in American dollars. You have to put those variables together to see what a stock has really been doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "382415f3c945cb086cf025a9d8ea6b61", "text": "The principle behind the advice to not throw good money after bad is better restated in economics terms: sunk costs are sunk and irrelevant to today's decisions. Money lost on a stock is sunk and should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Similarly, the stock going up should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Any advice other than this is assuming some kind of mispricing or predictability in the market. Mispricings in general cannot be reliably identified and stock returns are not normally predictable. The only valid (efficient markets) reason I know of to allow money you have lost or made on a stock to affect your decision today is the tax implications (you may want to lock in gains if your tax rate is temporarily low or vice versa).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "025adc914ef3b24720ad4fd4af995e8d", "text": "\"I did once read a book titled \"\"How I made a million dollars on the stock market\"\". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck. (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, \"\"smart\"\" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal). Clearly not a matter of \"\"playing your cards right\"\", but of having an enormous amount of luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f000b3d3ea91278770cbb20cd4af0ced", "text": "What you're describing is called timing the market. That is, if you correctly predict when the market will drop, you can sell before the drop, wait for the drop, then buy after the drop has occurred. Sell high, buy low. The fundamental problem with that, though, is: What ends up happening, on average, is you end up slightly behind. There's quite a lot of literature on this; see Betterment's explanation for example. Forbes (click through ad first) also has a detailed piece on the matter. Now, we're not really talking HFT issues here; and there are some structural things that some argue you can take advantage of (restrictions on some organizational investors, for example, similar to a blackjack dealer who has to hit on 16). However, everyone else knows about these too - so it's hard to gain much of an edge. Plenty of people say they can time the market right, and even yourself perhaps you timed a particular drop accurately. This tends to lead to false confidence though; how many drops that you timed badly do you remember? Ultimately, most investors end up slightly down when they attempt to time the market, because of the transaction costs (if you guess two drops, one 'right' and one 'wrong', and they have exactly opposite gains/losses before commissions, you will lose a bit on each due to commission), and because of the overall upward trend in the market (ie, if you picked at random one month a year to be out of the market, you'd lose around 10% annualized gains from doing that; same applies here). All of that aside, there is one major caveat: risk tolerance. If you are highly risk tolerant, say a 30 year old investing your 401(k), then you should stay in no matter what. If you're not - say you're 58 and retiring in a few years - then knowledge that there's a higher risk time period coming up might suggest moving to a less risky portfolio, even at the known cost of some gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "766ba9a0a0e7c1d6325b6344da388fe8", "text": "If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01bfef7eb36808691beb9f1d8e5b1480", "text": "\"In the UK there are Premium Bonds, http://www.nsandi.com/. In simple terms these get you a \"\"raffle ticket\"\" for each £1 you invest. Each month multiple tickets are drawn and they each win between £25 and £1m. Your capital does not go down but you aren't guaranteed to win. So you can't lose your money but there's potential to not make any either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5085b7413e9cb158544dce5b32e82066", "text": "According to my calculations, you always lose money on group B. x = average monthly balance Income for a year = 0.015 * (12 * x) = 0.18 * x Cost of funds for one month = 0.04 * x Cost of funds for one year = 12 * (0.04 * x) = 0.48 * x Profit? at end of year = income_for_year - cost_of_funds_for_one_year = (0.18 * x) - (0.48 * x) = forever loss", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8615e9a68e1874e10f12d06764d16009", "text": "Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0a22865d3c92a8476bba9a888093840", "text": "No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game. Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade. But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question. But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts. Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that. But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game. All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money. And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e777dfc794cdba76f71224179043151b", "text": "\"A key principle of economics is: Sunk costs are irrelevant. You bought the stock at 147 and it has now fallen to 144. That's too bad. This has nothing to do with whether it is wise or foolish to buy shares at 144. The only relevant thing to consider is: Do I expect the stock to go up or down from 144? You have lost $3 per share on the original buy. Buying more shares will not \"\"reduce your loss\"\" in any way. Suppose you bought 100 shares at 147. The price then drops to 144. You have lost $3 per share, or $300 total. You buy another 50 more shares at 144. The price stays at 144. So your average purchase price is now (147 x 100 + 144 x 50) / 150 = 146. So I guess you could say that your \"\"average loss per share\"\" is now only $2. But it's $2 x 150 shares instead of $3 x 100 shares. You still lost $300. You didn't reduce your loss by a penny. Maybe it made you feel better that you reduced your average loss per share, but this is just an arithmetic game. If you believe that the stock will continue to drop, than buying more shares just means you will lose even more money. Your average loss per share may go down, but you're just multiplying that average by more and more shares. Of course if you believe that the stock is now at an unjustifiably low price and it will likely go back up, then sure, buy. If you buy at 144 and it goes back up to 147, then you'll be making $3 per share on the new shares you purchased. But I repeat, whether or not you buy more shares should have nothing to do with your previous buy. Buy more shares if you think the price will go up from the present price; don't buy more shares if you don't think it will go up. The decision should be exactly the same as if you had never previously bought shares. (I'm assuming here that you are a typical small investor, that you not buying enough shares to have any significant effect on the market, nor that you are in a position to buy enough shares to take control of the company.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e729fd9708142d3b72345705f9ccda9c", "text": "\"This depends strongly on what you mean by \"\"stock trading\"\". It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between \"\"trading\"\" and \"\"investing\"\", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that \"\"market rate of return\"\" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the \"\"great recession\"\" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dc4fec57148f221da98f849fa2699b5", "text": "\"....causes loses [sic] to others. Someone sells you a stock. The seller receives cash. You receive a stock certificate. This doesn't imply a loss by either party especially if the seller sold the stock for more than his purchase price. A day trading robot can make money off of the price changes of a stock only if there are buyers and sellers of the stock at certain prices. There are always two parties in any stock transaction: a buyer and a seller. The day trading robot can make money off of an investment for 20 years and you could still make money if the investment goes up over the 20 years. The day trading robot doesn't \"\"rob\"\" you of any profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49a17c74d8a56c4d9ce3ca3f118234c7", "text": "You can't predict when to buy a stock during the day to guarantee not having a loss for the day. In the short run stock prices are really pretty random. There are many day traders who try to accomplish exactly this and most of them lose money. If you don't believe me, create an account on Investopedia and use their free stock market simulator and try day trading for a few months.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baff06bf28cd635f0ae8ac8f028df2fb", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1033620e57abedf226a7348b6797f25", "text": "\"When we say \"\"stock market,\"\" we are usually thinking of the publicly traded stocks, such as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ. Shares of individual products do not go on these exchanges, only large corporations. You won't see a stock ticker symbol for The Force Awakens or for the iPhone 6s Plus. The reason for this is that when investors buy a stock, they are looking for something that will grow in value theoretically forever. Individual products usually have a limited lifespan. Your movie will (hopefully) generate revenue when it comes out, but after a while sales will slow down after people have seen it. If someone bought a share of stock in a movie on the stock market, they have to realize that eventually the movie will stop making money, and their share of stock won't be worth anything anymore. Instead, people invest in companies that have the potential to make new products, such as Disney or Apple. So if you were envisioning seeing the ticker symbol of your movie going across the screen on CNBC, sorry, that's not going to happen. However, you could theoretically sell shares to individual investors for a percentage of the profit. You figure out how much money you need to create the movie, and estimate how much profit you think the movie will earn. Then you find an investor (or group of investors) that is willing to give you the money you need in exchange for a percentage of the profit. Unlike a stock market investor, these investors won't be looking for the long-term growth potential of the resale value of the stock, but simply a share of the profit.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f743176e9113d06d75b32bb777560926	Why do governments borrow money instead of printing it?	[ { "docid": "8e1162224e7de57d4ba2000d60312f68", "text": "\"Governments borrowing money doesn't create new money. When banks \"\"borrow\"\" money (i.e. take deposits), it does effectively create money because the depositor expects to be able to get the money back at any time, but the bank assumes that most won't actually do this and lends out most of the money to other people. If everyone did actually ask for their money back at once, the illusion of the extra money created by this process would collapse, and the bank would go bust. In contrast when governments borrow money, the loan isn't repayable on demand, it has a fixed maturity and the money is only repaid at the end of that period (plus interest at defined points during the period). So holders of government debt don't have money they can spend (they can turn it into money they can spend but only by finding someone else to buy it). So government debt doesn't create inflation in itself. If they printed money, then they'd be devaluing the money of everyone who had saved or invested, whereas if they borrow money and use taxes to repay it, the burden falls more evenly across the economy and doesn't disproportionately penalise certain sets of people.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "974dba9596ea8e2448e7dc1f906a4e7a", "text": "“Why do governments borrow money instead of printing it? (When printing money, one doesn't need to pay interest).” Good question. Numerous leading economists, including a couple of economics Nobel Laureates have asked the same question and concluded that borrowing can be dispensed with. First, Milton Freidman set out a monetary system in a paper in the American Economic Review which involved no government borrowing, and govt just printed money (in a responsible fashion of course) as and when needed. See: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1810624 A second Nobel Laureate with similar views was William Vickrey. A third economist with similar views (of Keynes’ era) was Abba Lerner. Keynes said of Lerner, “Lerner's argument is impeccable, but heaven help anyone who tries to put it across to the plain man at this stage of the evolution of our ideas”.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9d73e9c38b453f3ed9a969eedcf0102", "text": "\"Yes - Simply put, printing money is called \"\"monetizing the debt\"\" and would result in some nasty inflation. It's a no-no as it quickly devalues the currency and makes it far more difficult to borrow in the future, an entire generation will remember getting burned by it. If, say, Canada's currency were suddenly worth half as much and you received half your investment back in US dollars (e.g. you paid US$10,000, but now have US$5000) would you ever trust them again? The economy is far more complex than one can discuss here, but the fractional reserve system is the next creator of money, although it's not unlimited, the reserve requirement throttles it back. The demand for loans is impacted both by the rate itself and the bank's willingness to lend. The housing bubble had multiple causes. In a sense Tucson is right. Anything we do to make houses more affordable can cause house price inflation. But - the over the top underwriting had more impact in my opinion. People lost sight of good lending practices. The option rate interest only ARMs were financial time bombs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "318d8f36eb6e2ab8c6c7ecbd948c3e6f", "text": "One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c4b8111a06c166734d39353af973e28", "text": "\"If the government prints money recklessly and causes inflation, people will come to expect inflation, and the value of the currency will plummet, and you'll end up like Zimbabwe where a trillion dollars won't buy a loaf of bread. If the government actually pays people for the money they borrow, they don't have this problem - and as it turns out, the US government can get pretty good rates on borrowing in general, in part because they're extraordinarily good about paying them back. (Also, inflation expectations are low, so people will accept 1-2% interest rates. If you expected inflation of 10%, you'd see people demanding something more like 12% interest rates.) (The downside of too much of this sort of borrowing is that it \"\"crowds out\"\" other borrowing, which may harm the economy. Who would lend money to / invest in a small business, if the government is paying good money and there's almost no risk at all?) Now, inflation can come into play afterward, if the Fed decides it needs to maintain \"\"easy money\"\" policies to stimulate the economy (because taxes are too high because we're paying off the debt, or because we've crowded out smaller borrowers, or something). -- In general, you can count on the the principle that if you, as the government, try to play too many games with people's money... well, people aren't stupid; they will eventually catch on, and adjust their behavior to compensate, and then you're right back where you started, but with less trust.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4e87a814da9242f7855873f3fdeff89", "text": "I believe there are two ways new money is created: My favorite description of this (money creation) comes from Chris Martenson: the video is here on Youtube. And yes, I believe both can create inflation. In fact this is what happened in the US between 2004 and 2007: increasing loans to households to buy houses created an inflation of home prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "484865bc376aca15ff872884d30cce0a", "text": "The Government doesn't borrow money. It in fact simply prints it. The bond market is used for an advanced way of controlling the demand for this printed money. Think about it logically. Take 2011 for example. The Govt spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in. This is real money that get's credited in to people's bank accounts to purchase real goods and services. Now who purchases the majority of treasuries? The Primary Dealers. What are the Primary Dealers? They are banks. Where do banks get their money? From us. So now put two and two together. When the Govt spends $1.7 trillion and credits our bank accounts, the banking system has $1.7 trillion more. Then that money flows in to pension funds, gets spent in to corporation who then send that money to China for cheap products... and eventually the money spent purchases up Govt securities for investments. We had to physically give China 1 trillion dollars for them to be able to purchase 1 trillion dollars in securities. So it makes sense if you think about how the math works in the real world.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aed7fb7aa5aec51da13434fa017415d", "text": "The government could actually do either one to expand the money supply as necessary to keep up with rising productivity / an increased labor supply. The question is merely political. In the case of the US, printing money involves convincing politicians to spend it. While we currently run a deficit, there is a large lobby within the US who are incredibly anti-deficit, and are fighting against this for no good reason. If the money supply were left in their hands, we would end up with a shrinking money supply and rapid deflation. On the other hand, the Fed can simply bypass the politicians, and control the money supply directly by issuing bonds. It's easier for them, they don't have to explain it to voters (only to economists), and it gives them more direct control without any messy political considerations like which programs to expand or cut.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d4e003d38fa9badb0bb254eaf214e95", "text": "My own simple answer is that it will affect and reduce productivity (e.g. Zimbabwe). it will also cause inflation which mean that no one will want to work for production again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f67202d9b27a52fcd4463f249befbb94", "text": "\"My answer is that when confronted with the obvious, the most common human reaction is to seek reasons for it, because things have to be right. They have to have a reason. We don't like it when things suck. So when finding out that you are being ripped off every day of your life, your reaction is \"\"There must be a logical reason that perfectly explain why this is. After all, the world is fair, governments are working in our best interest and if they do it this way, they must have a very good reason for it.\"\" Sorry, but that not the case. You have the facts. You are just not looking at them. Economics, as a subject, is the proper management of resources and production. Now, forget the fancy theories, the elaborate nonsense about stocks and bonds and currencies and pay attention to the actual situation. On our planet, most people earn $2,000 per year. Clean water is not available for a very sizable percent of the world's population. Admittedly, 90% of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of the most wealthy 10%. A Chinese engineer earns a fraction of what a similarly qualified engineer earns in the States. Most people, even in rich countries, have a negative net value. They have mortgages that run for a third of their lifetimes, credit card debts, loans... do the balance. Most people are broke. Does this strike you as the logical result of a fair and balanced economic system? Does this look like a random happenstance? The dominant theory is \"\"It just happened, it's nobody's fault and nobody designed it that way and to think otherwise is very bad because it makes you a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists are nuts. You are not nuts are you?\"\" Look at the facts already in your possession. It didn't just happen. The system is rigged. When a suit typing a few numbers in a computer can make more money in 5 minutes than an average Joe can make in 100 lifetimes of honest, productive work, you don't have a fair economic system, you have a scam machine. When you look at a system as broken as the one we have, you shouldn't be asking yourself \"\"what makes this system right?\"\" What you should be asking yourself is more along the lines of \"\"Why is it broken? Who benefits? Why did congress turn its monetary policy over to the Federal reserve (a group of unelected and unaccountable individuals with strong ties in the banking industry) and does not even bother to conduct audits to know how your money is actually managed? This brilliant movie, Money as debt, points to a number of outrageous bugs in our economic system. Now, you can dream up reasons why the system should be the way it is and why it is an acceptable system. Or you can look at the fact and realize that there is NO JUSTIFICATION for an economic system that perform as badly as it does. Back to basics. Money is supposed to represent production. It's in every basic textbook on the subject of economics. So, what should money creation be based on? Debt? No. Gold? No. Randomly printed by the government when they feel like it? No (although this could actually be better than the 2 previous suggestions) Money is supposed to represent production. Index money on production and you have a sound system. Why isn't it done that way? Why do you think that is?\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "89a7ef5ff873b07c2785dce4cda5b1e0", "text": "That's effectively borrowing on margin from the government. You too can borrow on margin, just not from the government. It is true that the government perverts the finance system through. I would imagine it would be very hard to play basketball too, if the ref didn't play basketball.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2393a44dc0901577a7086d3f55c7bdc7", "text": "\"Sovereign states borrow money explicitly in a two primary ways: A sovereign cannot be compelled to repay debt, and there isn't a judicial process like bankruptcy to erase debt. When sovereigns default, they negotiate new terms with creditors and pay back some fraction of the actual debt owed. They can also print money to repay debt, which has other nasty consequences. But, while a state cannot be compelled to repay a debt, creditors cannot be compelled to loan money to the state either! Any enterprise of sufficient size needs access to capital via loans to meet daily obligations in anticipation of revenue -- even when times are good. Defaulting makes borrowing impossible or expensive, and is avoided. Regarding using your military to avoid repaying debt... remember what Napoleon said: \"\"An army travels on its stomach\"\". Military campaigns are expensive... no borrowing ability means the soldiers don't get paid and the food, fuel and ammo don't get delivered. Smaller countries have other risks as well. Many nations are essentially forced to use US Dollars as a reserve currency, or are forced by the market to borrow money in a foreign currency. This creates a situation where any risk of non-payment results in a deep devaluation of the local currency. When your debt is denominated in dollars, these shifts can dramatically increase your debt obligations from a local currency point of view. You also run the risk that a larger or richer company will park warships in your harbor and seize assets as payment -- the US and Britain engaged in this several times during the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, not paying the bills has a cascading effect. Bad situations get worse, and they do so quickly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89640a1a93a92d0cbcc9d6d3da310f6a", "text": "As long as we remember that debt is the only option when the government has to borrow their money at interest or take it from taxes. When taxes don't cut it, we borrow. Ever wondered why the government doesn't just spend money into the economy instead of borrowing at interest?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0389ef13c4efdfebeb2cfe9c55344eb3", "text": "\"This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment. If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as looong as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets. Heck, if you can take on even more debt at 3%, you should still do the same. Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, but, doing so is effectively a form of \"\"loan\"\" to yourself. We call the \"\"interest\"\" on that loan \"\"inflation\"\", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart). So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%. But someone has to take that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of. There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much. If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially \"\"invested\"\" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "901f2c8cb32f9bbb3b3737c43cd6f6fd", "text": "\"The Federal Reserve is not the only way that money can be \"\"printed.\"\" Every bank does fractional reserve banking, thereby increasing the money supply every time they make a new loan. There's a number called the reserve requirement which limits how much money each bank can create. Lowering the reserve requirement allows banks to create more money. Raising it will destroy money. But banks can also destroy money by calling in loans or being less willing to make new loans. So when you look at the number of banks in the US, and the number of loans they all have, it's impossible to figure out exactly how much the money supply is expanding or contracting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d4cbb754fb5e260bca5cc7130399d9c", "text": "\"Gold is not debt, \"\"money\"\" is debt (whatever it is made of). In the example above, everything could have been exactly the same, except using certificates written on sharks instead of on paper. Now, sharks have value, paper has value, and gold has value. When you print money, the stuff you make it out of has some utility separate from its use as currency. But when you are using it as currency (regardless of what it is made from), it is a marker for debt. You go to work for an hour, your boss gives you a marker that you can trade for a cheeseburger or some gasoline or a ferret or cantaloupes, or whatever you want. That marker is an IOU for the work you did. You give it to the cantaloupe store, and it becomes an IOU for the value of one cantaloupe. They give it to the store employees or the cantaloupe-grower or whatever, and so on. It doesn't matter what that marker is made out of, its function is the same. If it were gold, you could melt it down and make a ring out of it. If it's paper, you could use it as a bookmark or a shopping list or to blow your nose, if it's a shark you scare people with it in the pool. N.B., this is totally separate from the question of whether we should be using gold as a currency, which has to do with the fact that the gold supply is a lot more stable than the paper supply, and whether being able to easily print more money on demand is a good thing or a bad thing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6e444f254d171aade7bf0b62c90b74d", "text": "\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \"\"printing their way out of it\"\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b12b0aabd80cb5c2609e5f39ae7a7ad3", "text": "The debt is absolutely real. China loans money to US via buying the US treasury bonds. The bond is essentially a promise to pay back the money with interest, just like a loan. As you point out, the US can print money. If this were to happen, then the USD that the owner of a treasury bond receives when the bond matures are worth less that than the USD used to purchase the bonds. There are lots of reasons why the US doesn't want to print lots of money, so the purchaser of the bond is probably confident it won't happen. If for some reason they think it is possible, then they will want to cover that risk by only purchasing bonds that have a higher interest rate. The higher interest offsets the risk of the USD being worth less. Of course, there are lots more details, e.g., the bonds themselves are bought and sold before maturity, but this is the basic idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "949fc768dba52d0febfd534e468933d7", "text": "Indirect exchange (the common units of which are called 'money') is not debt (though the commodity of indirect exchange may be debt). Physical gold is not debt (it is mined, not conjured into existence from someone's promise of future goods). Gold-backed paper currency is gold debt. Indirect exchange is an extension of barter, not a replacement. The advantage of indirect exchange over direct exchange is that it solves the coincident of wants problem. (Alice may want a telescope, but Charlie doesn't want 500 apples for it. Alice finds out that Charlie would trade the telescope for 1 unit of gold. Alice then finds Bob who is willing to trade 1 unit of gold for 500 apples. Alice then trades with Bob and then trades with Charlie to get what she wants.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd88f6c443a1535b5c8861a194ec061a", "text": "Up until 1913, the printing press was at the US treasury under the jursidiction of Congress. Congress needs to take back the printing press and perform their constitutional duties as described. Right now, our government pays interest to borrow in its own currency. If the printing press was at the treasury, that wouldn't happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e51bfc41028fd9988f5636bea1bf842", "text": "\"Hah! In so far as the financial sector isn't making money off the government, then I would say it is truly \"\"financed through the financial sector\"\". The financial sector doesn't operate at a loss, which is what you are suggesting here. They aren't paying the government to have roads and power and plumbing and water, etc. The financial sector is paying because they make more money back. You want to admit who is paying to have roads and water and power and plumbing, etc? Every person who gets a paycheck or owns a house is. Not big money. Ordinary people. Taxes and Tariffs, and printing money pays for all of this. We, the tax payer, aren't seeing a financial reimbursement for our expenses on these projects. But Big Money is. Our reimbursement is: Roads, Power, plumbing, Police, Fire Departments. Which means we are the consumers buying products. Big Money is the middle man making bucks off the system. Perhaps Big Money is necessary, but now it is out of control, and needs to be held accountable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d7882c298cb26a09da949ad3a233ca7", "text": "\"Its definitely not a stupid question. The average American has absolutely no idea how this process works. I know this might be annoying, but I'm answering without 100% certainty. The Fed would increase the money supply by buying back government bonds. This increased demand for bonds would raise their price and therefore lower the interest return that they deliver. Since U.S. treasury bonds are considered to be the very safest possible investment, their rate is the \"\"risk free\"\" rate upon which all other rates are based. So if the government buys billions of these bonds, that much money ends up in the hands of whoever sold them. These sellers are the large financial organizations that hold all of our money (banks and large investment vehicles). Now, since bond rates are lower, they have an incentive to put that money somewhere else. It goes into stocks and investment in business ventures. I'm less certain about how this turns into inflation that consumers will recognize. The short answer is that there is only a finite number of goods and services for us to buy. If the amount of money increases and there are still the same number of goods and services, the prices will increase slightly. Your question about printing money to pay off debts is too complex for me to answer. I know that the inflation dynamic does play a role. It makes debts easier to pay off in the future than they seem right now. However, causing massive inflation to pay off debts brings a lot of other problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "440a586735e707c8207b09ed7ea6c8fb", "text": "Lots of countries have printed themselves away from debt. Not all inflation turns into a death spiral like Zimbabwe (or Weimar Germany) did, for that you need to have a really shitty economy that no-one believes in. The problem with Japan right now is that they are trying to print their debt away, but as they do so, their currency appreciates. Gold medal for the first one who manages to explain that one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "563370102cb9f40dac98d141693dfb3a", "text": "For now we can pay off our debt in United States dollars. If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. If we continued printing money we would be debasing our currency against the new reserve currency, which would mean that after we took on too much debt we wouldn't really be able to pay our creditors back after exchanging our devalued currency for the new one on the international markets. We are lucky enough not to have to worry about this now. But I think OP was referring to all countries in these situations. Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. That is why I am saying that America has a very disillusioned view of reality when it comes to deficit spending. We wouldn't have that any more if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard (I don't think the second option is nearly as realistic but we never know).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83f2433f686f5fbcb2335dd11835eddd", "text": "The answers provided so far as good and informative, but I just thought I'd add one small point... There are super-national organisations that commonly lend to governments, in particular those in the developing the world. The World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) are the two primary ones. Also quite notably, the Greek economy was bailed out only this year by the EMF (European Monetary Fund) spearheaded by Germany - this is a rare occurrence however and was done mainly because Greece was a relatively developed country and others had an obligation to assist it as an EU member state.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4a978ef6d0d991f931cecd7010c1919c	Are parking spaces and garage boxes a good investment?	[ { "docid": "822e1f9492535c3f6384740dce620347", "text": "If the company that owns the lot is selling them it is doing so because it feels it will make more money doing so. You need to read carefully what it is you are getting and what the guarantees are from the owner of the property and the parking structure. I have heard from friends in Chicago that said there are people who will sell spaces they do not own as a scam. There are also companies that declare bankruptcy and go out of business after signing long term leases for their spots. They sell the lot to another company(which they have an interest in) and all the leases that they sold are now void so they can resell the spots. Because of this if I were going to invest in a parking space, I would make sure: The company making the offer is reputable and solvent Check for plans for major construction/demolition nearby that would impact your short and long term prospects for rent. Full time Rental would Recoup my investment in less than 5 years. Preferably 3 years. The risk on this is too high for me with out that kind of return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3938b7d311ad08454d159d4d800a271f", "text": "15 years ago I bought a beach condo in Miami for $400,000 and two extra parking spaces for $3000 each. Today the condo is worth 600,000 but the rent barely covers mortgage repairs and property taxes. Most of The old people in the building have since died and are now replaced with families with at least two cars and spots are in short supply. I turned down offers of 25,000 for each parking space. I have the spaces rented out for $200 per month no maintenance for an 80% annual return on my purchase price and the value went has gone up over $700%. And no realtors commissions if i decide to sell the spaces.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8c1fadc1acf3f0837888d5de85b18a2", "text": "\"No no no no!!!! Do not spend 25k on a damn slab of concrete when you don't even own the land! You are not \"\"truly\"\" the owner unless you legally own the land. I don't care what country your talking about. If you like I'll come over to your place, mix and pour some concrete on the floor, and you can pay me 5 euro. Deal? Buy the smallest parcel of land you can find. Own the land. Pour some concrete on it and viola!!!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cda3d66cebe224ce212b15fe6d3e7c54", "text": "\"In Italy (even with taxes that are more than 50% on income) owning garages is generally a good business, as you said: \"\"making money while you sleep\"\", because of no maintainance. Moreover garages made by real concrete (and not wood like in US) are still new after 50 years, you just repaint them once every 20 years and you change the metal door gate once every 30 years. After 20 years you can be sure the price of the garage will be higher than what you paied it (at least for the effect of the inflation, after 20 years concrete and labour work will cost more than today). The only important thing before buying it is to make sure it is in an area where people are eager to rent it. This is very common in Italian cities' downtown because they were built in dark ages when cars did not exists, hence there are really few available parkings.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "88d77a3dd754aefdfb72b4a009b8c5e4", "text": "\"Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to \"\"restock\"\" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on. I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee7673f671ed5a34d53c823b8f4fd189", "text": "For an investor , I understand its a higher return on investment; but I was wondering if an investor is actually investing in the minerals, or the means of delivery such as ports, rail, trucks, roads, etc; or is that abstracted away", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82cce7e98f05e442a949f64095925756", "text": "\"I compared investing in real estate a few years ago to investing in stocks that paid double digit dividends (hard to find, however, managing and maintaining real estate is just as hard). After discussing with many in the real estate world, I counted the average and learned that most averaged about 6 - 8% on real estate after taxes. This does not include anything else like Dilip mentions (maintenance, insurance, etc). For those who want to avoid that route, you can buy some companies that invest in real estate or REIT funds like Dilip mentions. However, they are also susceptible to the problems mentioned above this. In terms of other investment opportunities like stocks or funds, think about businesses that will always be around and will always be needed. We won't outgrow our need for real estate, but we won't outgrow our need for food or tangible goods either. You can diversify into these companies along with real estate or buy a general mutual fund. Finally, one of your best investments is your career field - software. Do some extra work on the side and see if you can get an adviser position at a start-up (it's actually not that hard and it will help you build your skill set) or create a site which generates passive revenue (again, not that hard). One software engineer told me a few years ago that the stock market is a relic of the past and the new passive income would be generated by businesses that had tools which did all the work through automation (think of a smart phone application that you build once, yet continues to generate revenue). This was right before the crash, and after it, everyone talked about another \"\"lost decade.\"\" While it does require extra work initially, like all things software related, you'll be discovering tools in programming that you can use again and again in other applications - meaning your first one may be the most difficult. All it takes in this case is one really good idea ...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc89a22d33d7b57c866ae1bde324a050", "text": "\"I disagree. I believe money should be invested, not spent. Investing is something you should do as early as possible, even (especially) before incurring personal debt, such as cars, houses, student loans, etc. As Warren Buffet says, delaying investment until you are all paid up, is like saving sex for your old age. Remember that you are considering an investment, not another expense. The only consideration is whether or not the property will be cashflow-positive, i.e. \"\"does it make more in rent than it costs to maintain?\"\". If it is, buy it. You can use the income to pay off those debts faster, and at the end you will still have the income stream. Second, it makes no sense to use all your cash when the bank is willing to lend you money. There is nothing wrong with debt, as long as it is attached to an asset, i.e. something that makes more money than it costs. If you have that much cash, buy several apartment buildings, hire a management company, and retire.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "127853d48965a4dfdfc80c462e62052c", "text": "Some of the other answers mention this, but I want to highlight it with a personal anecdote. I have a property in a mid-sized college town in the US. Its current worth about what we paid for it 9 years ago. But I don't care at all because I will likely never sell it. That house is worth about $110,000 but rents for $1500 per month. It is a good investment. If you take rental income and the increase in equity from paying down the mortgage (subtracting maintenance) the return on the down payment is very good. I haven't mentioned the paper losses involved in depreciation as that's fairly US specific: the laws are different in other jurisdictions but for at least the first two years we showed losses while making money. So there are tax advantages as well (at least currently, those laws also change over time). There is a large difference between investing in a property for appreciation and investing for income. Even in those categories there are niches that can vary widely: commercial vs residential, trendy, vacation/tourist areas, etc. Each has their place, but ensure that you don't confuse a truism meant for one type of real estate investing as being applicable to real estate investing in general.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5b7a01c6f647e9a59ef22f7f031ff54", "text": "If you are looking to build wealth, leasing is a bad idea. But so is buying a new car. All cars lose value once you buy them. New cars lose anywhere between 30-60% of their value in the first 4 years of ownership. Buying a good quality, used car is the way to go if you are looking to build wealth. And keeping the car for a while is also desirable. Re-leasing every three years is no way to build wealth. The American Car Payment is probably the biggest factor holding many people back from building wealth. Don't fall into the trap - buy a used car and drive it for as long as you can until the maintenance gets too pricey. Then upgrade to a better used car, etc. If you cannot buy a car outright with cash, you cannot afford it. Period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bf0ea6249344325dfb4fe3bbd68350f", "text": "If you want to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds I would suggest you take a portion of your inheritance and use it to learn how to invest in this asset class wisely. Take courses on investing and trading (two different things) in paper assets and start trading on a fantasy exchange to test and hone your investment skills before risking any of your money. Personally I don't find bonds to have a meaningful rate of return and I prefer stocks that have a dividend over those that don't. Parking some of your money in an IRA is a good strategy for when you do not see opportunities to purchase cashflow-positive assets right away; this allows you to wait and deploy your capital when the opportunity presents itself and to educate yourself on what a good opportunity looks like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "579f9a0a5a958b3a896d6f07239b2853", "text": "\"I want to caveat that I am not an active investor in Australia, you most likely should seek out other investors in your market and ask them for advice/mentorship, but since you came here I can give you some generalized advice. When investing in real estate there are a two main rules of thumb to quickly determine if the property will be a good investment. The 50% rule and the 2% (or 1%) rule. The 50% rules says that in general 50% if the income from the property will go to expenses not including debt service. If you are bringing in $1000 a month 500 of that will go to utilities, taxes, repair, capital expenditures, advertising, lawn care, etc. That leave you with 500 to pay the mortgage and if anything is left that can be cash flow. As this is your first property and it is in \"\" a relatively bad neighbourhood\"\" you might consider bumping that up to 60% just to make sure you have padding. The 1 or 2% rules says that the monthly rent should be 1(or 2) percent of the purchase price in this case the home is bought at 150,000. If the rent is 1,500 a month it might be a good investment but if it rents for 3,000 a month it probably is a good investment. There are other factors to consider if a home meets the 2% rule it might be in a rough neighborhood which increases turnover which in general is the biggest expense in an investment property. If a property meets one or both of these rules you should take a closer look at it and with proper due diligence determine that it is a deal. These rules are just hard and fast guidelines to property analysis, they may need to be adapted to you market. For example these rules will not hold in most (all?) big cities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e6a893421677586f657499d3a01381b", "text": "\"It sounds like you want a place to park some money that's reasonably safe and liquid, but can sustain light to moderate losses. Consider some bond funds or bond ETFs filled with medium-term corporate bonds. It looks like you can get 3-3.5% or so. (I'd skip the municipal bond market right now, but \"\"why\"\" is a matter for its own question). Avoid long-term bonds or CDs if you're worried about inflation; interest rates will rise and the immediate value of the bonds will fall until the final payout value matches those rates.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78073fba775581c025e7fb35c48e3db3", "text": "I don't know enough about taxes and real-state in the Netherlands to be super helpful in determining whether or not a rental property is a good investment. One thing for certain is that there's some risk in spending everything on a rental property. It's wise to have some buffer, an emergency fund of 3-6 months expenses. If things got dire, you'd still need to live somewhere until your tenant was gone, and you'd want to be able to handle any major repairs that crop up. So, even if it is a good idea to buy a rental property, you should probably wait until doing so doesn't leave you without a healthy buffer. As for owning a rental, you described a scenario where you'd get 6% income on your investment each year if there were zero expenses associated with owning the property. Are there property taxes? Is there a monthly cost to maintain the building the apartment is in? Are rental incomes taxed more heavily than other investment income? Just be aware of the full financial picture before deciding if it's a worthwhile investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba0f6fa81e3978cf65053e7e4e9a322f", "text": "I've been starting to invest in real estate myself, and [this site](http://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/categories) has been incredibly helpful. It was started by a professional real estate investor who wanted to create a community for helping investors of all types and experience levels. You can learn a lot just by reading the various posts, but I highly recommend creating an account and introducing yourself to the community. There are many members with a lot of experience who are happy to help newbies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "186632702891b096cb961029a47ca4d5", "text": "Of course, I know nothing about real estate or owning a home. I would love to hear people's thoughts on why this would or would not be a good idea. Are there any costs I am neglecting? I want the house to be primarily an investment. Is there any reason that it would be a poor investment? I live and work in a college town, but not your college town. You, like many students convinced to buy, are missing a great many costs. There are benefits of course. There's a healthy supply of renters, and you get to live right next to campus. But the stuff next to campus tends to be the oldest, and therefore most repair prone, property around, which is where the 'bad neighborhood' vibe comes from. Futhermore, a lot of the value of your property would be riding on government policy. Defunding unis could involve drastic cuts to their size in the near future, and student loan reform could backfire and become even less available. Even city politics comes into play: when property developers lobby city council to rezone your neighborhood for apartments, you could end up either surrounded with cheaper units or possibly eminent domain'd. I've seen both happen in my college town. If you refuse to sell you could find yourself facing an oddly high number of rental inspections, for example. So on to the general advice: Firstly, real estate in general doesn't reliably increase in value, at best it tends to track inflation. Most of the 'flipping' and such you saw over the past decade was a prolonged bubble, which is slowly and reliably tanking. Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend. Or if they injure themselves (just for an example: alcohol poisoning), it could land on your homeowners insurance. Or maybe the plumbing breaks and you're out an expensive repair. Finally, there are significant costs to transacting in real estate. You can expect to pay like 5-6 percent of the price of the home to the agents, and various fees to inspections. It will be exceedingly difficult to recoup the cost of that transaction before you graduate. You'll also be anchored into managing this asset when you could be pursuing career opportunities elsewhere in the nation. Take a quick look at three houses you would consider buying and see how long they've been on the market. That's months of your life dealing with this house in a bad neighborhood.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee81a90148d0f963fa707fa0e5631b6c", "text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a29b0792cd39ac89b4fa096127c4a585", "text": "When is the right time to buy a new/emerging technology? When it's trading at a discount that allows you to make your money back and then some. The way you presented it, it is of course impossible to say. You have to look at exactly how much cheaper and efficient it will be, and how long that will take. Time too has a cost, and being invested has opportunity cost, so the returns must not only arrive in expected quantity but also arrive on time. Since you tagged this investing, you should look at the financial forecasts of the business, likely future price trajectories, growth opportunity and so on, and buy if you expect a return commensurate with the risk, and if the risk is tolerable to you. If you are new to investment, I would say avoid Musk, there's too much hype and speculation and their valuations are off the charts. You can't make any sensible analysis with so much emotion running wild. Find a more obscure, boring company that has a sound business plan and a good product you think is worth a try. If you read about it on mainstream news every day you can be sure it's sucker bait. Also, my impression that these panels are actually really expensive and have a snowball's chance in Arizona (heh) in a free market. Recently the market has been manipulated through green energy subsidies of a government with a strong environmentalist voter base. This has recently changed, in case you haven't heard. So the future of solar panels is looking a bit uncertain. I am thinking about buying solar panels for my roof. That's not an investment question, it's a shopping question. Do you actually need a new roof? If no, I'd say don't bother. Last I checked the payoff is very small and it takes over a decade to break even, unless you live in a desert next to the Mexican border. Many places never break even. Electricity is cheap in the United States. If you need a new roof anyway, I suppose look at the difference. If it's about the same you might as well, although it's guaranteed to be more hassle for you with the panels. Waiting makes no sense if you need a new roof, because who knows how long that will take and you need a roof now. If a solar roof appeals to you and you would enjoy having one for the price available, go ahead and get one. Don't do it for the money because there's just too much uncertainty there, and it doesn't scale at all. If you do end up making money, good for you, but that's just a small, unexpected bonus on top of the utility of the product itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8209f4c9de8d573f190b134f7b2fb0b", "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.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ce8b77c9e585af61438f61d0fdb7eeee	How do I enter Canadian tax info from US form 1042-S and record captial gains from cashing in stock options?	[ { "docid": "f31499789d7290c5909610351f06461a", "text": "I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e65f6a428a57a6e3118afe397365a752", "text": "There are two parts in this 1042-S form. The income/dividends go into the Canada T5 form. There will be credit if 1042-S has held money already, so use T2209 to report too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1f72824ef2b3072f154a0d2fa565ef4", "text": "Depending on what software you use. It has to be reported as a foreign income and you can claim foreign tax paid as a foreign tax credit.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "db96aca55b045235a2a64b26af02948f", "text": "\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "463d5ca31f9aa13617f4369749831f69", "text": "No it's not, not until a disposition. Keep track of the CAD value on the day you receive the inheritance and get an average cost. Then every time you go to the US and spend some money, record the CAD value on the day you spend it. The difference is your profit or loss. There is no capital gain as long as you don't spend it. Now this may seem ridiculous, especially since none of this is reported to the CRA. They realize this and say the first $200 profit or loss is not taxable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abd138c01e6d5a971c99c8f92350dfec", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d084210d431839be41ce1913e6277dae", "text": "You'll need to talk to your broker about registering positions you already hold. I would personally expect this will cost you a not-insignificant fee. And I don't think you'll be able to do this on any shares held in a tax-advantaged account. That said, I'd recommend you go to the Investors sections of the company's website in question. This will usually tell you who the registrar of the company's stock is, and if they offer any direct-purchase, or DRIP, programs. You should find out from these contacts and program details how the direct program works and what it's costs are. I suspect, but have no firsthand knowledge that this will be true, that you'll end up with lower costs if you just sell the shares in your brokerage, take the cash out, send the cash to the registrar and re-purchase shares that way. I say this only because I know, from inheritance situations, that de-registering stock cost me a $75 fee at my brokerage, whereas transactions at the registrar were $19.95. My answers to your direct questions: (Edited to fully answer the question with itemized answers.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c12bc3175fa0e13e7583371e1891a8ba", "text": "In theory, when you obtained ownership of your USD cash as a Canadian resident [resident for tax purposes, which is generally a quicker timeline than being resident for immigration purposes], it is considered to have been obtained by you for the CAD equivalent on that date. For example if you immigrated on Dec 31, 2016 and carried $10k USD with you, when the rate was ~1.35, then Canada deems you to have arrived with $13.5k CAD. If you converted that CAD to USD when the rate was 1.39, you would have received 13.9k CAD, [a gain of $400 to show as income on your tax return]. Receiving the foreign inheritances is a little more complex; those items when received may or may not have been taxable on that day. However whether or not they were taxable, you would calculate a further gain as above, if the fx rate gave you more CAD when you ultimately converted it. If the rate went the other way and you lost CAD-value, you may or may not be able to claim a loss. If it was a small loss, I wouldn't bother trying to claim it due to hassle. If it's a large loss, I would be very sure to research thoroughly before claiming, because something like that probably has a high chance of being audited.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d96a217cfd999cfcfdccb979a8068a15", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d581f5da4cbbd3a23e4b057cf1e03f0d", "text": "\"I think I found the answer, at least in my specific case. From the heading \"\"Questar/Dominion Resources Merger\"\" in this linked website: Q: When will I receive tax forms showing the stock and dividend payments? A: You can expect a Form 1099-B in early February 2017 showing the amount associated with payment of your shares. You also will receive a Form 1099-DIV by Jan. 31, 2017, with your 2016 dividends earned.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e7755a6f32703383033991e87a91c23", "text": "It is not a dump question because it concerns your most important invisible financial partner:the taxman. The answer depends of the legal status of this account. If your account is 401(k) in USA or RRSP in Canada, the answer is no. No capital gain taxes if your money is registered for retirement. You'll pay later on, as taxes are like death, unavoidable. Yes capital gain if your money is not in an retirement account. As soon as you realize a capital gain, it becomes taxable in that fiscal year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ee5f967f040a013fe5a5188ca5f7d40", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c07eac84072af95d6ef2c086ba24bbf", "text": "He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c05926a5cd70e78245f8f52bec13e4d2", "text": "\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36fcccad5602fec5364f2c1f4e6d3235", "text": "Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b78c0943dfcaac7e33e2f04c6f1e823", "text": "I have an ESPP with ETrade; you can transfer stock like that via a physical (paper) asset-transfer form. Look for one of those, and if you can't find it, call your brokerage (or email / whatever). You own the shares, so you can generally do what you want with them. Just be very careful about recording all the purchase and transfer information so that you can deal properly with the taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45c4919c1137c3120ac7d9b324d8bc58", "text": "What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592", "text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f3c43bd0bdcfa2b76537d7030616af89	What does Capital Surplus mean?	[ { "docid": "5467dcadbea676578ee66dca23e951b4", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe942e4498137eeedf2576eb13f7f3c", "text": "Capital surplus is used to account for that amount which a firm raises in excess of the par value (nominal value) of the shares (common stock).. Investopedia has a much simpler answer. Somebody has tried to be smart on wikipedia and have done the calculations without much explanation. The portion of the surplus of a business arising from sources other than earnings : all surplus other than earned surplus usually including amounts received from sale or exchange of capital stock in excess of par or stated value, profits on resale of treasury stock, donations to capital by stockholders or others, or increment arising from revaluation of fixed or other assets The number of shares a company wants to issue is decided and agreed with the regulators. They decide the par value and then decide how much premium will be charged, extra money above the par value. Take out any RHP of an issue and you find all these details. Par Value = 1 Issue price(Price at which investors buy) = 10 Premium = 9 For a single share the capital surplus is 9, multiply it by the number of shares issued and you have the total capital surplus.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c89af4372c5a95e112336d2e3e9f3f8a", "text": "\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6a86727ce2c1f10f9574097f583a59e", "text": "Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1f8e1e935ad365e016e2e6468cf4797", "text": "Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9847099de65fe2eb86b26c98f0d179cb", "text": "I don't know about the liquidation. The capital doesn't evaporate, its source just becomes the corporation itself. The corporation becomes the sole shareholder and acts at the behest of the board. The board then decides both board matters and shareholder matters. Once I talked that through, I realized no one would do this. If the board is in complete control, why clump the ownership together. The directors would be better served by clearly delineating their ownership interests by purchasing shares directly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d91641b0115b29c154cba6ec4cc1368", "text": "Just to clarify things: The Net Working Capital is the funds, the capital that will finance the everyday, the short term, operations of a company like buying raw materials, paying wages erc. So, Net Working Capital doesn't have a negative impact. And you should not see the liabilities as beneficial per se. It's rather the fact that with smaller capital to finance the short term operations the company is able to make this EBIT. You can see it as the efficiency of the company, the smaller the net working capital the more efficient the company is (given the EBIT). I hope you find it helpful, it's my first amswer here. Edit: why do you say the net working capital has a negative impact?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26add6882c3b0f92d535fd869f8d55ee", "text": "\"Market caps is just the share price, multiplied by the number of shares. It doesn't represent any value (if people decide to pay more or less for the shares, the market cap goes up or down). It does represent what people think the company is worth. NAV sounds very much like book value. It basically says \"\"how much cash would we end up with if we sold everything the company owns, paid back all the debt, and closed down the business? \"\" Since closing down the business is rarely a good idea, this underestimates the value of the business enormously. Take a hairdresser who owns nothing but a pair of scissors, but has a huge number of repeat customers, charges $200 for a haircut, and makes tons of money every year. The business has a huge value, but NAV = price of one pair of used scissors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "127afca02f53cf42f86207b7eb1559a6", "text": "Budget means both expenses and revenue. In quite a few cases, say personal finance, typically one refers to budget more from expenses point of view as the revenue is typically fixed/known [mostly salary]. The Operating budget and capital budget are laid out separately as Operating budget gives out day to day expenses that are typically essential, employee salaries, routine maintenance of infrastructure etc. The revenue is also tied in to match this. These are done within the same year. Where as capital budget is to build new infrastructure say a new bridge or other major expense that are done over period of years. The revenues to this are typically tied up differently and can even be linked to getting more funding from other agencies or loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbcbfb5db3c13dc788e29884fd1df2d1", "text": "\"Wiki: consumer surplus - \"\"Consumer surplus is the difference between the maximum price a consumer is willing to pay and the actual price they do pay....The aggregate consumers' surplus is the sum of the consumer's surplus for all individual consumers.\"\" Efficient production provides MORE product at LOWER prices, thus the difference between 'willing to pay' amount and 'actual price' is increased, plus as more product is produced, more people enjoy the benefit, so the aggregate consumer surplus is increased simply by increasing the number of consumers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6", "text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb68856b924b978df94ce08bea6c1a69", "text": "\"Their high savings isn't why they have to export capital, the issue is that domestic depositors don't have access to the sky-high interest rates over the last 2 decades in China. There is definitely correlation between asset levels and debt. I miss-typed in my previous post. I meant to say that the amount of debt is overstated, precicesly because wealth is high relative to income due to the high savings rate. Ultimately, there isn't a good answer yet to your question. The seminal work (which has received many updates in the last 6 years) that first attempted to understand the disconnect between the ultra-high interest rate in China and the high levels of capital exports is called \"\"Growing Like China,\"\" by Song, Storesletten, and Zilibotti published in the American Economic Review in 2011. Global debt according to the IIF is 327% of GDP. So China is actually a little below average in terms of total debt to GDP. And when you're growing at 5%+ a year, it is okay to lever up a little bit. On top of all of this, the Chinese government is well aware of these issues and will almost certainly make some comments October 18th and over the next week about constraining debt growth. This is all complicating the issue though, when you have a huge supply of money to lend, interest rates fall and companies take on more debt. So in general you would expect savings and debt levels to move together.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f619e556111df0fd3eaf002df79a9597", "text": "Yep, you have it pretty much right. The volume is the number of shares traded that day. The ticker is giving you the number of shares bought at that price in a given transaction, the arrow meaning whether the stock is up or down on the day at that price. Institutional can also refer to pensions, mutuals funds, corporates; generally any shareholder that isn't an individual person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5a8e535668584f0c0edc1e3564513d8", "text": "Capital circulation doesn't work in the model of everyone producing products they can all already produce independently, and the money going to raw material and 3D printer inputs are a fixed cost to all construction, which outside of asteroid mining has limitations. The Economy needs a stable cycle for capital, the challenge with this automation is that the requirement for capital circulation appears vulnerable to instability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1edf407c3b96a5274a68e07beae9b48", "text": "If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b611488d1d23e35fd8b1e3ed248e14f", "text": "\"Asset management typically refers to the \"\"product\"\" group e.g. Mutual fund, etf, etc., like invesco offering qqq or some emerging market mutual fund. Capital management is more vague and can refer to a wide range of financial products and services including asset management and stuff like ptfl planning, wealth advisory etc. That said they are both used interchangeably and not like anyone would correct you if you used one vs the other...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "145a5decacc13be14030121db03b4578", "text": "The (assets - liabilities)/#shares of a company is its book value, and that number is included in their reports. It's easy for a fund to release the net asset value on a daily basis because all of its assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) are given values every day by the market. It's also necessary to have a real time value for a fund as it will be bought and sold every day. A company can't really do the same thing as it will have much more diverse assets - real estate, cars, inventory, goodwill, etc. The real time value of those assets doesn't have the same meaning as a fund; those assets are used to earn cash, while a fund's business is only to maximize its net asset value.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a1e5277bdf8088b283c6b21658020f59	How do you get out of a Mutual Fund in your 401(k)?	[ { "docid": "7e0f4949caa285e9a88aed4baa6e1ff8", "text": "One of the strengths of 401K accounts is that you can move from investment X in the program to investment Y in the program without tax consequences. As you move through your lifetime you will tend to want to lower risk by investing in funds that are less aggressive. The only way this works is if there is an ability to move funds. If there were only one or two funds to pick from or that you were locked in to your initial choices that would be a very poor 401K to be enrolled in. On your benefits/401K website you should be able to adjust three sets of numbers: Some have you enter the current money as a percentage others allow you to enter it in dollars. They might limit the number of changes you can do in a month to the current money balances to avoid the temptation to try and time the market. These changes usually happen within 1 business day. Regarding new and match money they could limit the lowest non zero percent to 5% or 10%, but they might allow numbers as low as 1%. These changes take place generally with the next paycheck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d9af2b6daf312bf342ecc87c235e7fb", "text": "Most 401k plans (maybe even all 401k plans as a matter of law) allow the option of moving the money in your 401k account from one mutual fund to another (within the group of funds that are in the plan). So, you can exit from one fund and put all your 401k money (not just the new contributions) into another fund in the group if you like. Whether you can find a fund within that group that invests only in the companies that you approve of is another matter. As mhoran_psprep's answer points out, changing investments inside a 401k (ditto IRAs, 403b and 457 plans) is without tax consequence which is not the case when you sell one mutual fund and buy another in a non-retirement account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b550cd328fc152dabda777f75e4d49b", "text": "The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4df4ef31459c723e37be3d006ae61558", "text": "$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e3db5c45ccaa6589d0bcc62baed7712", "text": "\"Your question has a built in faulty premise. \"\"ASSUMING a person knows how to use and invest their money wisely\"\" I'd ask if you were wise enough to beat the investments offered in your 401(k) after expenses, and with respect to the potential tax savings. Then, since I'm a proponent of \"\"deposit to the match, even if you have to eat rice and beans to find the cash to do\"\" I'll extend the question to ask if you can beat the choices taking the match into account. 401(k) - Your $1000 starts as $1500 and has a tax due on withdrawal years later. AeroAccount - You start with $750 (after the tax) and might spend a decade before hitting $1500. Start your own company? That might be another story. But to invest in the market and still beat the matched 401(k) takes a bit more wisdom than I'd claim to have.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b61374969f9dc4f5ce9a528b6d896cb", "text": "\"(This answer refers to the US investment landscape) I'm not sure your classification of funds as direct and regular accurately reflects the nature of the mutual fund industry. It's not the funds themselves that are \"\"direct\"\" or \"\"regular.\"\" Rather it's the way an investor chooses to invest in them. If you make the investment yourself through your brokerage account, you may say it's a direct investment. If you pay a financial advisor to do this for you, it's \"\"regular.\"\" For a given fund, you could make the investment yourself or you could use an advisor. Note that many funds have various share classes. Share classes may be accessed in different ways. The institutional class may be accessible through your 401(k) or perhaps not even there, for example. The premium class may require a certain minimum investment. Some classes will have a front-end-load or back-end-load. Each of these will have a different expense ratio and fees even though the money ends up in the same portfolio. These expenses are, by law, publicly available in the prospectus and in numerous other places. Share classes with higher fees will earn less each year after fees, just as you suggest. Your intuition is correct on this point. Now, there is one fee to be aware of that funds either have or do not have. That's a 12b-1 fee. This fee is a kickback to financial advisors who funnel your money into their fund. If you use a financial advisor, he or she will likely put your money into these funds because they have a financial incentive to do so. That way they get paid twice: once by you and once by the mutual fund. It has been robustly shown in the finance academic literature that funds without this fee dominate (are better in some ways and in no ways worse than) funds with this fee. I suppose you could say that funds and share classes with a 12b-1 fee were designed for \"\"regular\"\" investment and those without were designed for \"\"direct\"\" but that doesn't mean you can't invest in a 12b-1 fee fund directly nor that you can't twist your advisor's arm into getting you into a good fund without a 12b-1. Unfortunately, if you have this level of knowledge, then you probably don't need a financial advisor.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da87ad09f8ea417326955b272c8086e8", "text": "\"To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point. The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated. I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates. The \"\"deposit to get the matching funds\"\" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach. Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis. I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)? Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d728d68b8cf974e8afddafb8687cce7", "text": "\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7436eb25a30020c21f3702ee266941b", "text": "\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9dbe7f5f0b136736a208fcb32b3c391", "text": "\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d67e11a7c3b69dc6f4b90c0aaaa9054", "text": "I don't know what you mean by 'major'. Do you mean the fund company is a Fidelity or Vanguard, or that the fund is broad, as in an s&P fund? The problem starts with a question of what your goals are. If you already know the recommended mix for your age/risk, as you stated, you should consider minimizing the expenses, and staying DIY. I am further along, and with 12 year's income saved, a 1% hit would be 12% of a year's pay, I'd be working 1-1/2 months to pay the planner? In effect, you are betting that a planner will beat whatever metric you consider valid by at least that 1% fee, else you can just do it yourself and be that far ahead of the game. I've accepted the fact that I won't beat the average (as measured by the S&P) over time, but I'll beat the average investor. By staying in low cost funds (my 401(k) S&P fund charges .05% annual expense) I'll be ahead of the investors paying planner fees, and mutual fund fees on top of that. You don't need to be a CFP to manage your money, but it would help you understand the absurdity of the system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5afc4eeaf29e1e7918d70f8a8907bc3", "text": "Mutual funds are a collection of other assets, such as stocks, bonds and property. Unless the fund is a type that is traded on an exchange, you will only be able to buy into the fund by applying for units with the fund manager and sell out by contacting the fund manager. These type of non-traded funds are usually updated at the end of the day once the closing prices of all the assets in it are known.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c309295ef3466cb375fe3949759e0e2a", "text": "Former pension/retirement/401(k) administrator here. 1. If you don't want to bother with maintaining your own investments, you can 'roll-over' your existing 401(k) into your new company's 401(k) plan. Then you will choose your investments in the new plan, you will be 100% vested in 'rollover account'. 2. If you want control over your own investments (recommended!) you can roll over your existing 401(k) into an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Then your entire account will go into your new IRA. 3. You can take part, or all, of your existing account as cash, paid directly to you. Note that this will trigger 20% mandatory Federal Withholding on whatever goes straight to you. So some of your money is going to the IRS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "953f15eb386aaa69c27489e609dd2119", "text": "It seems that you're asking for a legal/tax advice, and I vote to close the question as off-topic for that. This is not the place. But on the second thought, I will share some of the ideas I have, provided of course that you will not consider them as any sort of tax advice whatsoever, and will not rely on it for any tax planning without verifying with a licensed professional. Taking 401k money out just like that means that you are going to pay your taxes on that money plus additional 10% penalty. As @JoeTaxpayer said, this rarely makes economic sense. However, taking 401K money out to pay your medical bills (which would otherwise be deductible, pay attention to the nuances) doesn't trigger the penalty. It looks like in your case you might (unfortunately) have a chance to use this provision. Another case when you can withdraw money without penalty is disability, which according to what you describe is, unfortunately, a situation you're very likely to find yourself in. Also, you can withdraw funds as income for a substantial period of time, and under certain conditions it will not be subject to the 10% penalty. Of course, leaving it to the beneficiaries, as mentioned by others, is another and very valid option. See publication 575 for specific details, and be sure to consult a tax professional before doing anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbd67df0ff9ed5862653c42553791904", "text": "I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ba45535b0f82298eae706d67ee83dd4", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61983126d87c9525df8f5091a81f81dd", "text": "Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74c020c4969af53f64ab7f5211d86b49", "text": "\"The gross liabilities (benefit obligation) will still be there, regardless. They are future benefits. Sure, you can increase funding to the plan to eliminate the net pension liability, but why? The new assets would earn very little. The shortfall is not an excessively large risk. The only reason seems to be the \"\"all-consuming focus on immediate results\"\" which is more rhetoric than reality in this case.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
dc2af479bba9f23c5411663d64c3c6c2	Do Fundamentals Matter Anymore in Stock Markets?	[ { "docid": "68ad2d6cc4afb29c1b2f1b4a8f0d38f1", "text": "All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86f7fb8aee91031e8893956bc83201aa", "text": "Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27? Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13. There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E. I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag. One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap. (Share price divided by annual earnings per share) It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point. There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies. How is it paying its debt? How is it accumulating the debt? How is it's return on assets? How is the return on assets trending? This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time. The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general. The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8f4d0b823ec45f1f14ee70df1183374", "text": "It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter. Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends). One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described. But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities. That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that. We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios. That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices. It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "aa8a751d2ab770960a9a404ff8225cf8", "text": "The stock market is generally a long term investment platform. The share prices reflect more the companies potential to be profitable in the future rather than its actual value. Companies that have good potential can over perform their actual value. We saw this regularly in the early days of the internet prior to the .com bust. Companies would go up exponentially based on their idea's and potential. Investors learned from that and are demanding more these days. As a result companies that do not show growth potential go down. Companies that show growth and potential (apple and google for 2 easy examples) continue to go up. Many companies have specific days where employees can buy and sell stocks. there are minor ripples in the market on these days as the demand and supply are temporarily altered by a large segment of the owner base making trades. For this reason some companies have a closed pool that is only open to inside trades that then executes the orders over time so that the effect is minimized on the actual stock price. This is not happening with face book. Instead many of the investors are dumping their stock directly into the market. These are savvy investors and if there was potential for profit remaining you would not see the full scale exodus from the stock. The fact that it is visible is scaring off investors itself. I can not think of another instance that has gone like facebook, especially one that was called so accurately by many industry pundits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea6d1cf4d269e3f9ed2721df920f0f01", "text": "If you look at S&P 500's closing price for the first trading day on December and January for the last 20 years, you will see that for 10 of these years, stocks did better overall and for 10 others they did worse. Thus you can see that the price of stocks do no necessarily increase. You can play around with the data here", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dabc7412a6bb3aa6b04232e77185d57a", "text": "\"The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: \"\"Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?\"\". It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to \"\"does it beat the market?\"\" is \"\"it depends...\"\". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting. To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by 2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16% for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the overall market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc7049dedd2b6a9084368e230498afc2", "text": "\"Simply put, you cannot deterministically beat the market. If by being informed and following all relevant news, you can arrive at the conclusion that company A will likely outperform company B in the future, then having A stocks should be better than having B stocks or any (e.g., index based) mix of them. But as the whole market has access to the very same information and will arrive at the same conclusion (provided it is logically sound), \"\"everybody\"\" will want A stocks, which thus become expensive to the point where the expected return is average again. Your only options of winning this race are to be the very first to have the important information (insider trade), or to arrive at different logical conclusions than the rest of the world (which boils down do making decisions that are not logically sound - good luck with that - or assuming that almost everybody else is not logically sound - go figure).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d727bbe03fcfac61e510d104ff4bcc7", "text": "The Bobs tend to show up at the top of bubbles, then disappear soon after. For example, your next door neighbor who talks about Oracle in 1999, even though he doesn't know what Oracle does for a living. I don't think the Bobs' assets represent a large chunk of the market's value. A better analogy would be a spectrum of characters, each with different time horizons. Everyone from the high-frequency trader to the investor who buys and holds until death.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cef28a3a3eb4eaa05e4b650ed4b052f", "text": "Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c39c551f496cf4eb9805d8702548952", "text": "I assert not so. Even if we assume a zero sum game (which is highly in doubt); the general stock market curves indicate the average player is so bad that you don't have to be very good to have better that 50/50 averages. One example: UP stock nosedived right after some political mess in Russia two years ago. Buy! Profit: half my money in a month. I knew that nosedive was senseless as UP doesn't have to care much about what goes on in Russia. Rising oil price was a reasonable prediction; however this is good for railroads, and most short-term market trends behave as if it is bad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a471ff2224383dc5a4b1d140d6501ee", "text": "The methodology for divisor changes is based on splits and composition changes. Dividends are ignored by the index. Side note - this is why, in my opinion, that any discussion of the Dow's change over a long term becomes meaningless. Ignoring even a 2% per year dividend has a significant impact over many decades. The divisor can be found at http://wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-djiahourly.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b76f71ada3f2f41436cd4d6b161f2265", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4f42a26d035479427867cc4eb653fc4", "text": "Two reasons why I think that's irrelevant: First, if it was on 3/31/2012 (two other sources say it was actually 4/3/2012), why the big jump two trading days later? Second, the stock popped up from $3.10 to $4.11, then over the next several trading days fell right back to $3.12. If this were about the intrinsic value of the company, I'd expect the stock to retain some value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67e4b5300c51efab8635a449c192e413", "text": "\"That characterisation of arbitrage-free pricing sounds a bit like the \"\"relative vs. fundamental\"\" approaches to asset pricing that Cochrane outlines (in his text, Asset Pricing). Rebonato also makes this distinction with regard to term structure models in Volatility and Correlation. On one extreme you have CAPM-style models in which asset prices are completely determined by investors' risk preferences; on the other extreme, you would have something like a SABR-Libor Market Model where you take everything up to and including the volatility surface as given. What's interesting to me is the way in which these different classes of models get used in various parts of the financial industry. So, buy side firms tend to rely a lot more on equilibrium-style models, since they ultimately care about things like how the equity risk premium or the bond risk premium affect asset prices. In contrast, derivatives quants working at a big sell-side bank who are pricing exotics don't care about what the \"\"fundamental\"\" value of their underlying assets is; they just take that as given and price the exotic accordingly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c26abce4a4b994467b349f12d67579d0", "text": "\"Below is just a little information on this topic from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": The most significant non-company-specific factor affecting stock price is the market sentiment, while the most significant company-specific factor is the earning power of the company. Perhaps it would be safe to say that technical analysis is more related to psychology/emotions, while fundamental analysis is more related to reason – that is why it is said that fundamental analysis tells you what to trade and technical analysis tells you when to trade. Thus, many stock traders use technical analysis as a timing tool for their entry and exit points. Technical analysis is more suitable for short-term trading and works best with large caps, for stock prices of large caps are more correlated with the general market, while small caps are more affected by company-specific news and speculation…: Perhaps small stock traders should not waste a lot of time on fundamental analysis; avoid overanalyzing the financial position, market position, and management of the focus companies. It is difficult to make wise trading decisions based only on fundamental analysis (company-specific news accounts for only about 25 percent of stock price fluctuations). There are only a few important figures and ratios to look at, such as: perhaps also: Furthermore, single ratios and figures do not tell much, so it is wise to use a few ratios and figures in combination. You should look at their trends and also compare them with the company’s main competitors and the industry average. Preferably, you want to see trend improvements in these above-mentioned figures and ratios, or at least some stability when the times are tough. Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market. Some may succeed purely on the basis of technical analysis, some purely due to fundamental analysis, and others from a combination of these two like most of the great stock traders have done (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen). It is just a matter of finding out what best fits your personality. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7bdf878050a0ce633c13691f39664af", "text": "Volume and prices are affected together by how folks feel about the stock; there is no direct relationship between them. There are no simple analysis techniques that work. Some would argue strongly that there are few complex analysis techniques that work either, and that for anyone but full-time professionals. And there isn't clear evidence that the full-time professionals do sufficiently better than index funds to justify their fees. For most folks, the best bet is to diversify, using low-overhead index funds, and simply ride with the market rather than trying to beat it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b3b7cdfb6a85bd1b9986d8b380894a1", "text": "There's an interesting paper, Does Investor Attention Affect Stock Prices? (Sandhya et al), where researchers look at related stock tickers. When a large cap, better-known stock jumps, smaller firms with similar symbols also rise. Pretty nuts -- I interviewed the author of the paper [here](http://www.tradestreaming.com/?p=3745). There's also a transcript.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fe2c6cb65515b9032aed7caae98453f", "text": "\"This is the same answer as for your other question, but you can easily do this yourself: ( initial adjusted close / final adjusted close ) ^ ( 1 / ( # of years sampled) ) Note: \"\"# of years sampled\"\" can be a fraction, so the one week # of years sampled would be 1/52. Crazy to say, but yahoo finance is better at quick, easy, and free data. Just pick a security, go to historical prices, and use the \"\"adjusted close\"\". money.msn's best at presenting finances quick, easy, and cheap.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d5477240eb8bb4704fb01c4c553b7d6c	Investing $50k + Real Estate	[ { "docid": "f87226ad36fb57cd8b9f6f94267f6536", "text": "I would say that, for the most part, money should not be invested in the stock market or real estate. Mostly this money should be kept in savings: I feel like your emergency fund is light. You do not indicate what your expenses are per month, but unless you can live off of 1K/month, that is pretty low. I would bump that to about 15K, but that really depends upon your expenses. You may want to go higher when you consider your real estate investments. What happens if a water heater needs replacement? (41K left) EDIT: As stated you could reduce your expenses, in an emergency, to 2K. At the bare minimum your emergency fund should be 12K. I'd still be likely to have more as you don't have any money in sinking funds or designated savings and the real estate leaves you a bit exposed. In your shoes, I'd have 12K as a general emergency fund. Another 5K in a car fund (I don't mind driving a 5,000 car), 5k in a real estate/home repair fund, and save about 400 per month for yearly insurance and tax costs. Your first point is incorrect, you do have debt in the form of a car lease. That car needs to be replaced, and you might want to upgrade the other car. How much? Perhaps spend 12K on each and sell the existing car for 2K? (19K left). Congratulations on attempting to bootstrap a software company. What kind of cash do you anticipate needing? How about keeping 10K designated for that? (9K left) Assuming that medical school will run you about 50K per year for 4 years how do you propose to pay for it? Assuming that you put away 4K per month for 24 months and have 9K, you will come up about 95K short assuming some interests in your favor. The time frame is too short to invest it, so you are stuck with crappy bank rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cdcde52835b5ccd2cf3a8d3cae0b48a", "text": "\"My spouse will only be entering medical school within 2 years at the earliest, and will likely be there for about 4-5 years. If she get's into the school she wants we would not have to move This is probably the biggest return on investment that you can get. Sure, you could invest what you have in the market and take out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on \"\"cheap\"\" medical school loans, but consider this: Figure out how much you need for all 4-5 years, and develop a plan to make sure you can cash-flow the entire education. Bootstrapping a software company has potential for high rewards, but a much greater risk. you could get 10X back or you could lose it all. With your income, you've got plenty of time to save for college, so I don't see that as a huge win now. I would also dump the lease - you can probably get a much better car for $16k that the five-year old one you have when the lease is up. (or get a similar car for less money). With no debt and a good income you do not need a credit score. The lease probably didn't help it that much anyways - you're paying more for the lease than any benefit you would get by a higher score.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd8327c36826f3e6e464f22c1c93dcc6", "text": "I have been on the same boat as you are right now. So basically, it depends on your goals, risk tolerance, upcoming life events! You want a plan not just for this particular 50K, but for your household assets and future earnings to come! My suggestion: Get a flat fee, online financial advisor to do the work for you. You don’t have to figure this out by yourself. Personally, I would invest in a portfolio that: Offers dynamic asset allocation plans that evolves over time based on changing market conditions. Offers a healthy mix of beta and alpha strategies along with the liquidity and ability to monitor activity online. Has structural risk management in place. Risk management is as much about increasing risk as it is about cutting risk. Therefore, you want a plan for de-allocating and re-allocating risk Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64f9212da3a1b059f5771311c5862c51", "text": "Get rid of the lease and buy a used car. A good buy is an Audi because they are popular, high-quality cars. A 2007 Audi A4 costs about $7000. You will save a lot of money by dumping the lease and owning. Go for quality. Stay away from fad cars and SUVs which are overpriced for their value. Full sized sedans are the safest cars. The maintenance on a high-quality old car is way cheaper than the costs of a newer car. Sell the overseas property. It is a strong real estate market now, good time to sell. It is never good to have property far away from where you are. You need to have a timeline to plan investments. Are you going to medical school in one year, three years, five years? You need to make a plan. Every investment is a BUY and a SELL and you should plan for both. If your business is software, look for a revenue-generating asset in that area. An example of a revenue-generating asset is a license. For example, some software like ANSYS has license costs in the region of $30,000 annually. If you broker the license, or buy and re-sell the license you can make a good profit. This is just one example. Use your expertise to find the right vehicle. Make sure it is a REVENUE-GENERATING ASSET.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "11f43f32825eead66ad9471abfbb0e4f", "text": "Hmm, if your financially savvy enough to have saved up half a million dollars, I'd think you would be savvy enough to spend it wisely. :-) I think I'd spend the cash before running down stocks and bonds, as cash almost surely has a lower rate of return. I'd look into what rate of return you're getting on the rental property versus what you're getting from other investments. If the rental property has a lower return, I'd sell that before selling off stocks. (I own a rental property on which I am losing money every month. I'm still paying a mortgage on it, but even without that, the ROI would be about 4% under current market conditions.) Besides that, your plan looks good to me. Might need to add, 8. Beg on the streets, and 9. Burglary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a0f1718aaec104c21145b89efc405d4", "text": "Investing it in what? Unless you're putting it into an account that lets you avoid taxes on the income, your $100k becomes about $74k after federal income taxes. If you take $50k of that and invest it, you're now at $24k. You're living a very barebones life at that point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "087e6933bdc64feb0d5331a49f615b23", "text": "\"So, you have $100k to invest, want a low-maintenance investment, and personal finance bores you to death. Oooohhh, investment companies are gonna love you. You'll hand them a wad of cash, and more or less say \"\"do what you want.\"\" You're making someone's day. (Just probably not yours.) Mutual fund companies make money off of you regardless of whether you make money or not. They don't care one bit how carefully you look at your investments. As long as the money is in their hands, they get their fee. If I had that much cash, I'd be looking around for a couple of distressed homes in good neighborhoods to buy as rentals. I could put down payments on two of them, lock in fixed 30-year mortgages at 4% (do you realize how stupid low that is?) and plop tenants in there. Lots of tax write-offs, cash flow, the works. It's a 10% return if you learn about it and do it correctly. Or, there have been a number of really great websites that were sold on Flippa.com that ran into five figures. You could probably pay those back in a year. But that requires some knowledge, too. Anything worthwhile requires learning, maintenance and effort. You'll have to research stocks, mutual funds, bonds, anything, if you want a better than average chance of getting worthwhile returns (that is, something that beats inflation, which savings accounts and CDs are unlikely to do). There is no magic bullet. If someone does manage to find a magic bullet, what happens? Everyone piles on, drives the price up, and the return goes down. Your thing might not be real estate, but what is your thing? What excites you (i.e., doesn't bore you to death)? There are lots of investments out there, but you'll get out of it what you put into it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63e9e9e1fadfbdea4bec60ddf4548284", "text": "It's in your interest to pay down these loans (just like any debt) at an accelerated rate, so long as you prioritize it appropriately and don't jeopardize your financial situation. What are your plans for the $50k? Is it a downpayment on a house? Are you already saving for retirement? At what rate are you saving each year? These are all important questions. There is nothing wrong with using some of the $50k to make a dent in your loans, but overpaying a debt at 6% should not be your first priority. Save for retirement, pay off credit cards, make sure you have an emergency fund of between 6-12 months living expenses (depending on your comfort level as well as how stable you think your job is, and how much you could downsize if need be). Then, tackle extra loan payments. Unfortunately 6% is about what you would expect to get in the market these days, so you can't necessarily make more money investing your remaining cash on hand as compared to putting it towards your loans. And you could always make less. Personally, I would divide the $50k as follows. Insert your own numbers/circumstances :) Of the ~$30k that remains...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "488a2e2da0765eb148803ded8cdeccfb", "text": "Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment. It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area. There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash. If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame. This is no guarantee of course. Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further. While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home. The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk. Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate. When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa). Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15b788b4c1659b1bb97b9e014bb2e216", "text": "You're off to a great start. Here are the steps I would take: 1.) Pay off any high-interest debt. 2.) Keep six to twelve months in a highly liquid emergency fund. If the banks aren't safe, also consider having one or two months of cash or cash-equivalents on the premises. 3.) Rent a larger apartment, if possible, until you've saved more. The cost of the land and construction will consume a very large portion of your net worth. Given the historical political instability in that region, mentioned by the previous comments, I would hesitate to put such a large percentage of your wealth in to real estate. 4.) Get a brokerage account that's insured and well known. If you're willing to take the five percent hit to move assets offshore, then consider Vanguard. I'm not sure if they'll give you an account but they're generally acknowledged as an amazing broker in the US with low fees and amazing funds. Five percent (12,500) is worth it in my opinion. As you accumulate more wealth, you can stop moving cash overseas and keep a larger mix domestically. 5.) Invest in your business and yourself even more. As far as finding new investment opportunities, I would go through the list of all the typical major asset classes and consider the pros and cons: fixed-income, stocks, currencies, real estate / REITs, own a small business, commodities etc.,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "910af6955795603ab97b04e074e1c735", "text": "It is a decent time to purchase real estate despite dsquid's opinion. I feel dsquid is falling for the old economic psychology of what ever direction its going it will continuing in that direction, which is a bad mentality for any investing (up or down). This may not be the bottom, and there is some sign that another dip is coming with in a year or two. But if you purchase now, and focus on a few key factors you may end up on the upside of the swing. First and foremost location matters more then value of the property. When the pent up demand is eventually released (after we get employment moving in the right direction) you will see a land grab. The first and highest valued places are those with nice neighborhoods and good schools as the young families (economically unburdened) start making homes. Second pay attention to valuation in so much as your burden. This means consider taxes and mortgage and terms of mortgage (stay away from variable or balloon rates). When thing go up the interest rates will lead the way. In this time of uncertainty you should make sure you can cover your mortgage payment with ease. Put plenty down (20% being the recommended to avoid mortgage insurance and long term costs) and shoot low on price. If you're handy you may even consider buying something that needs minor work (outdated kitchen or the like). If you shoot lower then your limit, then you'll be comfortable even if things turn sour for you. Ultimately all this hinges on what you want to do with the property. Its a wise time to buy homes today where you will be able to rent them out tomorrow. But the important thing is aim in the middle instead of at your limit (450 is definitely your limit). Remember banks will always tell you that you're able to afford twice as much as you actually should. And keep in mind, no matter how new or nice the home, it will need work at some point and that costs. So you should have that in mind when you consider savings. Based on your information I wouldnt shoot higher then 250-300k. I have friends who make your salary in dividends plus two incomes and they are comfortable in their home at its 250 price. They are able to afford repairs and upgrade regularly and arent threatened by potential tax hikes (though they gripe of course). The one good piece of advice from dsquid IMHO is that you should be ready for the environment to change. Higher interests rates will weigh on your comfort as much as CPI and increased taxes will so plan for them to be much higher and you'll be ahead of the game.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "348d5c009aaf87cb2c2f7769d92c96f2", "text": "No one knows if the market is high right now. To know that you would need to compare it to the future, not the past. If you put all your money in right now, you run the risk of putting it in at what turns out to be a bad time. If you spread it out, you will for sure put some of it in at a bad time (either the stuff you put in now, or the stuff you put in later). The strategy that, on average, will make you the most money is to put everything in now. If your risk tolerance allows that (it sounds like it does) then I think going all in makes sense. There really aren't significant downsides to buying a ton at once. You aren't going to move the needle on a big Vanguard fund with that amount and there isn't a tax consequence or anything to buying. Of course, when you sell, you will need to pay capital gains tax on any gains, but that's a later chapter. The bigger consideration is to be smart right now about avoiding taxes. If your income is low, max out your Roth IRAs. If you need to you can later use that money for a house or you can pull the contribution part out at any time if you want without a penalty. Is a $50K buffer too much? Normally I would say yes, it's excessive. I have 5 rather expensive kids and I keep $20K in cash, which seems high, if anything. However, if you are unemployed or your income isn't covering your expenses, then keeping a larger pot in cash makes good sense until your cash flow firms up. Setting $50K or something close to that aside sounds a lot like something I would do in your shoes. BTW where are you finding a savings account that pays 2%?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e469606ed367da67077be8954d5324b4", "text": "\"If you're looking for a well-rounded view into what it's like to actually own/manage real-estate investments, plus how you can scale things up & keep the management workload relatively low, have a look at the Bigger Pockets community. There are blogs, podcasts, & interviews there from both full-time & part-time real estate investors. It's been a great resource for me in my investments. More generally, your goal of \"\"retiring\"\" within 20 years is very attainable even without getting extravagant investment returns. A very underrated determinant in how quickly you build wealth is how much of your income you are contributing to investments. Have a look at this article: The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de2f8020f2afe5a02fa537ebb9f85250", "text": "\"To be completely honest, I think that a target of 10-15% is very high and if there were an easy way to attain it, everyone would do it. If you want to have such a high return, you'll always have the risk of losing the same amount of money. Option 1 I personally think that you can make the highest return if you invest in real estate, and actively manage your property(s). If you do this well with short term rental and/or Airbnb I think you can make healthy returns BUT it will cost a lot of time and effort which may diminish its appeal. Think about talking to your estate agent to find renters, or always ensuring your AirBnB place is in good nick so you get a high rating and keep getting good customers. If you're looking for \"\"passive\"\" income, I don't think this is a good choice. Also make sure you take note of karancan's point of costs. No matter what you plan for, your costs will always be higher than you think. Think about water damage, a tenant that breaks things/doesn't take care of stuff etc. Option 2 I think taking a loan is unnecessarily risky if you're in good financial shape (as it seems), unless you're gonna buy a house with a mortgage and live in it. Option 3 I think your best option is to buy bonds and shares. You can follow karancan's 100 minus your age rule, which seems very reasonable (personally I invest all my money in shares because that's how my father brought me up, but it's really a matter of taste. Both can be risky though bonds are usually safer). I think I should note that you cannot expect a return of 10% or more because, as everyone always says, if there were a way to guarantee it, everyone would do it. You say you don't have any idea how this works so I'd go to my bank and ask them. You probably have access to private banking so that should mean someone will be able to sit you down and talk you through. Also look at other banks that have better rates and/or pretend you're leaving your bank to negotiate a better deal. If I were you I'd invest in blue chips (big international companies listed on the main indeces (DAX, FTSE 100, Dow Jones)), or (passively managed) mutual funds/ETFs that track these indeces. Just remember to diversify by country and industry a bit. Note: i would not buy the vehicles/plans that my bank (no matter what they promise, and they promise a lot) suggest because if you do that then the bank always takes a cut off your money. TlDr, dont expect to make 10-15% on a passive investment and do what a lot of others do: shares and bonds. Also make sure you get a lot of peoples opinions :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b7c6c045d2c03f178cd96160cd32d98", "text": "For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9df8d0c8d093cd3767f3871e8c58682e", "text": "Real Estate potentially has two components of profit, the increase in value, and the ongoing returns, similar to a stock appreciating and its dividends. It's possible to buy both badly, and in the case of stocks, there are studies that show the typical investor lags the market by many percent. Real estate is not a homogeneous asset class. A $200K house renting for $1,000 is a far different investment than a $100K 3 family renting for $2,000 total rents. Both exist depending on the part of the country you are in. If you simply divide the price to the rent you get either 16.7X or 4.2X. This is an oversimplification, and of course, interest rates will push these numbers in one direction or another. It's safe to say that at any given time, the ratio can help determine if home prices are too high, a bargain, or somewhere in between. As one article suggests, the median price tracks inflation pretty closely. And I'd add, that median home prices would track median income long term. To circle back, yes, real estate can be a good investment if you buy right, find good tenants, and are willing to put in the time. Note: Buying to rent and buying to live in are not always the same economic decision. The home buyer will very often buy a larger house than they should, and turn their own 'profit' into a loss. e.g. A buyer who would otherwise be advised to buy the $150K house instead of renting is talked into a bigger house by the real estate agent, the bank, the spouse. The extra cost of the $225K house is the 1/3 more cost of repair, utilities, interest, etc. It's identical to needing a 1000 sq ft apartment, but grabbing one that's 1500 sq ft for the view.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c414e5cc9408b5328cdf86fdad68798", "text": "I would just like to point out that the actual return should be compared to your down payment, not the property price. After all, you didn't pay $400K for that property, right? You probably paid only 20%, so you're collecting $20K/year on a $80K investment, which works out to 25%. Even if you're only breaking even, your equity is still growing, thanks to your tenants. If you're also living in one of the units, then you're saving rent, which frees up cash flow. Your increased savings, combined with the contributions of your tenants will put you on a very fast track. In a few years you should have enough to buy a second property. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e20bda2b9348c44c284bb75dc8e4a975", "text": "If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This. Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year). Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement. But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills. If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting. Get this under control, by any means necessary. New job/career? Change priorities/expectations? Cut expenses? Live to your budget? Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities). Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for). Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing. You should be maxing that contribution out every year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09ebe300353b797c11573e51226490d1", "text": "Your capital gain is about $40K, which (assuming your total income is under $250K) is taxed at 15% long term capital gains rate. Additional depreciation recapture of approximately $5K is taxed at 25%. So this gives us rough estimate of $7250 tax. This is Federal tax, AZ rates are somewhere between 2% and 4%, so you'll be looking at some $1.6K additional tax to AZ. If you have accumulated rental losses or other expenses, it will lower the total amount of your gain (and, accordingly, the taxes). This is all very rough estimates, and you shouldn't rely on this but verify on your own or with a professional. I suggest using professional services because while being costly, they will probably save you more in taxes than you'll have to pay them because of the knowledge of what exactly of your expenses can be deducted and how to calculate the cost basis correctly. (edit from JoeT - the home exclusion requires occupancy for 2 of prior 5 years. For the OP, the prorated $125k exclusion 'might' cover the gain, it depends when the increase in value occurred, if the gain was during the time rented, it's taxable, I believe.)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
dac7cf54bcd6e8750bc10bb6856a7c4a	How to process IRS check as a non-resident?	[ { "docid": "990c695c06f83b04293bc55ff1980a6d", "text": "I suspect @SpehroPefhany is correct and that your bank will cash a check from the US Department of the Treasury. Especially since they're the same ones who guarantee the U.S. Dollar. They may hold the funds until the check clears, but I think you'll have good luck going through your bank. Of course, fees and exchange rate are a factor. Consider browsing the IRS and US Treasury Department websites for suggestions/FAQs. I suggest you line up a way to cash it, and make sure there's enough left after fees and exchange rate and postage to get the check that the whole process is worth it, all before you ask it to be shipped to you. If there's no way to do it through your bank, through a money exchange business (those at the airport come to mind) or through your government (postal bank?), and the check is enough that you're willing to go through some trouble, then you should look into assigning power of attorney for this purpose. I don't know if it is possible, but it might be worth looking into. Look for US based banks in your area.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a226142728bbc8549afc706baf5fdc7c", "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!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84d4f83c99c529b4aed1b5664848b939", "text": "\"When I was in this situation, I always did Married Filing Separately. In the space for spouse you just write \"\"non resident alien\"\". I'm assuming you don't make more than the Foreign Earned Income exclusion (about $100k), so the fact that you don't qualify for certain exemptions is probably irrelevant for you. As a side note, now that you are married you have \"\"a financial interest in\"\" all her bank accounts so if her and your foreign bank accounts had an aggregate value of over $10k at any point in 2015 you have until June 30th to file an FBAR, listing both her and your accounts. If you have a decent amount of assets you might need to fill out form 8938 with your tax return too. Here is a link with the reporting thresholds. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Summary-of-FATCA-Reporting-for-U.S.-Taxpayers\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d945f60dc70338f915c42b0e43fabc1", "text": "\"If a person is not a U.S. citizen and they live and work outside the U.S., then any income they make from a U.S. company or person for services provided does not qualify as \"\"U.S. Source income\"\" according to the IRS. Therefore you wouldn't need to worry about withholding or providing tax forms for them for U.S. taxes. See the IRS Publication 519 U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "740b46fcfa2d48a21f2b88ec87547131", "text": "The best thing you can do here is work with the IRS to the best of your ability. You can attempt to call them, attempt to go to one of their local branches in your area, or just hire an accountant to solve the problem. Just be mentally prepared to write a check. You could attempt to figure this all our yourself, but then a lot of tax law is open to interpretation. This is why I would recommend seeking the IRS's help if you DIY. Once you have addressed the issue to the satisfaction of the IRS agent, this will no longer be a problem. Provided you have a good attitude (which you express in your question) and are honest, I have found them very easy to work with. You will be a refreshing change of pace to the actual tax cheats. While I understand that you are not seeking advice on what got you your situation, I would like to offer some encouragement. Good for you for learning from, and addressing your mistakes. Doing this will serve you well in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00b3c587b025b5ae800f89468ba7f5d0", "text": "To be on the safe side - you'll want to get the full invoice. You don't need to actually print them, you can save it as a PDF and make sure to make your own backups once in a while. Only actually print them when the IRS asks you to kill some trees and send them a paper response, and even then you can talk to the agent in charge and check if you can email the digital file instead. The IRS won't ask for this when you file your taxes, they will only ask for this if you're under audit and they will want to actually validate the numbers on your return. You'll know when you're under audit, and who is the auditor (the agent in charge of your case). You'll also want to have some representation when that happens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8513ca6e72c64c75066de5109e156db0", "text": "(I am making the assumption that this is a US based question). Keep in mind that the alternative is to amend your tax forms from 2010, and 2011. The IRS and the State will want their money, they might not to wait for 78 paychecks. That is 3 years. Ask for lots of documentation, so you understand what they are doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f9132bfd66f5c32c2f8d94f859edcbc", "text": "\"Here's the detailed section of IRS Pub 590 It looks like you intended to have a \"\"trustee to trustee conversion\"\", but the receiving trustee dropped their ball. The bad news is, a \"\"rollover contribution\"\" needed to be done in 60 days of the distribution. There is good news, you can request an extension from the IRS, with one of the reasons if there was an error by one of the financial institutions involved. Other waivers. If you do not qualify for an automatic waiver, you can apply to the IRS for a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement. To apply for a waiver, you must submit a request for a letter ruling under the appropriate IRS revenue procedure. This revenue procedure is generally published in the first Internal Revenue Bulletin of the year. You must also pay a user fee with the application. The information is in Revenue Procedure 2016-8 in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2016-1 available at www.irs.gov/irb/2016-01_IRB/ar14.html. In determining whether to grant a waiver, the IRS will consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including: Whether errors were made by the financial institution (other than those described under Automatic waiver , earlier); Whether you were unable to complete the rollover due to death, disability, hospitalization, incarceration, restrictions imposed by a foreign country, or postal error; Whether you used the amount distributed (for example, in the case of payment by check, whether you cashed the check); and How much time has passed since the date of distribution. You can also see if you can get ETrade to \"\"recharacterize\"\" the equity position to your desired target IRA. The positive here is that the allowed decision window for calendar year 2016 rollovers is October 15 2017; the negatives are this is irrevocable, and restricts certain distributions from the target for a year (unlikely to impact your situation, but, you know, \"\"trust but verify\"\" anonymous internet advice); and it requires ETrade to recognize the original transaction was a rollover to a Roth IRA, which they currently don't. But if their system lets them put it through you could end up with the amount in a traditional IRA with no other taxable events to report, which appears to be your goal. Recharacterization FAQ\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67b68ecf5c993aeea42bb178987d334d", "text": "Yes, you are the proprietor of the business and your SSN is listed on Schedule C. The information on Schedule C is for your unincorporated business as a contractor; it is a sole proprietorship. You might choose to do this business under your own name e.g. Tim Taylor (getting paid with checks made out to Tim Taylor) or a modified name such as Tim the Tool Man Taylor (this is often referred to as DBA - Doing Business as), under a business name such as Tool Time etc. with business address being your home address or separate premises, and checking accounts to match etc. and all that is what the IRS wants to know about on Schedule C. Information about the company that paid you is not listed on Schedule C.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d67803ddbaed689189eccfe8f6a604e9", "text": "It's not just the US based mailing address for registration or US based credit-card or bank account: even if you had all these, like I do, you will find that these online filing companies do not have the infrastructure to handle non-resident taxes. The reason why the popular online filing companies do not handle non-resident taxes is because: Non-residents require a different set of forms to fill out - usually postfixed NR - like the 1040-NR. These forms have different rules and templates that do not follow the usual resident forms. This would require non-trivial programming done by these vendors All the NR forms have detailed instructions and separate set of non-resident guides that has enough information for a smart person to figure out what needs to be done. For example, check out Publication 519 (2011), U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens. As a result, by reading these most non-residents (or their accountants) seem to figure out how the taxes need to be filed. For the remaining others, the numbers perhaps are not significant enough to justify the non-trivial programming that need to be done by these vendors to incorporate the non-resident forms. This was my understanding when I did research into tax filing software. However, if you or anyone else do end up finding tax filing software that does allow non-resident forms, I wil be extremely happy to learn about them. To answer your question: you need to do it yourself or get it done by someone who knows non-resident taxes. Some people on this forum, including me for gratis, would be glad to check your work once you are done with it as long as you relieve us of any liability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35c5605589b6b4dbdea21675a10af603", "text": "There might be a problem. Some reporting paperwork will have to be done for the IRS, obviously, but technically it will be business income zeroed out by business expense. Withholding requirements will shift to your friend, which is a mess. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA) about these. But the immigration may consider this arrangement as employment, which is in violation of the visa conditions. You need to talk to an immigration attorney.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a91b36f8bb70e9b628c2e13c02aba8da", "text": "For the record, I am the original question-asker and I'm reporting back to say that the approach described in the accepted answer did not work. I am adding a new answer, rather than commenting on the accepted answer, because of the length of explanation required. I applied for an ITIN by filing a W-7 with all appropriate documentation, including a birth certificate, death certificate, and consular recognition of birth abroad (i.e., proof of U.S. citizenship). The IRS rejected the application, saying that people who are eligible for SSNs can't have ITINs. That placed me in an untenable situation, because even though the IRS said she was eligible for an SSN, the Social Security Administration said they never issue SSNs to dead people as a matter of policy. So: Insult was added to injury. It is true that I should have applied for an SSN while she was alive, in which case it would have been a simple matter. I just paid the extra tax that was due because of her not counting as a dependent during the years for which I was filing. The amount was not worth fighting over further, or renouncing my U.S. citizenship. Moral of story: Live, in all ways, as if there is no guarantee your children will be alive tomorrow. Because there is no such guarantee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a11834365a486a06411dce06c9b09bb", "text": "\"The wire is probably the quick way to go. There may be a lower cost method through an international bank like Citi or HSBC. If you are a US resident or have a \"\"substantial presence\"\" in the United States, the IRS may be interested in the origins of your money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da971f8aec74ab1da208c8d182c2eb1", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1c755a38f3d7640be1c7375a29c4961", "text": "I wouldn't do this. There is a chance that your check could get lost/misdirected/misapplied, etc. Then you would need to deal with the huge bureaucracy to try to get it fixed while interest and penalties pile up. What you can do is have the IRS withdraw the money themselves by providing the rounting number and account number of your bank. This should work whether is it a traditional brick and mortar bank or an online bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11df2c61d4b972e329f7d49fe185d5b9", "text": "I am no expert on the situation nor do I pretend to act like one, but, as a business owner, allow me to give you my personal opinion. Option 3 is closest to what you want. Why? Well: This way, you have both the record of everything that was done, and also IRS can see exactly what happened. Another suggestion would be to ask the GnuCash maintainers and community directly. You can have a chat with them on their IRC channel #gnucash, send them an email, maybe find the answer in the documentation or wiki. Popular software apps usually have both support people and a helpful community, so if the above method is in any way inconvenient for you, you can give this one a try. Hope this helps! Robert", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7441349d33409321b6c2c29a03fe4434	Why are people from UAE and Dubai so rich?	[ { "docid": "42953e3fe0bfe91c2ac1d0374e0598e0", "text": "They aren't all rich on average. And oil and gas is actually now only about 25% of the economy in the UAE (incredibly!). There are good reasons why it felt that way, though: The UAE and a number of other oil-rich nations all realize that they need to diversify away from oil revenues. International investment and tourism are the main ways in which they hope to attract capital (free trade/full foreign ownership/no-tax zones, World Cup, etc.). Business and government are often one and the same or working closely together, and they are extremely savvy about cultivating your experience in their company, and want to make sure they are doing everything in their power to get you to like and spend money in their country. Essentially, you are visiting their version of Las Vegas. Additionally, they have taken on massive debt to create those kinds of cities and experiences. According to the World Bank and the CIA (see here), the per capita GDP of the UAE on a Purchasing Price Parity basis is about 18% higher than in the US. Since much of the oil wealth is controlled by the state, it is not certain how evenly that income is distributed (World Bank and CIA statistics do not provide R/P or Gini data for UAE, while it is provided for most nations).", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "04e90f3a6a51a10dad904f03e9ceb98c", "text": "Because you already have the answer as part of your question. The wealth is concentrated in the parents generation and they are pulling the rug after them. This is done in various ways: from costs of education to costs of entitlements to costs of housing to salary stagnation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a6445afd55be4313404548fa7c1db6c", "text": "Good point. One of my former clients is an Indian immigrant who moved here to have the opportunity to create a better life. He was really passionate about affiliate marketing and created an empire here. Anyone who immigrates like that is dedicated and is more likely to succeed. I don't know nearly as many native born Indians as Koreans or Chinese come to think of it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41ba98e8ac633cd0f26eef1ebaa4d8f8", "text": "\"I'm not sure what \"\"rents\"\" you are talking about, but corporate profits are completely different from high net worth individuals. And actually, most corporate profits are reinvested (literally) or returned to investors, many of whom are less-than-rich or are institutional investors like pension funds or investment funds who in turn provide those profits to their beneficiaries. If you are suggesting that the financial industry somehow contributes nothing to society, then you must lack an understanding of the importance of liquidity to a modern economy. For an example of what happens when liquidity dries up, look no further than 2008 or Greece today. If you want your cell phone, iPad, internet, etc, then you need a financial system because there is no way a company like Apple is getting enough funding to undertake massive projects like the iPod or iPhone without major multi-national banks who can provide the leverage to make it possible. Though Apple is an admittably poor example of this as they are now so wildly successful that they have a huge pile of cash that they actually are hording. Then again, look at the investor outcry that the Apple horde unleashed. As I said, it's bad business to stockpile cash and the investors let Apple know this. So Apple distributed that cash back to investors in the form of a dividend. Much of Apple stock is owned by non-1%ers and they all now have a sweet check for thousands of dollars (on average) in their mailbox due to evil corporate America.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb28b380c9dc98a31bf144f2d5828e4e", "text": "\"You're right, but netting $150,000 a year isn't really even that tough for a savvy individual with the skill set of talented developer. \"\"Creating an app\"\" is far from the only option to make that money anyways (in fact, you're probably correct in your condescending tone mentioning it). Why would an intelligent skilled worker tether themselves to a desk in Seattle, when they could easily do just as well financially, and live where, and work when, they please? There are definitely some people who would value the steady, and certain, paycheck. But, becoming a talented developer requires a level of ambition and self-motivation in and of itself that caters to entrepreneurship well. The issue is that MSFT doesn't want to pay what good programmers are actually worth, according to the market. So, they run PR campaigns and lobby the government to bring in workers that will happily work for under true market rate. Granted, these Visa workers pay taxes, and get great jobs. That doesn't really hide the fact that these workers help lower the wages that they \"\"should\"\" be paying, according to basic supply and demand.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2eb9fcac14a964a1438a708467f2e8b", "text": "Why is one person more succesfull than another? At the end of the day I think it simply comes down to personal choices, some people will choose to invest their time in profitable indevours and some will not. This of course assumes people have a reasonable access to a mean of improvement (free education, vocational training, etc.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f", "text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ed57c04ebace079b2c46549a314472d", "text": "There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2edc549284d7bce960d16af2d8798f97", "text": "Quite a lot of reasons but mostly supply and demand. Some areas of Africa are extremely remote and just don't have things there that some of the population now want. I would guess it won't be like this for much longer but right now it is and i have met plenty of people taking advantage of that fact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba3f57b89b4d5ff295e60614da731fe1", "text": "Well, the headline is kind of true. Open boarders make all developed country labor much cheaper so the trend of the rich getting richer and every other native poorer (especially when considering externalities) would be exacerbated. What makes this article true, for The Economist, is that for The Economist 'The West' means the 'Rich People of The West Who Read The Economist'.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac5f2060b46c825b3fd816c970e854ec", "text": "The schools you refer to used to be based in the US until businesses decided to go global for cheaper labor. After the dot Com bubble burst the US tech schools disappeared. Those adventurous enough picked up and moved to places like India, Russia, China, etc and built lucrative businesses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5b8ace549a8b68a2fde3f9fff3db873", "text": "Haven't they been predicting this since 2012? The luxury housing market keeps going up due to huge demand, influx of $ from the economic and stock market boom, and technological epicenters of innovation such as the Bay Area. Not a bubble", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c293eedb83f25dabcb22559f40ee799b", "text": "\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \"\"buy\"\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \"\"basket\"\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \"\"shopping list\"\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e03ed771d098c53ef50bda20f66c0d6c", "text": "Because the macro numbers are not always relevant on a micro level and vice versa. Saudi Arabia has a GDP per capita far higher than any European county. Would you want to be a worker (i.a slave) in Saudi Arabia or a worker in Sweden? The United States is a rich country. A very rich country. But businesses going great in most major cities, and the average salary growing, doesn't really change the life of the minimum wage worker in rural New Mexico who can hardly get by without food stamps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75056fd07d30862bad206916f2cc6322", "text": "\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \"\"tax havens\"\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a10874fa663cb83d234f05f068661430", "text": "I think that's unreasonable. If you had read the article and clicked on the Amory Lovins link you would have seen this - an article in which he talks about there being more oil in Detroit than Saudi Arabia. Energy + Genius The Saudi Arabia Beneath Detroit Amory Lovins, 10.09.08, 06:00 PM EDT Radical efficiency can decouple us from oil for far less than making more.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
279556696125c86aaaaf78e5b38702d9	Are my purchases of stock, mutual funds, ETF's, and commodities investing, or speculation?	[ { "docid": "c8c5dad38920a22c3d5ef5b69831fe31", "text": "This depends on what your definition of the word is is. Strictly speaking, you are only investing in a company when you buy stock from them somehow. This is usually done during an IPO or a secondary offering. Or, if you are someone like Warren Buffet or an institutional investor, you strike a deal with the company to buy shares directly from them. Otherwise, your money goes to someone else. Merriam-Webster defines speculate as 1b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively However, it also defines it as: 2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations The typical use of the term stock speculation vs stock investing involves definition 1b. This alludes to the idea that little to no research was done about the stock. This may be due to a lack of time, interest, knowledge, etc., or it may be due to a lack of information. The former usually has a negative connotation. The latter may have a negative connotation, though usually the connotation is one of greater risk. Strictly speaking, definition 2 includes investing as you define it along with investing in securities/commodities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3203580708f5da3c2fd8f0e3fa45ffb", "text": "\"Every investment comes with a risk. There is also a bit of speculation involved. In there is an anticipation that one expects the value to go up in normal course of events. By your definition \"\"If I buy this equipment, I could produce more widgets, or sell more widgets,\"\" as an investment. Here again there is an anticipation that the widgets you sell will give you more return. If you are investing in stock/share, you are essentially holding a small portion of value in company and to that extent you are owining some equipment that is producing some widget .... Hence when you are purchasing Stocks, it would be looked as investment if you have done your home work and have a good plan of how you want to invest along with weiging the risk involved. However if you are investing only for the purpose of making quick bucks following so called hot tips, then you are not investing but speculating.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d6f870f48d0f4bf8e0c576af96e9095", "text": "\"I'd argue the two words ought to (in that I see this as a helpful distinction) describe different activities: \"\"Investing\"\": spending one's money in order to own something of value. This could be equipment (widgets, as you wrote), shares in a company, antiques, land, etc. It is fundamentally an act of buying. \"\"Speculating\"\": a mental process in which one attempts to ascertain the future value of some good. Speculation is fundamentally an act of attempted predicting. Under this set of definitions, one can invest without speculating (CDs...no need for prediction) and speculate without investing (virtual investing). In reality, though, the two often go together. The sorts of investments you describe are speculative, that is, they are done with some prediction in mind of future value. The degree of \"\"speculativeness\"\", then, has to be related to the nature of the attempted predictions. I've often seen that people say that the \"\"most speculative\"\" investments (in my use above, those in which the attempted prediction is most chaotic) have these sorts of properties: And there are probably other ideas that can be included. Corrections/clarifications welcome! P.S. It occurs to me that, actually, maybe High Frequency Trading isn't speculative at all, in that those with the fastest computers and closest to Wall Street can actually guarantee many small returns per hour due to the nature of how it works. I don't know enough about the mechanics of it to be sure, though.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "90bdd7f66a5eab95999751e639d22c58", "text": "It's important to distinguish between speculation and investing. Buying something because you hope to make money on market fluctuations is speculation. Buying something and expecting to make money because your money is providing actual economic value is investing. If Person A buys 100 shares of a stock with the intent of selling them in a few hours, and Person B buys 100 shares of the same stock with the intent of holding on to it for a year, then obviously at that point they both have the same risk. The difference comes over the course of the year. First, Person B is going to be making money from the economic value the company provides over the whole year, while the only way Person A can make money is from market fluctuation (the economic value the company provides over the course of an hour is unlikely to be significant). Person B is exposed to the risk of buying the stock, but that's counterbalanced by the profit from holding the stock for a year, while Person A just has the risk. Second, if Person A is buying a new stock every hour, then they're going to have thousands of transactions. So even though Person B assumed just as much risk as Person A for that one transaction, Person A has more total risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a70f3bb1503144ad1c52173d8d7638ba", "text": "I can't give you a detailed answer because I'm away from the computer where I use kMyMoney, but IIRC to add investments you have to create new transactions on the 'brokerage account' linked to your investment account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7267ed8a07c0fd35ff1c57bf27b1890", "text": "\"If your intention is to purchase ETFs on a regular basis (like $x per month), then ETFs may not make sense. You may have to pay a fixed transaction cost like you were buying a stock for each purchase. In a similar no load mutual fund, there are more likely to be no transaction costs (depending on how it is bought). The above paragraph is not very definitive, and is really dependent upon how you would purchase either ETFs or Mutual funds. For example if you have a Fidelity brokerage account, they may let you buy certain ETFs commission free. Okay then either ETFs make great sense. It would not make sense to buy ones that they charge $35 per transaction if you have regular transactions that are smallish. The last two questions seem to be asking if you should buy MF or buy stocks directly. For most people the later is a losing proposition. They do not have the time or ability to buy stocks directly, effectively. Even if they did they may not have the capital to make enough of a difference when one considers all the cost involved. However, if that kind of thing interests you, perhaps you should dabble. Start out small and look at the higher costs of doing so as part of the \"\"cost of doing business\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7068685da6d41e4de33c1724134345", "text": "From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a4e4abcd575badb34535fc1c59aed9d", "text": "\"Once upon a time I ran my own micro hedge fund for a very short time. I can't recall the term commonly used in the industry for such info, but a few individuals, including the prime brokerage firm's founder, offered information of questionable character. I refused to trade on any of it, not only because of the borderline illegality, but also because I didn't trust any of it... seemed to be more rumor mill type nonsense than anything else. Moreover, if they already have that info, then it's already up/down... so it then goes the reverse direction as they take profits. As is commonly said even in normal investor circles: \"\"buy the rumor, sell the news.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7ce8a8943cebbacfc68a2735d5f6f1d", "text": "\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \"\"derivative\"\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ecc829e44d10e0c8b04e51d2ec5afa0", "text": "I'd say that the assets are 'invested' in non-productive sectors of the economy such as the finance sector. Also in pure market speculation and in revolving corporate acquisitions which inflate the nominal money supply but don't increase either physical production or services delivered by one thimble or one minute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8958b5c15f7245431cc66cdfeca66ed0", "text": "Questrade is a Canada based broker offering US stock exchange transactions as well. It says this right on their homepage. ETFs are traded like stocks, so the answer is yes. Why did you think they only offered funds?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afafec3ae79fa797fcb2e00de3988080", "text": "For reporting purposes, I would treat the purchase and sale of gold like a purchase and sale of a stock. The place to do so is Schedule D. (And if it's the wrong form, but you reported it, there is might not be a penalty, whereas there is a penalty for NOT reporting.) The long term gain would be at capital gains rates. The short term gain would be at ordinary income rates. And if you have two coins bought at two different times, you get to choose which one to report (as long as you report the OTHER one when you sell the second coin).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da5f2a34222c2803b5973c53d2a3b84", "text": "That's up to you. If you instruct your broker to sell shares purchased in specific lots, they can do that -- but doing so requires that you and/or they track specific fractional lots forever afterwards so you know what is still there to be sold. FIFO simplifies the bookkeeping. And I am not convinced selecting specific lots makes much difference; the government gets its share of your profits sooner or later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "682165f77ed71998649642d3aa00e5ba", "text": "Do not buy any commodity tracking ETF without reading and understanding the prospectus. Some of these things get exposure to the underlying commodity via swaps or other hocus-pocus derivatives, so you're really buying credit obligations from some bank. Others are futures based, and you need to understand your potential upside AND downside. If you think that oil prices are going to continue to rise, you should look into sector funds, or better yet individual stocks that are in the oil or associated businesses. Alternatively, look at alternative investments like natural gas producers or pipeline operators.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28c3769204c0b204ec13178055a4e54f", "text": "I traded penny stocks for a bit then switched over after I found out the bitcoin I bought was worth $1400 each years ago when it first inflated. Now I trade BTC, LTC and NMC. Only trading coins I believe in and will be around long term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5577687015abf8effe0f8e71efa4b86", "text": "The Oil futures are exactly that. They are people forecasting the price of oil at a point of time in the future where they are willing to buy oil at that price. That said, Do you have evidence of a correlation of Price of oil to the shares of oil stocks? Oil companies that are good investments are generally good investments regardless of the cost of oil. If you did not know about oil futures then you might be best served by consulting an investment professional for some guidance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f394647d4735e0a8711fdef592b1ab1b", "text": "\"If you're simply a futures speculator, then yes, it does seem like gambling. If you're a farmer producing a few thousand bushels of wheat, futures can be a mechanism for you to hedge against certain kinds of market risk. Same if you're running a heating oil company, etc. I just read somewhere that the bad spring weather in South Dakota has prevented farmers from getting corn planted -- nothing is in the ground yet. This is \"\"objective data\"\" from which you might infer that this year's corn harvest could be late and/or smaller than normal. So maybe if you're a buyer for General Mills, you use corn futures to control your costs. In this case you'd have some idea based on experience what to expect for the price of corn, what your production line requires for input, how much you can charge for finished product, etc. These all factor in to the price you'd be willing to pay for corn futures.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d29d77741a347e7ea441819994e91234", "text": "Let me first give you my definitions of the words 'investor' and 'speculator'. To me, anyone looking to 'buy low, sell high' is a speculator. Only 'buy and hold' people are investors. The news agencies love to report on changes in the price of a stock. This gives them something to talk about. So speculation is encouraged by the news media. What investors care about is dividends. In my opinion whatwhat news agencies should report on are changes to the dividend provided by a security. I used to be a speculator, but now that I am retired I am an investor.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
503f55dc8d8f997cc44956ab51181998	What is the minimum age for early retirement	[ { "docid": "c611b25114ee2d6f21e9dcee7c9b1175", "text": "You can withdraw from CPP as early as 60. However, by doing so, you will permanently reduce the payments. The reduction is calculated based on average life expectancies. If you live for an average amount of time, that means you'll receive approximately the same total amount (after inflation adjustments) whether you start pulling from CPP at 60, 65, or even delay your pension later. People may have pensions through systems other than CPP. This is often true for big business or government work. They may work differently. People who retire at 55 with a pension are not getting their pension through CPP. A person retiring at 55 would need to wait at least five years to draw from the CPP, and ten years before he or she was eligible for a full pension through CPP. Canada also offers Old Age Security (OAS). This is only available once you are 65 years old or older, though this is changing. Starting in 2023, this will gradually change to 67 years or older. See this page for more details. As always, it's worth pointing out that the CPP and OAS will almost certainly not cover your full retirement expenses and you will need supplementary funds.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a93ff8c81440a0370a8a7e013b55910e", "text": "In Australia anyone thinking about retirement should be concentrating on superannuation. Contribution is compulsory (I think the current minimum contribution rate is 9.5% of salary) and both contributions and investment returns are very tax efficient. The Government site is quite comprehensive - http://www.australia.gov.au/topics/economy-money-and-tax/superannuation - have a read and come back with any specific questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0aa776a9b3efd7a2ab769f190a63fce", "text": "It's important to have both long term goals and milestones along the way. In an article I wrote about saving 15% of one's income, I offered the following table: This table shows savings starting at age 20 (young, I know, so shift 2 years out) and ending at 60 with 18-1/2 year's of income saved due to investment returns. The 18-1/2 results in 74% of one's income replaced at retirement if we follow the 4% rule. One can adjust this number, assuming Social Security will replace 30%, and that spending will go down in retirement, you might need to save less than this shows. What's important is that as a starting point, it shows 2X income saved by age 30. Perhaps 1X is more reasonable. You are at just over .5X and proposing to spend nearly half of that on a single purchase. Financial independence means to somehow create an income you can live on without the need to work. There are many ways to do it, but it usually starts with a high saving rate. Your numbers suggest a good income now, but maybe this is only recently, else you'd have over $200K in the bank. I suggest you read all you can about investments and the types of retirement accounts, including 401(k) (if you have that available to you), IRA, and Roth IRA. The details you offer don't allow me to get much more specific than this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a8e68ad5843b6d0ddcc14b8d75ff039", "text": "\"For allocation, there's rules of thumb. 120-age is the percentage some folks recommend for stock market (high risk) allocation. With the balance in bonds, and a bit of international fund to add some more diversity. However, everyone needs to determine how much risk they're willing to take, and what their horizon is. Once you figure out your allocation, determine how much of your surplus goes into investing, and how much goes into short term savings for your short term financial goals such as purchasing a home. I would highly recommend reading about \"\"Financial Independence, Retire Early\"\" (FIRE). Most of the articles I've seen on it were folks in the US, with the odd Canadian and Brit, but the principles should be able to work in the Netherlands with adjustment. The idea behind FIRE is that you adjust your lifestyle to minimize expenses and save as much of your income as possible. When the growth of your savings is > the amount you spend on a yearly basis, you've reached financial independence and can retire any time you wish. CD ladder is a good idea for your emergency fund, but CDs (at least in the US) usually pay around the same rate as inflation, give or take. A ladder would help you preserve your emergency fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "784cb2be1c502b62fa8b164bb34b0697", "text": "Here's another answer on the topic: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? An angle on it this question made me think of: a good approach here is to focus on savings rate (which you can control) rather than the final number (which you can't, plus it will fluctuate with the markets and make you nervous). For example, focus on saving at least 10% of your income annually (15% is much safer). If you focus on the final number: The way it works in the real world is that you save as much as you can, but there are lots of random factors and unknowns. Some people end up having to work a lot longer than they hoped to. Others end up able to retire early. Others retire on time but have to spend less than they hoped. But the one thing you can often control (as long as you have an income and no catastrophes, anyway) is that you spend less than you make.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caf48708dcdc273ce87c8acb2d58e838", "text": "I think the chances of them changing the rules without grandfathering in people of retirement age (pun intended) are pretty small. The general rule of thumb on this issue seems to be to wait to get the full amount if you have sufficient resources that you don't expect to need the money earlier. That is, unless you have some reason to not expect much longevity (family history of dying young, current medical condition, etc.) Ultimately, however, this is a big financial decision that is best made with the help of a good financial adviser/actuary. There are a large number of variables to be considered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2526e907334ed9304e9696e995828b26", "text": "There are two different ages, one where you can start withdrawing from the account, and a higher age where you must start withdrawing (at a minimum rate). The withdrawals are treated like regular income, so they get taxed according to the same rates, and with the same deductions, as a salary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa03af2b05fb3ae069d84373a2342695", "text": "I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc5ab13ec048f5bc308e798782c73ef4", "text": "\"Your question is based on incorrect assumptions. Generally, there's no \"\"penalty\"\", per se, to make a withdrawal from your RRSP, even if you make a withdrawal earlier than retirement, however you define it. A precise meaning for \"\"retirement\"\" with respect to RRSPs is largely irrelevant.* Our U.S. neighbours have a 10% penalty on non-hardship early withdrawals (before age 59 &half;) from retirement accounts like the 401k and IRA. It's an additional measure designed to discourage early withdrawals, and raise more tax. Yet, in Canada, there is no similar penalty. Individual investments inside your RRSP may have associated penalties, such as the dreaded \"\"deferred sales charge\"\" (DSC) of some back-end loaded mutual funds, or such as LSVCC funds that generated additional special tax credits that could get clawed back. Yet, these early withdrawal penalties are distinct from the RRSP nature of your account. Choose your investments carefully to avoid these kinds of surprises. Rather, an RRSP is a tax-deferred account, and it works like this: The government allows you to claim a nice juicy tax deduction, which can reduce your income tax at your marginal rate in the year you make a contribution, or later if you should choose to defer the deduction. The resulting pre-tax money accumulated in your RRSP benefits from further tax deferral: assets can grow without attracting annual income tax on earned interest, dividends, or capital gains. You don't need to declare on your income tax return any of the income earned inside your RRSP, unlike a regular investment account. Here's the rub: Once you decide to withdraw money from your RRSP, the entire amount withdrawn is considered regular income in the year in which you make the withdrawal. Thus, your withdrawals are subject to income tax, and yes, at your marginal rate. This is always the case, whether before or after retirement. You mentioned two special programs: The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP), and the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP). Neither the HBP nor the LLP permit tax-free withdrawals. Rather, each of these programs are special kinds of loans that you can borrow from your own RRSP. HBP and LLP loan money isn't taxed when you get it because you are required to pay it back, and you pay it back into your own RRSP: You always pay income tax at your marginal rate on your RRSP withdrawals.** * Above, I said a precise meaning for \"\"retirement\"\" with respect to RRSPs is largely irrelevant. Yet, there are ages that matter: By the end of the year in which you turn 71, you are required to convert your RRSP to a RRIF. It's similar, but you can no longer contribute, and you must withdraw a minimum amount each year. Other circumstances related to age may qualify for minor tax relief intended for retirees, such as the Age Amount or the Pension Income Credit. Generally, such measures don't significantly change the fact that you pay income tax on RRSP withdrawals at your marginal rate – these measures raise the minimum you can take out without attracting tax, but most do nothing at the margin. Exception: One might split eligible pension income with a spouse or common-law partner, which may reduce tax at the margin.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebb37efcf6c6f324d1e273efd6ad2bce", "text": "You don't have to retire. But the US government and other national governments have programs that allow you to set aside money when you are young to be used when you are older. To encourage you to do this, they reduce your taxes either now or when your are older. They also allow your employer to match your funds. In the US they have IRAs, 401Ks, and Social Security. You are not required to stop working while tapping into these funds. Having a job and using these funds will impact your taxes, but your are not forbidden from doing both. Decades ago most retirement funds come from pensions and Social Security. Most people are going to reach their senior years without a pension, or with only a very small pension because they had one in one of their early jobs. So go ahead, gamble that you will not need to save for retirement. Then hope that decades later you were right about it, because you can't go back in time and fix your choice. Some never save for retirement, either because they can't or they think they can't. Many that don't save end up working longer than they imagined. Some work everyday until they die, or are physically unable to work. Sometimes it is because they love the job, but often it is because they cannot afford to quit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ffd13c2c0ad671cdd3d9c8a7843058e", "text": "Yes you can't simply withdraw your super until you are aged 60 (and that may go up slightly on Budget night 13/05/14). But you can roll it over into a SMSF where you decide where you invest your super funds. However, I would advise against you starting a SMSF at this early age with a very small super fund account. The Admin. and audit fees would eat your super account up in one year. It is recommended that you have at least $300,000 to $400,000 in super fund assets before starting a SMSF to make the fees competitive and efficient. Now if you are with a partner and start a SMSF together, then it is your combined funds that need to be over the $300K mark (a SMSF can have between 1 to 4 members). The cheapest fund I could find was First State Super. The fees are $52 + 0.64% per year (for the High Growth option). So for a balance of $1000 you would pay $58.40 or 5.84% per year. The High Growth Investment Option has returned 18.4% over the last year, 12.7% pa over the last 5 years, and 8.2% pa over the last 10 years (which includes the period covering the GFC). So even with a small balance of $1000 your super investment will still continue to grow. If you could slowly grow your super account to $2000 your fees would be $64.80 or 3.24%, and at $3000 balance your fees would be $71.20 or 2.37%. The great thing about super is the tax advantages. You may be complaining now about fees on a small balance, and yes you should try to minimise these fees, not only when you have a small balance but also when your balance is larger, but the tax advantages available through superannuation will really come into play when you are on a high income paying the tax at or near the highest marginal tax rate. Compare the top marginal tax rate (plus Medicare Levy) at 46.5% compared to the tax rate of 15% on super contributions and investment returns. And it gets better, when you retire and take a pension or lump sum from your super after age 60 you pay zero tax on the income stream or lump sum. and you also pay zero tax on any ongoing investment returns in your super. The benefits of superannuation are numerous, and the best way to reduce your fees for now is to find a fund with lowest fees, try to increase your balance so your percentage fees go down, and try to consolidate all your super funds into the one with the lowest fees, if you have more than one super fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa9b83d82c951d0886a1830938e9b1d7", "text": "You can get an investment manager through firms like Fidelity or E*Trade to manage your account. It won't be someone dedicated exclusively to you, but you're in the range where they'd take you as a managed account customer. Another option would be to get a financial planner (CFP or something) help you to identify your needs and figure out what your investments portfolio should look like. This is not a whole lot of money, but is definitely enough to have an early retirement if managed and invested properly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c20fd7286305487ef74ec5c7d350402", "text": "I found that the Target Date funds for Vanguard have a lower minimum, only $1,000. They are spaced every 5 years from 2010 to 2060. They are available as: General Account, IRA, UGMA/UTMA and Education Saving Account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "996b732e38a70f90a62d98cbc95f0edd", "text": "A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6d77235a21a853831a355be838e8dc5", "text": "It depends on the vesting schedule and the likelihood you'll be there long enough to get any vesting. A typical 6 year schedule gets you 20% after 2 years. You already know you'll be there 1 year, so now you need to decide if you'll last 2 years. Unless you know for sure you won't last 2 years, you should take the match on the 4%. Suppose your retirement plan earns 10%. If you leave before 2 years, compared with your 18% you're only behind by 8% return. But if you last 2 years, you'd be making a 32% return on that same amount. After 3 years you'd make 54%, and up it goes from there until you hit a 120% return after 6 years. I'd take the match simply because you have a lot more to gain than you have to lose if you leave early.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d0ca4aa62e63f9d94c1702c75d5c991", "text": "\"Unless your 401(k) plan is particularly good (i.e. good fund choices with low fees), you probably want to contribute enough to get the maximum match from your employer, then contribute to an IRA through a low-cost brokerage like Vanguard or Fidelity, then contribute more to your 401(k). As JoeTaxpayer said, contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn tax- and penalty-free, so they are useful for early retirement. But certainly use your 401(k) as well--the tax benefits almost certainly outweigh the difficulty in accessing your money. JB King's link listing ways to access retirement money before the traditional age is fairly exhaustive. One of the main ways you may want to consider that hasn't been highlighted yet is IRS section 72(t) i.e. substantially equal periodic payments (SEPP). With this rule you can withdraw early from retirement plans without penalties. You have a few different ways of calculating the withdrawal amount. The main risk is you have to keep withdrawing that amount for the greater of five years or until you reach age 59½. In your case this is is only 4-5 years, which isn't too bad. Finally, in addition to being able to withdraw from a Roth IRA tax- and penalty-free, you can do the same for Roth conversions, provided 5 years have passed. So after you leave a job, you can rollover 401(k) money to a traditional IRA, then convert to a Roth IRA (the caveat being you have to pay taxes on the amount as income at this point). But after 5 years you can access the money without penalty, and no taxes since they've already been paid. This is commonly called a \"\"Roth conversion ladder\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b59074ff58ed812a254032987a03d398	Do companies only pay dividends if they are in profit?	[ { "docid": "6b26c6ae27d69eeeec92b4c8b16ce259", "text": "Yes the company can still pay dividends even if they aren't making a profit. 1) If the firm has been around, it might have made profits in the past years, which it might be still carrying (check for retained earnings in the financial statements). 2) Some firms in the past have had taken up debt to return the money to shareholders as dividends. 3) It might sell a part of it's assets and return the gain as dividends. 4) They might be bought by some other firm, which returns cash to shareholders to keep them happy. It pays to keep an eye on the financial statements of the company to check how much liquid money they might be carrying around to pay shareholders as dividends. They can stop paying dividends whenever they want. Apple didn't pay a dividend while Steve Jobs was around, even though they were making billions in profits. Many companies don't pay dividends because they find it more beneficial to continue investing in their business rather than returning money to shareholders.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2f950e48b5b647f608e84a5e1e387e60", "text": "Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce", "text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "354b30beb9a55fa25cc1a12b002fd1ca", "text": "This is how capital shares in split capital investment trusts work they never get any dividend they just get the capital when the company is wound up", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a60299283d4304455f80044b59c59161", "text": "Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more. If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0a0740c1b6d3078decfcc0ed1551c3a", "text": "No, just as the profits from the bank do not go to their personal accounts and instead go to the banks coffers, where they are paid out as a dividend. If your company makes a mistake and loses money, do they draw it from your account?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "743d2e65a512c9a50e965e0a1b4a80f0", "text": "\"Dividends telegraph that management has a longer term focus than just the end of quarter share price. There is a committment to at least maintain (if not periodically increase) the dividend payout year over year. Management understands that cutting or pausing dividends will cause dividend investors in market to dump shares driving down the stock price. Dividends can have preferential tax treatment in some jurisdictions, either for an individual compared to capital gains or compared to the corporation paying taxes themselves. For example, REITs (real estate investment trusts) are a type of corporation that in order to not pay corporate income tax are required to pay out 95% of income as dividends each year. These are not the only type, MLP (master limited partnerships) and other \"\"Partnership\"\" structures will always have high dividend rates by design. Dividends provide cash flow and trade market volatility for actual cash. Not every investor needs cash flow, but for certain investors, it reduces the risks of a liquidity crisis, such as in retirement. The alternative for an investor who seeks to use the sale of shares would be to maintain a sufficient cash reserve for typical market recessions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb0b832c419be0fca81b784603de9143", "text": "Earnings per share are not directly correlated to share price. NV Energy, the company you cited as an example, is an electric utility. The growth patterns and characteristics of utilities are well-defined, so generally speaking the value of the stock is driven by the quality of the company's cash flow. A utility with a good history of dividend increases, a dividend that is appropriate given the company's fiscal condition, (ie. A dividend that is not more than 80% of earnings) and a good outlook will be priced competitively. For other types of companies cash flow or even profits do not matter -- the prospects of future earnings matter. If a growth stock (say Netflix as an example) misses its growth projections for a quarter, the stock value will be punished.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7dd76f29cf8950aa0e1eeaa822ed576", "text": "Yes, absolutely. Consider Microsoft, Updated Jan. 17, 2003 11:59 p.m. ET Software giant Microsoft Corp., finally bowing to mounting pressure to return some of its huge cash hoard to investors, said it will begin paying a regular annual dividend to shareholders. From Wall Street Journal. Thus, for the years prior to 2003, the company didn't pay dividends but changed that. There can also be some special one-time dividends as Microsoft did the following year according to the Wall Street Journal: The $32 billion one-time dividend payment, which comes to $3 for each share of Microsoft stock, could be a measurable stimulus to the U.S. economy -- and is expected to arrive just in time for holiday shopping. Course companies can also reduce to stop dividends as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4731dfb1db064ae942c8e2fd7c36e757", "text": "\"Dividends are declared by the board of directors of a corporation on date A, to stock holders of record on date B (a later date). These stockholders then receive the declared dividend on date C, the so-called payment date. All of these dates are announced on the first (declaration) date. If there is no announcement, no dividend will be paid. The stock typically goes down in price by approximately the amount of the dividend on the date it \"\"goes ex,\"\" but then moves in price to reflect other developments, including the possibility of another declaration/payment, three months hence. Dividends are important to some investors, especially those who live on the income. They are less important to investors who are out for capital gains (and who may prefer that the company reinvest its money to seek such gains instead of paying dividends). In actual fact, dividends are one component of \"\"total\"\" or overall return. The other component is capital gains, and the sum of the two represents your return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a", "text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "613fb19903e86d17b4d0dae3b5a7afe7", "text": "One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67678b24e00d599afb2ad4f0fb52c905", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65341cfd9b4397498cdd8102ad2dbd20", "text": "No. Share are equity in companies that usually have revenue streams and/or potential for creating them. That revenue can be used to pay out dividends to the shareholders or to grow the company and increase its value. Most companies get their revenue from their customers, and customers rarely give their money to a company without getting some good or service in exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95016e01b71321938f2cd9859aed3f34", "text": "If you have a public company and shareholder A owns 25% and shareholder B owns 25%, and lets say the remaining 50% is owned by various funds/small investors. Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730", "text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4ab72b52fcc84ac704f50b974b2d9568	Which technical indicators are suitable for medium-term strategies?	[ { "docid": "a27a2131386bb326d295d3241415a143", "text": "If I knew a surefire way to make money in FOREX (or any market for that matter) I would not be sharing it with you. If you find an indicator that makes sense to you and you think you can make money, use it. For what it's worth, I think technical analysis is nonsense. If you're just now wading in to the FOREX markets because of the Brexit vote I suggest you set up a play-money account first. The contracts and trades can be complicated, losses can be very large and you can lose big -- quickly. I suspect FOREX brokers have been laughing to the bank the last couple weeks with all the guppies jumping in to play with the sharks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d21c1340705ac92ff3ff9454d231cd7d", "text": "Speaking from stock market point of view, superficially, TA is similarly applicable to day trading, short term, medium term and long term. You may use different indicators in FX compared to the stock market, but I would expect they are largely the same types of things - direction indicators, momentum indicators, spread indicators, divergence indicators. The key thing with TA or even when trading anything, is that when you have developed a system, that you back test it, to prove that it will work in bear, bull and stagnant markets. I have simple systems that are fine in strong bull markets but really poor in stagnant markets. Also have a trading plan. Know when you are going to exit and enter your trades, what criteria and what position size. Understand how much you are risking on each trade and actively manage your risk. I urge caution over your statement ... one weakened by parting the political union but ought to bounce back ... We (my UK based IT business) have already lost two potential clients due to Brexit. These companies are in FinServ and have no idea of what is going to happen, so I would respectfully suggest that you may have less knowledge than professionals, who deal in currency and property ... but one premise of TA is that you let the chart tell you what is happening. In any case trade well, and with a plan!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8a9e5b48462236d2c9f48d836295b40f", "text": "Yes, it makes sense. Like Lagerbaer says, the usefulness of technical indicators can not be answered with a simple yes or no. Some people gain something from it, others do not. Aside from this, applying technical indicators (or any other form of technical analysis - like order flow) to instruments which are composed of other instruments, such as indexes (more accurately, a derivative of it), does make sense. There are many theories why this is the case, but personally i believe it is a mixture of self fulfilling prophecy, that the instruments the index is composed of (like the stocks in the S&P500) are traded in similar ways as the index (or rather a trade-able derivative of it like ETFs and futures), and the idea that TA just represents human emotion and interaction in trading. This is a very subjective topic, so take this with a grain of salt, but in contrast to JoeTaxpayer i believe that yields are not necessary in order to use TA successfully. As long as the given instrument is liquid enough, TA can be applied and used to gain an edge. On the other hand, to answer your second question, not all stocks in an index correlate all the time, and not all of them will move in sync with the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02e7e6416c346bea938301c41d6f9366", "text": "Fundamental Analysis can be used to help you determine what to buy, but they won't give you an entry signal for when to buy. Technical Analysis can be used to help you determine when to buy, and can give you entry signals for when to buy. There are many Technical Indicator which can be used as an entry signal, from as simple as the price crossing above a moving average line and then selling when the price crosses back below the moving average line, to as complicated as using a combination of indicators to all line up for an entry signal to be valid. You need to find the entry signals that would suit your investing or trading and incorporate them as part of your trading plan. If you want to learn more about entry signals you are better off learning more about Technical Analysis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e7fa2cff773fce251baa01ef94778ef", "text": "We have custom software written in mostly C# for the long term strategies. Day trading is done on multiple platforms. Currently using ToS scripts for some futures and equities strategies to great success, and sierra charts for a few futures exclusively. I just moved into a position to work with day trading so I'm still learning more about the systems he uses", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87fd0ffbacf2f9c408959b74bf24807b", "text": "I interned at a wealth management firm that used very active momentum trading, 99% technicals. Strictly ETFs (indexes, currencies, commodities, etc), no individual equities. They'd hold anywhere from 1-4 weeks, then dump it as soon as the chart starts turning over. As soon as I get enough capital I'm adopting their same exact strategy, it's painfully easy", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81c016998574efc6dbf2244659066d3b", "text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50532dba417e7878dd4042a85918e8ac", "text": "Look into commodities futures & options. Unfortunately, they are not trivial instruments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95c9136b6a18a7bfe1e2b2a665febe59", "text": "Information is useless in this case. IR is useful when you are trying to replicate the risk exposures of an index and beat it. I.E.If I am a tech fund, I would compare myself to the tech S&P. IR is useless in this case as it is just the ratio of excess returns over the benchmark to vol. From a trading sense he needs a rate of wins to losses, so a sharpe like construct of R/SemiDeviation. Essentially his avg return divided by negative volatility. Going further on that is omega which introduces a threshold as in trading you care more about the equity curve so MAXDD is probably more relevant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a", "text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60ceb43c0ecd568017e8c3bdf28bdb17", "text": "While historical performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance, I like to look at the historical performance of the markets for context. Vanguard's portfolio allocation models is one source for this data. Twenty years is a long term timeline. If you're well diversified in passively managed index funds, you should be positioned well for the future. You've lost nothing until it's realized or you sell. Meanwhile, you still own an asset that has value. As Warren Buffet says, buy low and sell high.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fa92ad0902f38740df9ef82aa632621", "text": "\"[Toronto, 1 August 2014](http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/news/2014/20140801-pmi.html) - kanadiske produsenter erfarne en ytterligere bedring i hele virksomhetsforhold i juli, ifølge den [RBC Canadian Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index (RBC PMI)](https://www.rbcwmfa.com/thewoogroup/), drevet av raskere stiger, nye ordrer og sysselsetting i begynnelsen av tredje kvartal. I mellomtiden input kostnadsinflasjon fortsatte til moderat, som i sin tur bidro til laveste veksten i produsentenes produksjon kostnader så langt i år. En månedlig undersøkelse, i samarbeid med Markit og tjenester ledende global finansiell informasjon i Supply Chain Management Association (SCMA), RBCPMI tilbyr en omfattende og tidlig indikator på trender i kanadiske industrien. På 54.3 i juli handelspartnere opp fra 53.5 i juni, overskriften RBC kanadiske Manufacturing PMI postet over nøytral 50.0 verdien for sekstende påfølgende måned. Siste lesing var høyest siden November 2013 og signaliserte en robust generell forbedring i produksjon sektor forretningsforhold. \"\"Canadas produsenter sparket av andre halvdel av 2014 sterkere fotfeste, tydelig fordel fra bedre global økonomisk aktivitet-det er oppmuntrende å se momentum,\"\" sa Paul Ferley, assisterende sjef økonom, RBC. \"\"Med den amerikanske økonomien dytter videre, vi forventer denne trenden vil fortsette.\"\" Overskriften RBC PMI gjenspeiler endringer, nye ordrer, sysselsetting, varelager og leveringstid for leverandør. Viktige funn fra juli undersøkelsen inkluderer: - Skarpeste forbedring i forretningsvilkår siden November 2013 - En pick up i produksjon og nye bestillinger vekst - Bemanningen steg for sjette etterfølgende måned Sterkere priser av produksjon og ny vekst var nøkkelen positiv innflytelse på overskriften indeksen i juli. Siste data signaliserte at produksjonsvekst i industrien akselerert for andre måned kjører og var den raskeste siden November 2013. Ny vekst også gjenvunnet fart så langt i sommer, med den siste økningen i innkommende nytt arbeid de bratteste på åtte måneder. Rapporter fra spørreundersøkelsen sitert underliggende etterspørselen og større tillit blant klienter. Videre ble nye business inntak også støttet av sterkere eksport salg i juli, med nye eksport ordre vekstraten den mest merkede siden mars. Økt etterspørsel mønstre bidro til en økning i ordrereserven arbeid over industrien sjette påfølgende måned i juli. Gjeldende periode av økende mengder uferdig arbeid er den lengste opptak av undersøkelsen for tre år, som i sin tur støttes videre produksjon jobb etableringen. Nyeste dataene viser til en solid økning i lønn tall med hastighet på vekst i sysselsettingen nådde sin sterkeste siden September 2013. Juli data indikerte at produsentene fortsatte å øke volumene inngang kjøpe i juli, og den siste utvidelsen av kjøper aktiviteten var de bratteste i 2014 hittil. Til tross for en solid økning i input kjøpe, pre-produksjon lager volumer dyppet for tredje måned kjører. I mellomtiden bestander av ferdigvarer også redusert i juli. Siste reduksjon i post-produksjon varelager var den skarpeste for 12 måneder, med noen firmaer Siterer sterkere enn forventet salg på sine fabrikker. I mellomtiden input kostnadsinflasjon lettet videre fra nær-tre år høy sett i løpet av mars. Selv om fortsatt skarp, var den siste økningen i gjennomsnittlig kostnad byrder den minste merkede siden januar. En mykere økning i input prisene i juli bidratt til svakeste økningen i produsentenes produksjon kostnader siden desember 2013. Regionale høydepunkter inkluderer: - Quebec fortsatte å registrere sterkeste oppgangen i generelle forretningsvilkår - Alle fire regioner signaliserte en økning i produksjon sysselsetting nivåer... - .. .led av Quebec og Ontario - Nye eksportere ordrer steg i alle fire regioner overvåket av undersøkelsen \"\"Canadian produsenter har laget en lyse start til tredje kvartal 2014, som fremhevet av sterkere vekst og en annen bedring salgsvolum i juli, sier Cheryl Paradowski, president og administrerende direktør, SCMA. \"\"Derfor den siste undersøkelsen tyder en avgjørende dreining mot raskere vekst over industrien i sommer, med produksjon, ny virksomhet og sysselsetting alle stiger på raskeste priser sett så langt i år. Videre er forretningsforhold bedre mot en bakgrunn av mykgjørende kostnadspress, som i sin tur bidro til laveste økningen i produsentenes produksjon kostnader siden slutten av 2013.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3749bd9223d2080c026d8c67c9ac9201", "text": "\"Translation : Funds managers that use traditionnal methods to select stocks will have less success than those who use artificial intelligence and computer programs to select stocks. Meaning : The use of computer programs and artificial intelligence is THE way to go for hedge fund managers in the future because they give better results. \"\"No man is better than a machine, but no machine is better than a man with a machine.\"\" Alternative article : Hedge-fund firms, Wall Street Journal. A little humour : \"\"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.\"\" wrote Nicolas Boileau in 1674.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b809e27c7650e4615cd9a31b7744ab4f", "text": "From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8313daf3ed3b50a118993059f1fd633f", "text": "\"Although is not online, I use a standalone version from http://jstock.sourceforge.net It got drag-n-drop boxes, to let me design my own indicators. However, it only contain technical analysis information, not fundamental analysis information. It does come with tutorial http://jstock.sourceforge.net/help_stock_indicator_editor.html#indicator-example, on how to to build an indicator, to screen \"\"Stock which Its Price Hits Their 14 Days Maximum\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06b62c09e55c622ec61569b475874023", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0fd5f580d29bb7dc0d3a235d31ffdf2", "text": "\"All of these frameworks, Markowitz, Mean/CVaR, CARA, etc sit inside a more general framework which is that \"\"returns are good\"\" and \"\"risk/lack of certainty in the returns is bad\"\", and there's a tradeoff between the two encoded as some kind of risk aversion number. You can measure \"\"lack of certainty in returns\"\" by vol, CVaR, weighted sum of higher moments, but even sector/region concentration. Similarly do I want more \"\"returns\"\" or \"\"log returns\"\" or \"\"sqrt returns\"\" in the context of this tradeoff? You don't need any formal notion of utility at that point - and I don't know what formal ideas of utility beyond \"\"I want more returns and less risk\"\" really buys you. The Sharpe ratio only really gets its meaning because you've got some formal asset-pricing notion of utility. In my view the moment that you're putting constraints on the portfolio (e.g. long only, max weights, don't deviate too much from the benchmark ...) - really you're operating in this more general framework anyway and you're not in \"\"utility-land\"\" anymore.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
80e5cd2613dc0f589220e52238abe384	Does the Fed keeping interest rates low stimulate investment in the stock market and other investments?	[ { "docid": "233ea902448875e6343af9b6290c5305", "text": "Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive, which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns. For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc. This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "729c5aedd5093e6ba46e0c0a70f6ab49", "text": "The stock market in general likes monetary easing. With lower interest rates and easy cheap money freely available, companies can borrow at reduced cost thus improving profits. As profits increase share prices generally follow. So as John Benson said Quantitative Easing usually has a positive effect on stocks. The recent negativity in the stock markets was partly due to the possibility of QE ending and interest rates being raised in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "298aceb6b086f2bd4e05a455c82ccb76", "text": "When inflation is high or is rising generally interest rates will be raised to reduce people spending their money and slow down the rate of inflation. As interest rates rise people will be less willing to borrow money and more willing to keep their money earning a good interest rate in the bank. People will reduce their spending and invest less into alternative assets but instead put more into their bank savings. When inflation is too low and the economy is starting to slow down generally interest rates will be raised to encourage more spending to restart the economy again. As interest rates drop more will take their saving out of their bank accounts as is starts to earn very little in interest rate and more will be willing to borrow as it becomes cheaper to borrow. People will start spending more and investing their money outside of bank savings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d03d7422fd930df0f13189e84937a6fa", "text": "The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60", "title": "" }, { "docid": "174d0dde5a33952ccf7e1b619bfc6b38", "text": "When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba16217f8b6e04587785eb12e95c7f63", "text": "The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fac469245c0605d033cba9fca4684cc3", "text": "Reasons for no: In your first sentence you say something interesting: rates low - prices high. Actually those 2 are reversely correlated, imagine if rates would be 5% higher-very few people could buy at current prices so prices would drop. Also you need to keep in mind the rate of inflation that was much higher during some periods in the US history(for example over 10% in the 1980) so you can not make comparisons just based on the nominal interest rate. Putting all your eggs in one basket. If you think real estate is a good investment buy some REITs for 10k, do not spend 20% of your future income for 20 years. Maintenance - people who rent usually underestimate this or do not even count it when making rent vs mortgage comparisons. Reasons for yes: Lifestyle decision - you don't want to be kicked out of your house, you want to remodel... Speculation - I would recommend against this strongly, but housing prices go up and down, if they will go up you can make a lot of money. To answer one of questions directly: 1. My guess is that FED will try to keep rates well bellow 10% (even much lower, since government can not service debts if interest rates go much higher), but nobody can say if they will succeed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee8956aa55fc36f0508e248e8a16627c", "text": "Nah it's far from that simple. The effects of low interest rates will decline over time. That's the nature of the beast. Without continuous input of bullish stimuli, and as leveraged longs grow and grow, stock market growth will become increasingly vulnerable to small shocks which turn into bigger shocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cff897020391a620928a2dc45c9594c", "text": "Thanks. It has taken me some time to understand how all this works, and there are still many gray areas I want to understand further. The Fed interest rate is the rate charged by banks to loan to each other to balance overnight reserves but only using the reserves they hold at the Fed. That adds no new money to the system, but increases the money multiplier a little since perhaps more loans can be made. Basically one bank with excess reserves can loan to another bank that needs reserves. The Fed injects no money here, only sets the rate for banks to do this with each other. When the Fed buys securities that effectively adds that many more dollars into circulation, which then gets hit by the money multiplier, adding a lot of new liquidity. I think historically the latter tracks increases in the money supply much better than the former. I think the St. Louis Fed has records online for all this dating back to the 1940's or so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac7828370d866a6e91c3a456e08d6155", "text": "So after you learn some basics about bubbles you might then see that interest rates kept at their lowest since the days they were backed with gold may allow a bubble to form in housing. You know the bond purchases increased real estate prices right? What is it about the magic $2 Trillion that makes you think the FED hit the spot right on?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7f27dfffa398fe03986c118eb595efc", "text": "The Fed controls the base interest rate for lending to banks. It raises this rate when the economy is doing well to limit inflation, and lowers this rate when the economy is doing poorly to encourage lending. Raising the interest rate signals that the Fed believes the economy is strong/strengthening. Obviously it's more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1542bcc538c404dc66e2c16e89a01340", "text": "Lowered rates = boom for equities, currently held bonds, and assets. Cheaper money means a (disproportionately) good time had by all. This all comes with malinvestment, potential for moral hazard, and savers losing in a big way. Why save for retirement when your risk free return on US Treasuries can barely keep up with inflation? As an aside, it is not really a risk free rate anymore, with $20 trillion in debt and no real hope of paying it off. This is why we see the rate increases and movement towards asset sales by the Fed to get the poop off their books. They are worried about all of the above and need more arrows in their quiver when the next recession hits. They won't have enough, however. They are trying to right a ship that is fully overturned. This is now the longest period of growth (however tepid) since the tech bubble of the 1990's. Are the fundamentals really better than then?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9", "text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eac18c368c7af4420ed6b45910472d03", "text": "\"He's misunderstanding Buffett's argument, which is that all forms of investment compete, and so when interest rates give you guaranteed low returns, it makes sense for stocks to give you average low returns. That implies high prices for current stocks, because your return on equities is the price tomorrow over the price today. Buffett would likely agree with him that this implies slow growth in the future, though he may not want to say so for competitive reasons. Historical P/E norms are a more wrong metric, because they don't capture any fundamental change that might have happened in the economy. What's likely going on is a surplus of capital: as business becomes more efficient (i.e. generates more revenue with fewer workers), that excess cash flow becomes investable capital, but as it becomes more efficient (i.e. less of that revenue filters down to workers in the form of wages that they can spend on consumer goods), the amount of productive uses where that capital can be effectively deployed in income-generating activities declines. More capital + fewer investable opportunities = higher supply + lower demand = the price of securities for the few areas of the economy that are doing well increases. This is why you see insane valuations for tech companies. If we do get a major economic crash, it will likely come from a Carlota Perez-style financial crisis, where all the money gets concentrated within emerging new industries focused on new technology, who can't sell their products because nobody else has any money. We're on the path to that already, but it will likely take a decade or two to play out; there's still a lot of money left in the \"\"old economy\"\" which can be extracted. Also, these style of financial crises usually are accompanied by war and a breakdown of the established political order, and so all bets are off anyway.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "499cbb262d13898effa9df7e596acf0a", "text": "Interest rates can't remain this low. It's like having extremely low blood pressure. When you raise the rates, banks are incented to loan money and that movement of capital is good for the economy. It forces us to become savers instead of spenders, and our pensions, 401ks, social security are all getting killed by not being able to use debt to get safer stable returns. Interest rates have to come back up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b01d95f8b94c0c2cbca6f0916c0342b8", "text": "One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
58ae7543fa42d6d0ddcd2aec239c46dc	What is a Master Limited Partnership (MLP) & how is it different from plain stock?	[ { "docid": "9aeb6ea330ab89ab7f767e72d9ee2209", "text": "I was hesitant to answer this question since I don't own MLP even though I'm aware of how they work. But hear crickets on this question, so here goes. I'll try to keep this as non technical as possible. MLPs are partnerships where a shareholder is a partner and liable for the partnership's taxes. MLPs don't pay corporate tax since the tax burden flows to you, the shareholder. So does that mean like a partnership the partners are liable for the company's actions? Technically, yes. Has it happened before? No. Of course there are limitations to the liability, but are not definitely shielded in a way normal shareholders are. MLPs issue a K-1 at the beginning of the year (feb/mar). The tax calculations are relatively complex and I'm not going to go over that in this post. Generally MLPs are a bad choice for tax-deferred accounts like IRAs since there are tax implications beyond certain limits of distribution (yes even out of an IRA you'll have to pay taxes if above the limit). Not all types of businesses can become MLPs (hey no corporate tax, let's form an MLP!) Only companies engaged in businesses related to real estate, commodities or natural resources can become MLPs. There are a number of MLPs out there. The largest is Kinder Morgan Energy Partners. Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b81dbe18ed78eebbf4324a30acf44a7d", "text": "I own a few MLPs that operate oil/gas pipelines (TSE:IPL-UN, NYSE:BPT, NYSE:APL), and I'm very happy with their performance. Because they don't pay corporate tax MLPs tend to pay higher dividends than most regular stocks. I pay H&R Block to do my taxes, and they sort out all the arcane details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14a3463bd63b7c6201c5dc01fce10d48", "text": "\"MLP stands for master limited partnership. Investors who buy into one are limited partners, rather than shareholders, and have their taxable income reported on K-1s, rather than 1099s. MLPs are engaged in businesses (e.g. real estate, natural resources) that generate a lot of cash that doesn't need to be \"\"reinvested,\"\" or put back into the company. Because of this feature, the IRS will exempt it from corporate tax if it pays out at least 95% of its income in the form of dividends. The advantage is that you avoid the \"\"double taxation\"\" common to most corporations, and get a higher yield as a result. The disadvantage is that the company can't retain earnings for growth, and needs to borrow money if it wants to grow. In this regard, an MLP is much like a utility (except that a utility has to pay corporate taxes, and is otherwise heavily regulated by the Federal and/or state governments). You can look upon an MLP as an unregulated utility. This means that MLPs are most suitable for utility type investors who are more interested in current income, than capital gains. Because they are unregulated, they are riskier than utilities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b4d3c2ebd30bc79d663beed4223cbea", "text": "My question is: absent the corporate shield, to what extent are partners liable for a serious disaster or accident such as the BP Gulf incident. IN other words, if an oil pipeline had a major spill or explosion in which there were serious liabilities, to what extent would this effect the owners of a listed partnership beyond the effects of corporate liability on a common stock holding?", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7e71aab4db2eebd2a6cc2e519ded63c7", "text": "\"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \"\"street name\"\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \"\"unoted\"\" (never heard of this term before) and \"\"regular\"\" stocks is that the \"\"unoted\"\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ccaab31cbf55185b353f68bf4441bad", "text": "Presumably you're talking about the different share class introduced in the recent stock split, which mean that there are now three Google share classes: Due to the voting rights, Class A shares should be worth more than class C, but how much only time will tell. Actually, one could very well argue that a non-voting share of a company that pays no dividends has no value at all. It's unlikely the markets will see it that way, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe94b7253c0a5ea576467306a3beadef", "text": "NYSE and Nasdaq are secondary markets where stocks are bought or sold. The process of creating new stocks via IPO or private placements etc are called Private Market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e35c62837d601cc2ddb9af278e6287e", "text": "Cornerstone Strategic Value Fund, Inc. is a diversified, closed-end management investment company. It was incorporated in Maryland on May 1, 1987 and commenced investment operations on June 30, 1987. The Fund’s shares of Common Stock are traded on the NYSE MKT under the ticker symbol “CLM.”[1] That essentially means that CLM is a company all of whose assets are held as tradable financial instruments OR EQUIVALENTLY CLM is an ETF that was created as a company in its own right. That it was founded in the 80s, before the modern definition of ETFs really existed, it is probably more helpful to think of it by the first definition as the website mentions that it is traded as common stock so its stock holds more in common with stock than ETFs. [1] http://www.cornerstonestrategicvaluefund.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1236af8e4e462d79ee4767c881cb6c3e", "text": "All shares of the same class are considered equal. Each class of shares may have a different preference in order of repayment. After all company liabilities have been paid off [including bank debt, wages owing, taxes outstanding, etc etc.], the remaining cash value in a company is distributed to the shareholders. In general, there are 2 types of shares: Preferred shares, and Common shares. Preferred shares generally have 3 characteristics: (1) they get a stated dividend rate every year, sometimes regardless of company performance; (2) they get paid out first on liquidation; and (3) they can only receive their stated value on liquidation - that is, $1M of preferred shares will be redeemed for at most $1M on liquidation, assuming the corporation has at least that much cash left. Common Shares generally have 4 characteristics: (1) their dividends are not guaranteed (or may be based on a calculation relative to company performance), (2) they can vote for members of the Board of Directors who ultimately hire the CEO and make similar high level business decisions; (3) they get paid last on liquidation; and (4) they get all value remaining in the company once everyone else has been paid. So it is not the order of share subscription that matters, it is the class. Once you know how much each class gets, based on the terms listed in that share subscription, you simply divide the total class payout by number of shares, and pay that much for each share a person holds. For companies organized other-than as corporations, ie: partnerships, the calculation of who-gets-what will be both simpler and more complex. Simpler in that, generally speaking, a partnership interest cannot be of a different 'class', like shares can, meaning all partners are equal relative to the size of their partnership interest. More complex in that, if the initiation of the company was done in an informal way, it could easily become a legal fight as to who contributed what to the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dd14465a90edf3ad4f5450dd7ba028f", "text": "Just from my experience and observation... VC there are spikes of activity. Where many deals are closing and board meetings and issues pile up on top of each other and happen all at once. But VC there are lulls where not much is going on. PE is more consistent and predictable in general. Yes of course exceptions arise but I found PE to be more 9 to 5 ish.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19c215406af14db05a1acffe9423ae75", "text": "Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0635c74f875d15a57b2671500a2f318", "text": "Most corporations have a limit on the number of shares that they can issue, which is written into their corporate charter. They usually sell a number that is fewer than the maximum authorized number so that they have a reserve for secondary offerings, employee incentives, etc. In a scrip dividend, the company is distributing authorized shares that were not previously issued. This reduces the number of shares that it has to sell in the future to raise capital, so it reduces the assets of the company. In a split, every share (including the authorized shares that haven't been distributed) are divided. This results in more total shares (which then trade at a price that's roughly proportional to the split), but it does not reduce the assets of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "985975023a13cbcb386766fa4e23c83d", "text": "See this link...I was also looking an answer to the same questions. This site explains with an example http://www.independent-stock-investing.com/PE-Ratio.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5332ab4fcf9969669a3adebdc5e92194", "text": "\"Bloomberg suggests that two Fidelity funds hold preferred shares of Snapchat Inc.. Preferred shares hold more in common with bonds than with ordinary stock as they pay a fixed dividend, have lower liquidity, and don't have voting rights. Because of this lower liquidity they are not usually offered for sale on the market. Whether these funds are allowed to hold such illiquid assets is more a question for their strategy document than the law; it is completely legal for a company to hold a non-marketable interest in another, even if the company is privately held as Snapchat is. The strategy documents governing what the fund is permitted to hold, however, may restrict ownership either banning non-market holdings or restricting the percentage of assets held in illiquid instruments. Since IPO is very costly, funds like these who look to invest in new companies who have not been through IPO yet are a very good way of taking a diversified position in start-ups. Since they look to invest directly rather than through the market they are an attractive, low cost way for start-ups to generate funds to grow. The fund deals directly with the owners of the company to buy its shares. The markdown of the stock value reflects the accounting principle of marking to market (MTM) financial assets that do not have a trade price so as to reflect their fair value. This markdown implies that Fidelity believe that the total NPV of the company's net assets is lower than they had previously calculated. This probably reflects a lack of revenue streams coming into the business in the case of Snapchat. edit: by the way, since there is no market for start-up \"\"stocks\"\" pre-IPO my heart sinks a little every time I read the title of this question. I'm going to be sad all day now :(.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77531483389b020e183eed6d71d265e9", "text": "MKC is non-voting stock, MKC/V is voting stock. Ofter times you'll see two or more stock symbols for a company. These usually reflect different classes of stocks. For example, voting vs. non-voting (as in this case) or preferred vs non-preferred stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76320099a37d8f9f9b4281d18080ef8b", "text": "Simple: Do a stock split. Each 1 Ordinary share now = 100 Ordinary shares (or 100,000 or whatever you choose). Then sell 20 (or 20,000) of them to your third party. (Stock splits are fairly routine occurrence. Apple for example has done several, most recently in 2014 when 1 share = 7 shares). Alternatively you could go the route of creating a new share class with different rights, preferences etc. But this is more complicated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f68c6846abacc57b1e28ccd2437f1ec", "text": "\"A stock insurance company is structured like a “normal” company. It has shareholders (that are the company's investors), who elect a board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. The directors (and thus the executives and employees) have a legal responsibility to manage the company in a way which is beneficial for the shareholders, since the shareholders are the ultimate owner of the company. A mutual insurance company is similar, except that the people holding policies are also the shareholders. That is, the policyholders are the ultimate owners of the company, and there generally aren't separate shareholders who are just “investing” in the company. These policyholder-shareholders elect the board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. In practice, it probably doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, since even if you're just a \"\"customer\"\" and not an \"\"owner\"\" of the company, the company is still going to want to attract customers and act in a reasonable way toward them. Also, insurance companies are generally pretty heavily regulated in terms of what they can do, because governments really like them to remain solvent. It may be comforting to know that in a mutual insurance company the higher-ups are explicitly supposed to be working in your best interest, though, rather than in the interest of some random investors. Some might object that being a shareholder may not give you a whole lot more rights than you had before. See, for example, this article from the Boston Globe, “At mutual insurance firms, big money for insiders but no say for ‘owners’ — policyholders”: It has grown into something else entirely: an opaque, poorly understood, and often immensely profitable world in which some executives and insiders operate with minimal scrutiny and, no coincidence, often reap maximum personal rewards. Policyholders, despite their status as owners, have no meaningful oversight of how mutual companies spend their money — whether to lower rates, pay dividends, or fund executive salaries and perks — and few avenues to challenge such decisions. Another reason that one might not like the conversion is the specific details of how the current investor-shareholders are being paid back for their investment in the process of the conversion to mutual ownership, and what that might do to the funds on hand that are supposed to be there to keep the firm solvent for the policyholders. From another Boston Globe article on the conversion of SBLI to a mutual company, “Insurer SBLI wants to get banks out of its business,” professor Robert Wright is cautiously optimistic but wants to ensure the prior shareholders aren't overpaid: Robert Wright, a professor in South Dakota who has studied insurance companies and owns an SBLI policy, said he would prefer the insurer to be a mutual company that doesn’t have to worry about the short-term needs of shareholders. But he wants to ensure that SBLI doesn’t overpay the banks for their shares. “It’s fine, as long as it’s a fair price,” he said. That article also gives SBLI's president's statement as to why they think it's a good thing for policyholders: If the banks remained shareholders, they would be likely to demand a greater share of the profits and eat into the dividends the insurance company currently pays to the 536,000 policyholders, about half of whom live in Massachusetts, said Jim Morgan, president of Woburn-based SBLI. “We’re trying to protect the policyholders from having the dividends diluted,” Morgan said. I'm not sure there's an obvious pros/cons list for either way, but I'd think that I'd prefer the mutual approach, just on the principle that the policyholders “ought” to be the owners, because the directors (and thus the executives and employees) are then legally required to manage the company in the best interest of the policyholders. I did cast a Yes vote in my proxy on whether SBLI ought to become a mutual company (I'm a SBLI term-life policyholder.) But policy terms aren't changing, and it'd be hard to tell for sure how it'd impact any dividends (I assume the whole-life policies must be the ones to pay dividends) or company solvency either way, since it's not like we'll get to run a scientific experiment trying it out both ways. I doubt you'd have a lot of regrets either way, whether it becomes a mutual company and you wish it hadn't or it doesn't become one and you wish it had.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b684811210679ca9ab82c9ab2b31de94", "text": "I work for a Big4 and there are no shared audit and consulting clients. We go through pretty extreme independence controls to make sure we don't even have personal relationships with clients. I know people who had to refinance their house because the mortgage company became an audit or consulting client. It's a common misconception that big4s audit and provide consulting services to the same firm, but this is not true.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "509f6ff2ce216cbcf9f81b0460679e57", "text": "So you want to buy a car but have no money saved up.... That's going to be hard!! I'd suggest you get a part-time job, save up and buy a used car. Even with the minimum wage pay in the U.S., if you are in the U.S., you could save up and buy a car in less than a month. This route would be the quickest way for you to get a car but it would also teach you the responsibility of having one since it appears you have never owned a car before. Now the car will most definitely not be fancy or look like the cars that your peer's parents bought but at least it will get you from point A to point B. I'd look on Craigslist or your local neighborhood for cars that have not moved in a while or have for sale signs. Bring a mechanically inclined friend with you and contact the owner and explain them your situation. There are nice people out there that would give you deep discounts based on the fact that you are a student trying to get by. Now you have to get registration and insurance. There are many insurance companies that give discounts to students as well who have good GPAs and driving records. If you happen to get a car for a good deal, take good car of it. Once you graduate and further your career, you can resell it for a profit. I also would not suggest you get any loans for a car given your situation.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
34033a0179ea5cfe3f88438eaba0c765	ISA - intra year profits and switching process	[ { "docid": "46cc17c4ec1ccbf1b920fc7420ab3ade", "text": "You're overthinking it. The ISA limit applies to the amount you invest into the ISA. In your example, £10,000. Whether that then fluctuates with performance is irrelevant. Even if you realise aprofit or a loss, nobody is watching it. You merely count the amount you originally contributed into the ISA wrapper. When they add up to £15,000; that's the limit reached. (And by the way, remember that only money going into the ISA is counted. It doesn't matter if you -let's say - put £15k in, then remove 10k. You've reached the limit. You don't again have the chance to put £10k 'back in'.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21d0c3dcd64ed588f9aa8af50c2612a9", "text": "An ISA is a much simpler thing than I suspect you think it is. It is a wrapper or envelope, and the point of it is that HMRC does not care what happens inside the envelope, or even about extractions of funds from the envelope; they only care about insertions of funds into the envelope. It is these insertions that are limited to £15k in a tax year; what happens to the funds once they're inside the envelope is your own business. Some diagrams: Initial investment of £10k. This is an insertion into the envelope and so counts against your £15k/tax year limit. +---------ISA-------+ ----- £10k ---------> \| +-------------------+ So now you have this: +---------ISA-------+ \| £10k of cash \| +-------------------+ Buy fund: +---------ISA-------+ \| £10k of ABC \| +-------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ \| £12k of ABC \| +-------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ \| £12k of cash \| +-------------------+ Buy another fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ \| £10k of JKL & £2k of cash \| +-----------------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ \| £11k of JKL & £2k of cash \| +-----------------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ \| £13k of cash \| +-------------------+ Withdraw funds. This is an extraction from the envelope; HMRC don't care. +---------ISA-------+ <---- £13k --------- \| +-------------------+ No capital gains liability, you don't even have to put this on your tax return (if applicable) - your £10k became £13k inside an ISA envelope, so HMRC don't care. Note however that for the rest of that tax year, the most you can insert into an ISA would now be £5k: +---------ISA-------+ ----- £5k ---------> \| +-------------------+ even though the ISA is empty. This is because the limit is to the total inserted during the year.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "134a2b54f8d2ddefd07691afbcb16bc6", "text": "The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfd048aed9cfca9f24089f2a9d05719b", "text": "Not really. Transfer pricing determines where and at what level you should have profits and what level is considered arm's length. Profits are going to follow where the functions, risks and intangibles are borne under the current regulatory framework. Inverting allows a company to shift intangibles and risk to another country. You cannot just say I want 100% of my profits in Ireland and get away with it. You need to have economic support for why your profits are what they are in each of your jurisdictions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc1e558425d3536d26b4dd208926dff9", "text": "You can't actually transfer shares directly unless they were obtained as part of an employee share scheme - see the answers to questions 19 and 20 on this page: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm#19 Q. Can I put shares from my employee share scheme into my ISA? A. You can transfer any shares you get from into a stocks and shares component of an ISA without having to pay Capital Gains Tax - provided your ISA manager agrees to take them. The value of the shares at the date of transfer counts towards the annual limit. This means you can transfer up to £11,520 worth of shares in the tax year 2013-14 (assuming that you make no other subscriptions to ISAs, in those years). You must transfer the shares within 90 days from the day they cease to be subject to the Plan, or (for approved SAYE share option schemes) 90 days of the exercise of option date. Your employer should be able to tell you more. Q. Can I put windfall or inherited shares in my ISA? A. No. You can only transfer shares you own into an ISA if they have come from an employee share scheme. Otherwise, the ISA manager must purchase shares on the open market. The situation is the same if you have shares that you have inherited. You are not able to transfer them into an ISA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed21990dc3ca608d772f72ebb24699df", "text": "You're creating more liabilities for yourself in the future, although yes this could definitely be a profitable move for you. However, some small mistakes you made, from what I can see using the tools at Hargreaves Lansdown. The first, is that the government relief would only be 20%, not 60%. The second is that the tax relief goes directly into the SIPP, it's not something you get given back to you in cash. In order for this to be worthwhile, you need to be sure that you can make a post-tax gain of more than 3.4% on this money per year - which should be very feasible. It sounds like you have enough security that you could afford to take this risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18ce58c8902a64eca070d530a060fd2a", "text": "From my understanding, only A and B are shareholders, and M is a managing entity that takes commission on the profit. Assuming that's true. At the start of the project, A contributes $500,000. At this point, A is the sole shareholder, owning 100% of the project that's valued at $500,000. The real question is, did the value of the project change when B contributed 3 month later. If the value didn't change, then A owns 33.33%, and B owns 66.66%. Assuming both A and B wants to pay themselves with the $800,000 profit, then A gets a third of that, and B gets the rest. However, if at the time of B's contribution, both parties agreed that the pre-money of the project has changed to $1 million, then B owns half the project valued at 2 million post-money. Then the profit would be split half way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e049953420e0a257e711543060774db", "text": "HMRC calls it: Averaging for creators of literary or artistic works, and it is the averaging of your profits for 2 successive years. It's helpful in situations like you describe, where income can fluctuate wildly from year to year, the linked article has the full detail, but some of the requirements are: You can use averaging if: you’re self-employed or in a partnership, and the business started before 6 April 2014 and didn’t end in the 2015 to 2016 tax year your profits are wholly or mainly from literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or from designs you or your business partner (if you’re in a partnership) created the works personally. Additionally: Check that your profit for the poorer year, minus any adjusted amounts, is less than 75% of the figure for your better year. If it is, you can use averaging. Then, check if the difference between your profits for the 2 years is more than 30% of your profit for the better year. If it is, work out the average by adding together the profits for the 2 years, and divide the total by 2.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdcdb8062f86af0013426fabc52fdf48", "text": "\"You understood it pretty right. Every fiscal year (which runs from April 6 year Y to April 5 year Y+1), you can deposit a total GBP15k (this number is subject to an annual increase by HMRC) into your ISAs. You can open 2 new ISA every year but the amount deposited to those ISAs shall not excess GBP15k in total. From the 2016/17 tax year some ISAs now permit you to replace any funds you have withdrawn, without using up your allowance. It used to be that if you deposited GBP15K and then withdrew GBP5K, you could not pay in to that ISA again within that tax year as you had already used your full allowance. Under new Flexible ISA rules this would be allowed providing you replace the funds in the same ISA account and within the same tax year (strongly recommend that you check the small prints related to your account to make sure this is he case). Any gains and losses on the investments held in the ISA accounts are for you to take. i.e. If you make investment gains of GBP5K this does not reduces your allowance. You will still be able to deposit GBP15k (or whatever HMRC increases that number to) in the following year. You are also allowed to consolidate your ISAs. You can ask bank A to transfer the amount held into an ISA with bank held with bank B. This is usually done by filling a special form with the bank that will held the money post transactions. Again here be very careful. DO NOT withdraw the money to transfer it yourself as this would count against the GBP15K limit. Instead follow the procedures from the bank. Finally if you don't use your allowance for a given year, you cannot use it during the following year. i.e. if you don't deposit the GBP15K this year, then you cannot deposit GBP30K next year. NB: I used the word \"\"deposit\"\". It does not matter to HMRC if the money get invested or not. If you are in a rush on April 4th, just make sure the money is wired into the ISA account by the 5th. No need to rush and make bad investment decision. You can invest it later. Hope it helps\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d21c1340705ac92ff3ff9454d231cd7d", "text": "Speaking from stock market point of view, superficially, TA is similarly applicable to day trading, short term, medium term and long term. You may use different indicators in FX compared to the stock market, but I would expect they are largely the same types of things - direction indicators, momentum indicators, spread indicators, divergence indicators. The key thing with TA or even when trading anything, is that when you have developed a system, that you back test it, to prove that it will work in bear, bull and stagnant markets. I have simple systems that are fine in strong bull markets but really poor in stagnant markets. Also have a trading plan. Know when you are going to exit and enter your trades, what criteria and what position size. Understand how much you are risking on each trade and actively manage your risk. I urge caution over your statement ... one weakened by parting the political union but ought to bounce back ... We (my UK based IT business) have already lost two potential clients due to Brexit. These companies are in FinServ and have no idea of what is going to happen, so I would respectfully suggest that you may have less knowledge than professionals, who deal in currency and property ... but one premise of TA is that you let the chart tell you what is happening. In any case trade well, and with a plan!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5610e1b3aabcd6667baa0f09dbb5830", "text": "Income and Capital are taxed separately in the uk. You probably can't get dividends paid gross even in ISA's you pay the basic rate of tax on dividends only higher rate tax payers get tax benefit from dividends. What you could do is invest in splits (Spilt capital investment trusts ) in the share class where all the return comes as capital and use up some of your yearly CGT allowance that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3200217e7939b7c9eb0a82e4a1124feb", "text": "Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bfbb3a0f9d2ac58c9bb99f9390209f7", "text": "\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73970c7fa19bea8eea826186c9628dc2", "text": "Making or losing income (via selling shares) is the taxable event, not moving the income you made to and from an account. The only exception would be a special account such as an IRA, and then there would be rules specific to that account structure about when you can withdraw money and what the tax consequences are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfd8a1a50537d16df5f1e082ddfefc2d", "text": "I'm answering in a perspective of an End-User within the United Kingdom. Most stockbrokers won't provide Real-time information without 'Level 2' access, however this comes free for most who trade over a certain threshold. If you're like me, who trade within their ISA Holding each year, you need to look elsewhere. I personally use IG.com. They've recently began a stockbroking service, whereas this comes with realtime information etc with a paid account without any 'threshold'. Additionally, you may want to look into CFDs/Spreadbets as these, won't include the heavy 'fees' and tax liabilities that trading with stocks may bring.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2d54102c2d480f7adc795284fb66e01", "text": "So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1edf407c3b96a5274a68e07beae9b48", "text": "If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
059c74cd1890f32b2e3d62dec7a152fd	Why does the calculation for IRR use revenue, not profit?	[ { "docid": "134a2b54f8d2ddefd07691afbcb16bc6", "text": "The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f313648abe18b604213f4933b8a1916b", "text": "No. Revenue is the company's gross income. The stock price has no contribution to the company's income. The stock price may be affected when the company's income deviates from what it was expected to be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "432d2b333eb58b124a77e18a87d18bea", "text": "Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. Let's say there is a company that uses infrastructure of UK, Germany, France, US, Japan, Italy and Spain (because it's a global multinational). Corporate taxes in these countries are 19%, 29.65%, 33% (for large companies), 35%, 32.1%, 27.9% and 25%. Now according to your logic, each of these countries should tax the company's profits. Such a company in your world would pay more in taxes than it makes in profits (tax rate > 100%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3796346d54696bfa1a1766980aa57823", "text": "Both of these terms do refer to your profit; they're just different ways of evaluating it. First, your definition of capitalization rate is flipped. As explained here, it should be: On the other hand, as explained here: So cap rate is like a reverse unit cost approach to comparing two investments. If house A costs $1M and you'll make $50K (profit) from it yearly, and house B costs $1.33M and you'll make $65K (profit) from it yearly, then you can compute cap rates to see that A is a more efficient investment from the point of view of income vs. amount-of-money-you-have-stuck-in-this-investment-and-unavailable-for-use-elsewhere. Profit margin, on the other hand, cares more about your ongoing expenses than about your total investment. If it costs less to maintain property B than it does to maintain property A, then you could have something like: So B is a more efficient investment from the point of view of the fraction of your revenue you actually get to keep each year. Certainly you could think of the property's value as an opportunity cost and factor that into the net profit margin equation to get a more robust estimate of exactly how efficient your investment is. You can keep piling more factors into the equation until you've accounted for every possible facet of your investment. This is what accountants and economists spend their days doing. :-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bb77fd32ae8e227ef16984ac4c5b8b9", "text": "\"I'm not an expert, but here is my best hypothesis. On Microsoft's (and most other company's) cash flow statements, they use the so-called \"\"indirect method\"\" of accounting for cash flow from operations. How that works, is they start with net income at the top, and then adjust it with line items for the various non-cash activities that contributed to net income. The key phrase is that these are accounting for the non-cash activities that contribute to net income. If the accounts receivable amount changes from something other than operating activity (e.g., if they have to write off some receivables because they won't be paid), the change didn't contribute to net income in the first place, so doesn't need to be reconciled on the cash flow statement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2feb74b8173e7cfcdc17af615e980e0", "text": "The HMRC website would explain it better to you. There is a lot of factors and conditions involved, so refer to the HMRC website for clarification. If your question had more details, it could have been easy to pinpoint the exact answer. Do I declare the value of shares as income Why would you do that ? You haven't generated income from that yet(sold it to make a profit/loss), so how can that be declared as income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa256573e6b5414fab97b4d43a17224c", "text": "Revenue does not equal income. Income is, more or less, synonymous with profit. It is the amount of money earned after expenses. A corporation is taxed on its revenue after its deductible expenses have been removed, the same as a person is. It's kind of double taxation, but it's kind of the same argument as saying that payroll taxes in addition to income taxes are double taxation. Also of note: taxes on dividends are lower than normal taxes because of this double taxation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1816281f79c09983869981674d6ff07", "text": "Dividends and interest are counted under operations for the purpose of this tweet. This is pretty much entirely a non-story. I'm not sure exactly how they're dividing it up, but it looks like they're only counting stock appreciation as capital gains and counting things revenue from sales (from their subsidiaries as well) under operating income. This is just from a quick glance over their statement of earning, but that's what it looks like to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d02bb6df67310819e9dfe2d81a0cfe9c", "text": "The focus of this article isn't on tax revenue. The author is discussing income disparity. The laffer curve doesn't tell the whole story. You are correct, a higher tax rate does not imply higher tax revenue, and a lower tax rate does not imply less revenue. Changing tax rates isn't going to significantly affect tax revenue. However, there are a broad range of other effects when changing tax rates. In evaluating adjustments to tax rates, our focus needs to be on these secondary effects. We are taxed on income not revenue. When I sell you a $10 widget that I paid a worker $2 to produce from $5 of materials, I pay taxes on the $3 net income, not the $10 revenue I received from you. The main way businesses avoid high marginal tax rates is by increasing deductible expenses, such that their net income after these expenses keeps them below their desired tax bracket. It is far better to spend that money on something that can benefit the business than simply give it to the government. Any businessman would rather keep his earnings if possible. If that is not possible, he'd prefer to spend them on something that can help him, rather than squandering it on junk or giving it away to the government. For most businesses, the largest deductible expense is payroll. Any decent employer would prefer to pay out a Christmas bonus instead of giving that same amount to Uncle Sam. Any businessman would prefer to pay for additional advertising, or a charitable donation to a worthy cause, rather than paying the IRS. Run up the top-tier tax rate and suddenly, businessmen feel a compelling need to lower their prices and pay their workers more. Run up the tax rate, and income disparity shrinks. Run up the tax rate, and you put more money in the hands of consumers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b41a23be2e99ccd466f0ddb5b967ce6b", "text": "The argument seems to derive from the fact that state law bars cities from taxing net income. Hence the city is arguing it doesn't apply to gross income. Of course the city would also have to argue that income isn’t property. I don't think it's going to work out for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1c6312f854b5d24df50b88c1b9616a6", "text": "If corporations are people, why do persons have to pay tax on their revenues (personal income) while corporations only pay tax on their profits (operating income). If corporations are people, then everyone should pay taxes the same way - either on their revenues, or their profits. We shouldn't be discriminating. Boy, if a person could only pay taxes on their profits (savings), instead of their revenues (personal income), it'd be a whole new ballgame.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61de18f1f7c5f12ef51739de5e6f5d9a", "text": "Expenses are where the catch is found. Not all expenditures are considered expenses for tax purposes. Good CPAs make a comfortable living untangling this sort of thing. Advice for both of your family members' businesses...consult with a CPA before making big purchases. They may need to adjust the way they buy, or the timing of it, or simply to set aside capital to pay the taxes for the profit used to purchase those items. CPA can help find the best path. That 10k in unallocated income can be used to redecorate your office, but there's still 3k in taxes due on it. Bottom Line: Can't label business income as profit until the taxes have been paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ad3460df9b280eb1a6c22c6ecac7c12", "text": "Because interest is tax deductible. I don't know much about the Chevron deal, but I'm an EM debt analyst and typically the issue you have is that dividends are taxed but interest is not. So to move money from a subsidiary instead of putting in equity and getting dividends (tax inefficient), instead you give debt and get interest back. You get a little less flexibility on payment but you more than make up for that (on average) with tax efficiency. Don't think of it as a loan at all. Think of it as a pseudo-equity investment with required dividends. Revenue is not taxed, profit is. Interest comes out of profit, dividends however are issued after profit. This could all be wrong vis-a-vis Chevron. This is just how most of the companies I look at work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aec2e5d1480a09c5e8c8671d32c6e8d", "text": "\"A bit strange but okay. The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings. Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says \"\"the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years\"\" - that just seems like an absurd timeline. Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated. And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a \"\"liquidation value\"\". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e0b922039ba543428e9db345618ee83", "text": "Straight line in this example should be just the $2MM per year. I don't think the author of the problem intended you to use anything in the actual tax code like MACRS. I think the goal of the problem is to get you to identify the value of the depreciation tax shield and how the depreciation does affect your cash flow by reducing your taxes, even though depreciation itself is not a cash event.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62f088dba0ac32effa798e86ebec2ba4", "text": "Problem with deciding investments in a company is that you have multiple potential options, each with their projected returns, but each also has some hard-to-estimate risks. A further problem is that these opportunities arrive one-by-one, so you usually cannot compare project A vs. project B to decide which one is better. The internal rate of return is a rule-of-thumb like way to make these decisions. The company board may set an IRR target of e.g. 15%, and each executive will compare their projects against that target. They'll execute only the projects that are projected to give a good return, but some of these projects will end up failing. Thus the real average profit will not be equal to IRR. Important thing is that this target number gives ways to compare projects, and also for the board to control the investments. If the company has a good track record of being successful at projects, the board might set an IRR target of 10% and expect to get e.g. 8% return on their investment. However, if the company has a much larger risk of projects failing, they might demand a predicted IRR of 20% to account for the risk. Ultimately if the IRR target is set too high, the company will find no projects it considers profitable to invest in. In practice if this happens, the company owners are better off taking out the cash as dividends and investing it elsewhere.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ca1d5f2e851b2f95ad342b7aba117980	Do I need to file taxes jointly with my girlfriend if we live together?	[ { "docid": "701e8af5fd8da73baf91d54053149cb0", "text": "In Ontario, common law marriage requires 3 years of cohabitation, and doesn't give rights to property (which remains separate). I'd say in your situation you can still file as single, but I'd suggest asking your tax accountant to be sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7c29e9c4ebb6e172ec8547493df051c", "text": "\"If you pay her rent, how do you differ from a tenant in the eyes of the law? I ask this to show that you are in a business relationship first and foremost. If you don't want to file jointly, there is nothing compelling about your situation to force it. (Grant you, in most countries, there is a benefit to filing jointly) but here, I would argue it would be difficult to make the case. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no laws barring opposite sex landlord-tenant rental situations. Furthermore, there are no laws barring romantic relationships amongst landlords and tenants. Indeed, you would need to prove your relationship in some fashion for it to even be considered. In establishing a date of separation from my soon-to-be-ex-wife, for example, I merely needed to prove that we were not \"\"presenting ourselves as husband and wife.\"\" Once I showed that we didn't sit together at church and that she was attending parties I wasn't, that was sufficient. Proving you are in a relationship is actually a lot harder than proving you're not.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "78d14bc8caa8db04ea078cca3001630b", "text": "You only need to report INCOME to the IRS. Money which you are paying to a landlord on behalf of someone else is not income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "397748f68b544c3b55c447c04788f31c", "text": "\"This might get closed as an \"\"opinion\"\" question. Tough to say up front. You are kind to be willing to do this, and if just you and GF, it would be simple, split the costs the same as the ratios of your incomes. Say you have twice her income. You pay 2/3 of bills and she pays 1/3. In effect, you are subsidizing her, but this is often the case for working married couples, one earning more than another. But, this will mean subsidizing the friend as well. In theory, he has 1BR, and should pay 1/2 rent, 1/3 utilities and common food, etc. If he makes 1/2 your income, and so does GF, for simple math, he'll pay 1/4 of rent and utilities. That's an emotional issue, will you be ok with that? You'll be subsidizing a friend, instead of having a stranger pull their own weight.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5408e30c2d6c43f2afb3f4f8abe26f3", "text": "Why would the IRS be coming after you if you reported the income? If you reported everything, then the IRS will use the 1099 to cross-check, see that everything is in order, be happy and done with it. The lady was supposed to give you the 1099 by the end of January, and she may be penalized by the IRS for being late, but as long as you/wifey reported all the income - you're fine. It was supposed to be reported on Schedule C or as miscellaneous income on line 21 (schedule C sounds more suitable as it seems that your wifey is in a cleaning business). But there's no difference in how you report whether you got 1099 or not, so if you reported - you should be fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30c3fa9ee32741f71ad214987a63e3a0", "text": "If you keep the account in your name only and your girlfriend is depositing money into it, then she is in effect making gifts of money to you. If the total amount of such gifts exceeds $14K in 2014, she will need to file a gift tax return (IRS Form 709, due April 15 of the following year, but not included with her Federal tax return; it has to be sent to a specific IRS office as detailed in the Instructions for Form 709). She would need to pay gift tax (as computed on Form 709) unless she opts to have the excess over $14K count towards her Federal lifetime combined gift and estate tax exclusion of $5M+ and so no gift tax is due. Most estates in the US are far smaller than $5 million and pay no Federal estate tax at all and for most people, the reduction of the lifetime combined... is of no consequence. Another point (for your girlfriend to think about): if you two should break up and go your separate ways at a later time, you are under no obligation to return her money to her, and if you do choose to do so, you will need to file a gift tax return at that time. If you will be returning her contributions together with all the earnings attributable to her contributions, then keep in mind that you will have paid income taxes on those earnings all along since the account is in your name only. Finally, keep in mind that the I in IRA stands for Individual and your girlfriend is not entitled to put her contributions into your IRA account. Summary: don't do this (or open a joint account as tenants in common) no matter how much you love each other. She should open accounts in her name only and make contributions to those accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d298504aedaf9c53964353fee7c3c41", "text": "\"Personally I would advise only buying what you can afford without borrowing money, even if it means living in a tent. Financially, that is the best move. If you are determined to borrow money to buy a house, the person with income should buy it as sole owner. Split ownership will create a nightmare if any problems develop in the relationship. Split ownership has the advantage that it doubles the tax-free appreciation deduction from $250,000 to $500,000, but in your case my sense is that that is not a sufficient reason to risk dual ownership. Do not charge your \"\"partner\"\" rent. That is crazy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6d3f0bae54bc7bb48d5eec5145d69a5", "text": "If you are splitting rent, it is not income because you are reducing the amount of space you have available to you and reducing your rent, it's the same as if you moved to a smaller apartment. You can't claim a deduction for rent paid, so there really are no tax implications in this arrangement. If you own a house and someone helps pay the mortgage, that does become a rental situation if the other party has no ownership stake in the house. Could you find other ways to disguise it, like having your brother pay utilities or buy groceries? Sure, but I think it's technically taxable income by the letter of the law. I also don't think the IRS is going to come after you for trading a place to sleep for groceries/cable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3146e19c2e6320686c78830040535e9", "text": "If you have an actual legal entity (legal partnership) that is jointly owned by you and your partner, then the partnership receives the money, and the partnership then sends money to you and your partner. Each of you will pay tax on your share. It's possible that the partnership itself may have to pay taxes. If you are not following that procedure in terms of actual money flow - for example if the royalties are paid into your personal account instead of a partnership account - then you may have trouble convincing the tax authorities that this is the legal situation. If this is a small amount of money then you may be better off just paying the taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70cf8d23890f8f5e17526f378a4ec318", "text": "\"In a word, no. If your income is high enough to have to file a return, you have to file a return. My accountant has a nice mindset for making it more palatable. I'll paraphrase: \"\"Our tax system is ludicrously complicated. As a result, it is your duty as an American to seek out and take advantage of every deduction and credit available to you. If our politicians and leaders put it into the tax code, use it to your advantage.\"\" A friend of mine got a free golf cart that way. It was a crazy combination of credits and loopholes for electric vehicles. That loophole has been closed, and some would say it's a great example of him exercising his patriotic duty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8e5fa5551a4727b2f7b90a0813e49de", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b287fe3e5c18c67590e241a102689ff", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ff3cee0decc25182c465a797af4a69", "text": "\"If you are living together 'casually' (no formal partnership agreement) then my option would be to ask her politely to as she has offered make a contribution by buying the groceries or some such which you share. A 'voluntary contribution' not an enforceable one. Just as between flat mates where only one is the actual tenant of the flat but the tenancy allows 'sharing' . Check your tenancy allows you to share lodgings. PS An old Scots saying is \"\"never do business with close family\"\". I.e do not charge your wife or living in partner rent. It mixes emotional domestic life with a formal business life which can set feuds going in case of a break up or dispute. If you enter into child bearing relationship or parent hood or formal partnership or marriage then all this changes at some time in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24f0a45be776167a3a06ee7f40b0aa6c", "text": "It's fine - if you are an employee, you will normally have all taxes deducted by the employer, and won't even need to complete a tax return. Even if you do, all the figures will be on the P60 you get at the end of the year. If that's your only income, it's pretty easy to do. Remember, your taxes and your girlfriends are totally separate. It also doesnt matter where the money goes - you could be paid in cash or into any account, it's the fact that you earn it makes it taxable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "364b20bda72056b70460263d8e3e0193", "text": "Publication 17 Your Income Tax top of page 14 If the direct deposit cannot be done, the IRS will send a check instead. When your girlfriend gets the check, she can endorse it over to you for deposit into your account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3965ebcc47d710ff6853b5136b318382", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d30f301760755861621e5260d05e183", "text": "\"As a Canadian resident, the simple answer to your question is \"\"yes\"\" Having worked as a tax auditor and as a Certified Financial Planner, you are required to file an income tax return because you have taxable employment income. All the employer is doing is deducting it at source and remitting it on your behalf. That does not alleviate your need to file. In fact, if you don't file you will be subject to a no filing penalty. The one aspect you are missing is that taxpayers may be entitled to tax credits that may result in a refund to you depending on your personal situation (e.g spousal or minor dependents). I hope this helps.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
40922b1ca346bdef13cd13447a95dcc6	How will a 1099 work with an existing W-2?	[ { "docid": "c82a3112b47f3aa1a05ff4c8b95a74bd", "text": "\"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2. There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes. Problems occur, with the IRS, when one \"\"forgets\"\" to report income. Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income. However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations. For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C. Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill. Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension. This does come with some drawbacks, however. First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses. You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS. Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them. If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits. Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits. (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals. If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4541068da76cb92f024a769b9d81d85d", "text": "You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4d8138041b3ccb69d73a2e767b142572", "text": "\"Not sure I understood, so I'll summarize what I think I read: You got scholarship X, paid tuition Y < X, and you got 1098T to report these numbers. You're asking whether you need to pay taxes on (X-Y) that you end up with as income. The answer is: of course. You can have even lower tax liability if you don't include the numbers on W2, right? So why doesn't it occur to you to ask \"\"if I don't include W2 in the software, it comes up with a smaller tax - do I need to include it?\"\"?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf1c0c8f4ce07239858da167fbbcade1", "text": "You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d230b97c82f552fa6433e8f60ecfd99", "text": "You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you. If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer. As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you. How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference). You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d443860bd1eb09e19af7b8465b17d1a", "text": "The IRS offers an online calculator to help you select the correct number of deductions on your W-4. The tricky part is that we're nearly half-way through the year, so if you add more deductions to offset the lower withholding during the first half of the year, you'll have to update the W-4 at the beginning of next year to correct that next year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691ebc769be4882276be7460d9e1cd52", "text": "Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eebfd26667517727702aaec038ea12a4", "text": "\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \"\"interview\"\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5cfa6200bbb4657e77e736027602d4d", "text": "It is true that with a job that pays you via payroll check that will result in a W-2 because you are an employee, the threshold that you are worried about before you have to file is in the thousands. Unless of course you make a lot of money from bank interest or you have income tax withheld and you want it refunded to you. Table 2 and table 3 in IRS pub 501, does a great job of telling you when you must. For you table 3 is most likely to apply because you weren't an employee and you will not be getting a W-2. If any of the five conditions listed below applied to you for 2016, you must file a return. You owe any special taxes, including any of the following. a. Alternative minimum tax. (See Form 6251.) b. Additional tax on a qualified plan, including an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), or other taxfavored account. (See Pub. 590A, Contributions to Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs); Pub. 590B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs); and Pub. 969, Health Savings Accounts and Other TaxFavored Health Plans.) But if you are filing a return only because you owe this tax, you can file Form 5329 by itself. c. Social security or Medicare tax on tips you didn't report to your employer (see Pub. 531, Reporting Tip Income) or on wages you received from an employer who didn't withhold these taxes (see Form 8919). d. Writein taxes, including uncollected social security, Medicare, or railroad retirement tax on tips you reported to your employer or on groupterm life insurance and additional taxes on health savings accounts. (See Pub. 531, Pub. 969, and the Form 1040 instructions for line 62.) e. Household employment taxes. But if you are filing a return only because you owe these taxes, you can file Schedule H (Form 1040) by itself. f. Recapture taxes. (See the Form 1040 instructions for lines 44, 60b, and 62.) You (or your spouse if filing jointly) received Archer MSA, Medicare Advantage MSA, or health savings account distributions. You had net earnings from selfemployment of at least $400. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) You had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified churchcontrolled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) Advance payments of the premium tax credit were made for you, your spouse, or a dependent who enrolled in coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. You should have received Form(s) 1095A showing the amount of the advance payments, if any. It appears that item 3: You had net earnings from selfemployment of at least $400. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) would most likely apply. It obviously is not too late to file for 2016, because taxes aren't due for another month. As to previous years that would depend if you made money those years, and how much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa5825450af7fba4836e5b9e31aa2c81", "text": "You pay it this tax year. Whether that's now due to W-2 withholding, or later with your 1040 next year, or with your 1040-ES all depends on your particular situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dab4f4eba07fe5cdd610a1ed0521d85", "text": "You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65d6268b9e11acd274bd0c2b77e86446", "text": "In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45390f1ecd215cbde66ecaa8e7578bd6", "text": "\"Gifts given and received between business partners or employers/employees are treated as income, if they are beyond minimal value. If your boss gives you a gift, s/he should include it as part of your taxable wages for payroll purposes - which means that some of your wages should be withheld to cover income, social security, and Medicare taxes on it. At the end of the year, the value of the gift should be included in Box 1 (wages) of your form W-2. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to do anything special. A 1099-MISC would not be appropriate because you are an employee of your boss - so the two of you need to address the full panoply of employment taxes, not just income tax, which would be the result if the payment were reported on 1099-MISC. If the employer wants to cover the cost to you of the taxes on the gift, they'll need to \"\"gross up\"\" your pay to cover it. Let's say your employer gives you a gift worth $100, and you're in a 25% tax bracket. Your employer has to give you $125 so that you end up with a gain of $100. But the extra $25 is taxable, too, so your employer will need to add on an extra $6.25 to cover the 25% tax on the $25. But, wait, now we've gotta pay 25% tax on the $6.25, so they add an extra $1.56 to cover that tax. And now they've gotta pay an extra $.39 . . . The formula to calculate the gross-up amount is: where [TAX RATE] is the tax rate expressed as a percentage. So, to get the grossed-up amount for a $100 gift in a 25% bracket, we'd calculate 1/(1-.25), or 1/.75, or 1.333, multiply that by the target gift amount of $100, and end up with $133.33. The equation is a little uglier if you have to pay state income taxes that are deductible on the federal return but it's a similar principle. The entire $133.33 would then be reported as income, but the net effect on the employee is that they're $100 richer after taxes. The \"\"gross-up\"\" idea can be quite complicated if you dig into the details - there are some circumstances where an additional few dollars of income can have an unexpected impact on a tax return, in a fashion not obvious from looking at the tax table. If the employer doesn't include the gift in Box 1 on the W-2 but you want to pay taxes on it anyway, include the amount in Line 7 on the 1040 as if it had been on a W-2, and fill out form 8919 to calculate the FICA taxes that should have been withheld.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4867627f8a0ac6019c5a4cb6e87e0422", "text": "Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a67170ffc59dbf2ae2485ac4f2bd9", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59e75daa5e86124187e195b99c1a93f1", "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: 260848 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240850 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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7912721aeec16df874e5977ea2a9eaa0", "text": "Here's an article on it that might help: http://thefinancebuff.com/restricted-stock-units-rsu-sales-and.html One of the tricky things is that you probably have the value of the vested shares and withheld taxes already on your W-2. This confuses everyone including the IRS (they sent me one of those audits-by-mail one year, where the issue was they wanted to double-count stock compensation that was on both 1099-B and W-2; a quick letter explaining this and they were happy). The general idea is that when you first irrevocably own the stock (it vests) then that's income, because you're receiving something of value. So this goes on a W-2 and is taxed as income, not capital gains. Conceptually you've just spent however many dollars in income to buy stock, so that's your basis on the stock. For tax paid, if your employer withheld taxes, it should be included in your W-2. In that case you would not separately list it elsewhere.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f4c6c82dd854053318fe471f8b64357d	Why are estimated taxes due “early” for the 2nd and 3rd quarters only?	[ { "docid": "04468a78b190230604ded783ba3cbc6c", "text": "There are too many nuances to the question asked to explore fully but here are a few points to keep in mind. If you are a cash-basis taxpayer (most individuals are), then you are not required to pay taxes on the money that has been billed but not received as yet. If you operate on an accrual basis, then the income accrues to you the day you perform the service and not on the day you bill the client. You can make four equal payments of estimated tax on the due dates, and if these (together with any income tax withholding from wage-paying jobs) are at least 90% of your tax liability for that year, then you owe no penalties for underpayment of tax regardless of how your income varied over the year. If your income does vary considerably over the year (even for people who only have wages but who invest in mutual funds, the income can vary quite a bit since mutual funds typically declare dividends and capital gains in December), then you can pay different amounts in each quarterly installment of estimated tax. This is called the annualization method (a part of Form 2210 that is best avoided unless you really need to use it). Your annualized income for the payment due on June 15 is 2.4 = 12/5 times your taxable income through May 31. Thus, on Form 2210, you are allowed to assume that your average monthly taxable income through May 31 will continue for the rest of the year. You then compute the tax due on that annualized income and you are supposed to have paid at least 45% of that amount by June 15. Similarly for September 15 for which you look at income through August 31, you use a multiplier of 1.5 = 12/8 and need to pay 67.5% of the tax on the annualized income, and so on. If you miscalculate these numbers and pay too little tax in any installment, then you owe penalties for that quarter. Most people find that guesstimating the tax due for the entire year and paying it in equal installments is simpler than keeping track of nuances of the annualized method. Even simpler is to pay 100% of last year's tax in four equal installments (110% for high earners) and then no penalty is due at all. If your business is really taking off and your income is going to be substantially higher in one year, then this 100%/110% of last year's tax deal could allow you to postpone a significant chunk of your tax bill till April 15.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f417854873f63cf92c832db578efa054", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ffef3f15795d301785bb58e85f6fa15", "text": "I suspect that the payments were originally due near the end of each quarter (March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15) but then the December payment was extended to January 15 to allow for end-of-year totals to be calculated, and then the March payment was extended to April 15 to coincide with Income Tax Return filing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4f99997d3bcbab87ed77d11efcbb9b49", "text": "Estimated tax payments should be a reasonable estimate of what you owe for that time period. If it seems reasonable to you, it is probably reasonable. Sure, you can adjust for varying-length periods. As long as, in the end, you can and do pay what you owe, and don't underpay the estimated/withholding by enough that you owe a penalty, the IRS isn't all that picky about how the money is actually distributed through the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dcc82bbb9e4ab6690ff1f44442fe6d8", "text": "\"The forms get updated every year, and the software providers need to get approved by the IRS every year. \"\"Form is not yet finalized\"\" means that this year form hasn't been approved yet. IRS starts accepting returns on January 31st anyway, nothing to be worried about. Why are you nearing a deadline? The deadline for 1120 (corporate tax return) is 2 and 1/2 months after your corp year end, which if you're a calendar year corp is March 15th. If your year end is in November/December - you can use the prior year forms, those are finalized.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5ce258c252eb127e48a7a588eb6ee11", "text": "You must pay your taxes at the quarterly intervals. For most people the withholding done by their employer satisfies this requirement. However, if your income does not have any withholding (or sufficient), then you must file quarterly estimated tax payments. Note that if you have a second job that does withhold, then you can adjust your W4 to request further withholding there and possibly reduce the need for estimated payments. Estimated tax payments also come into play with large investment earnings. The amount that you need to prepay the IRS is impacted by the safe harbor rule, which I am sure others will provide the exact details on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbc2900dd925281d60d1f846130c6e5f", "text": "\"Everything is fine. If line 77 from last year is empty, you should leave this question blank. You made estimated tax payments in 2015. But line 77 relates to a different way to pay the IRS. When you filed your 2014 taxes, if you were owed a refund, and you expected to owe the IRS money for 2015, line 77 lets you say \"\"Hey IRS, instead of sending me a refund for 2014, just keep the money and apply it to my 2015 taxes.\"\" You can also ask them to keep a specified amount and refund the rest. Either way this is completely optional. It sounds like you didn't do that, so you don't fill in anything here. The software should ask you in a different question about your estimated tax payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "118c268c5016743d186602b1f6febbb0", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6302253c06243087d1f4e543d757815", "text": "Ultimately, you are the one that is responsible for your tax filings and your payments (It's all linked to your SSN, after all). If this fee/interest is the result of a filing error, and you went through a preparing company which assumes liability for their own errors, then you should speak to them. They will likely correct this and pay the fees. On the other hand, if this is the result of not making quarterly payments, then you are responsible for it. (Source: Comptroller of Maryland Site) If you [...] do not have Maryland income taxes withheld by an employer, you can make quarterly estimated tax payments as part of a pay-as-you-go plan. If your employer does withhold Maryland taxes from your pay, you may still be required to make quarterly estimated income tax payments if you develop a tax liability that exceeds the amount withheld by your employer by more than $500. From this watered-down public-facing resource, it seems like you'll get hit with fees for not making quarterly payments if your tax liability exceeds $500 beyond what is withheld (currently: $0).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "348fe523b39695c11e4bb9e24392e524", "text": "If you're getting the same total amount of money every year, then the main issue is psychological. I mean, you may find it easier to manage your money if you get it on one schedule rather than another. It's generally better to get money sooner rather than later. If you can deposit it into an account that pays interest or invest it between now and when you need it, then you'll come out ahead. But realistically, if we're talking about getting money a few days or a week or two sooner, that's not going to make much difference. If you get a paycheck just before the end of the year versus just after the end of the year, there will be tax implications. If the paycheck is delayed until January, then you don't have to pay taxes on it this year. Of course you'll have to pay the taxes next year, so that could be another case of sooner vs later. But it can also change your total taxes, because, in the US and I think many other countries, taxes are not a flat percentage, but the more you make, the higher the tax rate. So if you can move income to a year when you have less total income, that can lower your total taxes. But really, the main issue would be how it affects your budgeting. Others have discussed this so I won't repeat.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c03a09f06650bf57d78ea96446ea5f09", "text": "Usually you want two consecutive quarters before declaring a recession. This blog doesn't reference any seasonal adjustment; a one or two month decline may be to any number of reasons. E.g. labor numbers dropped this month largely attributed to weather. I only see screen shots of excel sheets, I'm not willing to invest any time into parsing that out :(", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd07b9332ec0af4e8cddc1f4c558f5dc", "text": "\"From the IRS page on Estimated Taxes (emphasis added): Taxes must be paid as you earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. If the amount of income tax withheld from your salary or pension is not enough, or if you receive income such as interest, dividends, alimony, self-employment income, capital gains, prizes and awards, you may have to make estimated tax payments. If you are in business for yourself, you generally need to make estimated tax payments. Estimated tax is used to pay not only income tax, but other taxes such as self-employment tax and alternative minimum tax. I think that is crystal clear that you're paying income tax as well as self-employment tax. To expand a bit, you seem to be confusing self-employment tax and estimated tax, which are not only two different things, but two different kinds of things. One is a tax, and the other is just a means of paying your taxes. \"\"Self-employment tax\"\" refers to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that you must pay on your self-employment income. This is an actual tax that you owe. If you receive a W-2, half of it is \"\"invisibly\"\" paid by your employer, and half of it is paid by you in the form of visible deductions on your pay stub. If you're self-employed, you have to pay all of it explicitly. \"\"Estimated tax\"\" does not refer to any actual tax levied on anyone. A more pedantically correct phrasing would be \"\"estimated tax payment\"\". Estimated taxes are just payments that you make to the IRS to pay tax you expect to owe. Whether you have to make such payments depends on how much tax you owe and whether you've paid it by other means. You may need to pay estimated tax even if you're not self-employed, although this would be unusual. (It could happen, for instance, if you realized large capital gains over the year.) You also may be self-employed but not need to pay estimated tax (if, for instance, you also have a W-2 job and you reduce your withholding allowances to have extra tax withheld). That said, if you earn significant income from self-employment, you'll likely have to make estimated tax payments. These are prepayments of the income tax and Social Security/Medicare taxes you accrue based on your self-employment income. As Pete B. mentioned in his answer, a possible reason that your estiamtes are low is because some taxes have already been withheld from the paychecks you received so far during the year (while you were an employee). These represent tax payments you've already made; you don't need to pay that money a second time, but you may need to make estimated tax payments for your income going forward.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38372658a2b0cb9eaee21ed8679d07cc", "text": "\"You don't actually have to make four equal payments on US federal taxes; you can pay different amounts each quarter. To avoid penalties, you must have paid \"\"enough\"\" at the end of each quarter. If you pay too much in an early quarter, the surplus counts towards the amount due in later quarters. If you have paid too little as of the end of a quarter, that deficit counts against you for interest and penalties until it is made up in later quarters (or at year-end settlement). How much is \"\"enough\"\"? There are a number of ways of figuring it. You can see the list of exceptions to the penalty in the IRS documentation. Using unequal payments may require more complicated calculation methods to avoid or reduce penalties at year-end. If you have the stomach for it, you may want to study the Annualized Income Installment Method to see how uneven income might affect the penalty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cc980dd84c99df9e3ac48558af4987c", "text": "Either make your best guess, or set it low and then file quarterly Estimated Tax payments to fill in what's missing, or set it high and plan on getting a refund, or adjust it repeatedly through the year, or...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0230fdf2990f65c209c70bf3251d2bbb", "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.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e39a1801cbfa777e2fda516c1822da31", "text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf9d3194a23f0e9f668052dac979fcc2", "text": "If you have non-salary income, you might be required to file 1040ES estimated tax for the next year on a quarterly basis. You can instead pay some or all in advance from your previous year's refund. In theory, you lose the interest you might have made by holding that money for a few months. In practice it might be worth it to avoid needing to send forms and checks every quarter. For instance if you had a $1000 estimated tax requirement and the alternative was to get 1% taxable savings account interest for six months, you'd make about $3 from holding it for the year. I would choose to just pay in advance. If you had a very large estimation, or you could pay off a high-rate debt and get a different effective rate of return, the tradeoff may be different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "669955e5acafee701a6cc0e6b6ab3e34", "text": "There actually are legitimate reasons, but they don't apply to most people. Here are a few that I know of: You're self-employed and have to pay quarterly estimated taxes. Rather than wait for the refund when you already have to pay 1/4 of next year's taxes at the same time, you just have the IRS apply to refund forward. (so you're not out the money you owe while waiting for your refund). You're filing an amended or late return, and so you're already into the next year, and have a similar situation as #1, where your next year's taxes have already come due. You're planning on declaring bankruptcy, and you're under the Tenth Circuit, those credits might be safe from creditors For almost any other situation, you're better off taking the money, and using it to pay down debt, or put it somewhere to make interest (although, at the current rates, that might not be very much).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ea2a374d00528fc949e5c29b3e8d2117	What are the primary investment strategies people use and why do they use them?	[ { "docid": "43efa4f1ce571c7f5ce6531d28dfee39", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bda3ef90192a9c5903b02085137489e8", "text": "Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "577d32a6386ae00278c2b00cdf53fbc9", "text": "\"I would change that statement to \"\"very few people can CONSISTENTLY beat the market \"\". Successful strategies will get piled into and reduce returns. Markets will pick up inefficiencies, but at the same time they do exists. Tons of interesting reading especially in regards to value. Is there a risk premium that we don't know for value? Or is it a market behavior thing?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fca05efbdc5641fa55c112669d696760", "text": "I think the list could have added: - Save in regular intervals using the same strategy. Just to make sure that good old dollar cost averaging is thrown in. That's probably where most people go way wrong. Save money all year, dump it on a stock they like because some family friend investment expert said that 'apple prices will go up' with out explaining that you need to take advantage of mean reversion to help spread the risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e12ed80eefb5bca7e5891e488a49432", "text": "This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b3d7a7c4d8d36118d82262283492883", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c007d2f764ed54de2b635b1ceb950c4", "text": "\"(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing \"\"tl;dr\"\" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish. They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify. The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market. Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9aa4ec6f87b8f797f24108808a2ab3b", "text": "What you are suggesting would be the correct strategy, if you knew exactly when the market was going to go back up. This is called market timing. Since it has been shown that no one can do this consistently, the best strategy is to just keep your money where it is. The market tends to make large jumps, especially lately. Missing just a few of these in a year can greatly impact your returns. It doesn't really matter what the market does while you hold investments. The important part is how much you bought for and how much you sold for. This assumes that the reasons that you selected those particular investments are still valid. If this is not the case, by all means sell them and pick something that does meet your needs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e72405e4b94676de0eaf1aac18d330f2", "text": "In my IRA I try to find stocks that are in growing sectors but have are undervalued by traditional metrics like PE or book value; I make sure that they have lower debt levels than their peers, are profitable, and at least have comparable margins. I started trading options to make better returns off of indices or etfs. It seems overlooked but it's pretty good, in another thread I was telling someone about my strategy buy applying it to thier portfolio: https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/77bt17/ive_been_trading_stocks_for_a_year_and_am/dolydu8/?context=3 I double checked, I told him/her I would buy the DIA Jan 19 2018 call 225 for 795. 8 days later it's trading for 1085. Nearly 50% in a week. It'll never be 300% earnings returns, but I'm happy to take it slow. Shorting is a very different animal it takes a lot to get things right.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5efc6c902e24c8e389569c5dc1e4bf6e", "text": "What's the best strategy? Buy low and sell high. Now. A lot of people try to do this. A few are successful, but for the most part, people who try to time the market end up worse. A far more successful strategy is to save over your entire lifetime, put the money into a very low-cost market fund, and just let the average performance take you to retirement. Put another way, if you think that there is an obvious, no-fail, double-your-money-due-to-a-correction strategy, you're wrong. Otherwise everyone would do it. And someone who tells you that there is such a strategy almost surely will be trying to separate you from a good amount of your money. In the end, $80K isn't a life-altering, never-have-to-work-again amount of money. What I think you ought to do with it is: pay off any credit card debts you may have, pay a significant chunk of student loan or other personal loan debts you may have, make sure you have a decent emergency fund set aside, and then put the rest into diversified low-cost mutual funds. Think of it as a nice leg-up towards your retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cab6f29603421ac01a73951b5efaa1ac", "text": "\"The article \"\"Best Stock Fund of the Decade: CGM Focus\"\" from the Wall Street Journal in 2009 describe the highest performing mutual fund in the USA between 2000 and 2009. The investor return in the fund (what the shareholders actually earned) was abysmal. Why? Because the fund was so volatile that investors panicked and bailed out, locking in losses instead of waiting them out. The reality is that almost any strategy will lead to success in investing, so long as it is actually followed. A strategy keeps you from making emotional or knee-jerk decisions. (BTW, beware of anyone selling you a strategy by telling you that everyone in the world is a failure except for the few special people who have the privilege of knowing their \"\"secrets.\"\") (Link removed, as it's gone dead)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a", "text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52dfd7c00f4651032be5d7f3fdf3a5a6", "text": "Kiyosaki says his methods of actions are not suitable for the average investor. They are meant for those wanting to excel at investing, and are willing to work for it. Personally, I wouldn't want to own ten apartments, because it sounds like a terrible headache. I would much rather have a huge portfolio of index funds. I believe that Kiyosaki's method allegedly perform better than the passive 'invest-diversify-hold' strategy, but would require a new mindset and dedication, and are risky unless you are willing to invest a lot of time learning the fine details. I prefer to dedicate my time elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ede31fcc47e5b8ff627c7d2387e5796", "text": "Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "123f22352603dbe74e27a43eaabc775e", "text": "There are really two answers, depending on your goal. You're either trying to preserve wealth, or increase wealth. In the case of preserving wealth, undervalued blue chip stocks are always a great move. Bonus points if they have a history of increasing dividend payments. The best example I have is bank stocks - the continuously change their dividend payouts (usually to the benefit of investors), and at the same time, many have been undervalued, or over-whelped during the downturn. Alternatively, you can let things sit, and buy high quality corporate bonds. I'm seeing (daily) offers from my brokerage's new issues list for high quality bonds paying 5.75%-7.25%. While you have to lock in your money for the period, the rate of return tends to offset lock-in worries, and you can still usually sell the shares in a secondary market, or through your broker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e4f01017045a7b9ef74ebae91eacf5a", "text": "\"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23b15c62d167248077f59ce49ce98344", "text": "In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1dacc49b5740e95ad2b1dcbf65cb269b	Make punctual contributions to IRS based on earnings	[ { "docid": "0dae50b5d6c8199652419e5dd726b2aa", "text": "I will answer this question broadly for various jurisdictions, and also specifically for the US, given the OP's tax home: Generally, for any tax jurisdiction If your tax system relies on periodic prepayments through the year, and a final top-up/refund at the end of the year (ie: basically every country), you have 3 theoretical goals with how much you pre-pay: Specifically, for the U.S. All information gathered from here: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes. In short, depending on your circumstance, you may need to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to avoid penalties on April 15th. Even if you won't be penalized, you, may benefit from doing so anyway (to force yourself to save the money necessary by April 15th). I have translated the general goals above, into US-specific advice:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d42f309a482e9853bffb38d3a8d21e7c", "text": "Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office. If it's allowed, it's allowed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2759de95b6e4abc47e93cbccb708395a", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45f7684814dbac7f3eed5ce793c0413b", "text": "The purpose of making sure you met the safe harbor was to avoid the penalty. Having achieved that goal the tax law allows you to wait until April 15th to pay the balance. So do so. Put enough money aside to make sure you can easily make that payment. I was in this exact situation a few years ago. I planned my w4 to make the safe harbor, and then slept easy even though the house settlement was in May and I didn't have to make the IRS payment unti 11 months later in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c9b09427bf59ac4ea866460fe930c7e", "text": "Very grey area. You can't pay them to run errands, mow the lawn, etc. I'd suggest that you would have to have self employment income (i.e. your own business) for you to justify the deduction. And then the work itself needs to be applicable to the business. I've commented here and elsewhere that I jumped on this when my daughter at age 12 started to have income from babysitting. I told her that in exchange for her taking the time to keep a notebook, listing the family paying her, the date, and amount paid, I'd make a deposit to a Roth IRA for her. I've approaches taxes each year in a way that would be audit-compliant, i.e. a paper trail that covers any and all deductions, donations, etc. In the real world, the IRS isn't likely to audit someone for that Roth deposit, as there's little for them to recover.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8c569996a42b57bb6a892abe0f18a17", "text": "Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96be169c2db8ab9588b647f3b54e964b", "text": "By definition, this is a payroll deduction. There's no mechanism for you to tell the 401(k) administrator that a Jan-15 deposit is to be credited for 2016 instead of 2017. (As is common for IRAs where you do have the 'until tax time' option) If you are paid weekly, semi-monthly, or monthly, 12/31 is a Saturday this year and should leave no ambiguity about the date of your last check. The only unknown for me if if one is paid bi-weekly, and has a check covering 12/25 - 1/7. Payroll/HR will need to answer whether that check is considered all in 2016, all in 2017 or split between the two.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817", "text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.158K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67bbd14128eadd93b30815a6c969ca14", "text": "Just from my own experience (I am not an accountant): In addition to counting as 'business income' (1040 line 12 [1]) your $3000 (or whatever) will be subject to ~15% self-employment tax, on Schedule SE. This carries to your 1040 line ~57, which is after all your 'adjustments to income', exemptions, and deductions - so, those don't reduce it. Half of the 15% is deductible on line ~27, if you have enough taxable income for it to matter; but, in any case, you will owe at least 1/2 of the 15%, on top of your regular income tax. Your husband could deduct this payment as a business expense on Schedule C; but, if (AIUI) he will have a loss already, he'll get no benefit from this in the current year. If you do count this as income to you, it will be FICA income; so, it will be credited to your Social Security account. Things outside my experience that might bear looking into: I suspect the IRS has criteria to determine whether spousal payments are legit, or just gaming the tax system. Even if your husband can't 'use' the loss this year, he may be able to apply it in the future, when/if he has net business income. [1] NB: Any tax form line numbers are as of the last I looked - they may be off by one or two.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a67170ffc59dbf2ae2485ac4f2bd9", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "406353e863d43c9bb95e9139290c1653", "text": "Scenario: Ken contributes $20,000 in 2015 when the 402(g) limit is $18,000. Ken is not old enough to make catch-up contributions. Ken made $2,000 in excess deferrals which the plan must correct by refunding the excess and any allocable earnings. If the correction is made prior to April 15th, 2016: No penalty. The excess + earnings is refunded to Ken and basically becomes income. Ken will receive 2 1099-R's one for the excess deferral in 2015, and one for the allocable earnings in 2016. The refund is taxed at Ken's income tax rate. If the correction is made after April 15th, 2016: Double taxation! The excess contribution is taxable in 2015, and again in the year it is distributed. Allocable earnings are taxed in the year distributed. The excess + allocable earnings may also be subject to 10% early withdrawal penalty.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "360448724a2cebca4bbfeff2001f9da6", "text": "The principal of the contribution can definitely be withdrawn tax-free and penalty-free. However, there is a section that makes me think that the earnings part may be subject to penalty in addition to tax. In Publication 590-A, under Traditional IRAs -> When Can You Withdraw or Use Assets? -> Contributions Returned Before Due Date of Return -> Early Distributions Tax, it says: The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59½ does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59½ rule, it will be subject to this tax. This section is only specifically about the return of contributions before the due date of return, not a general withdrawal (as you can see from the first sentence that the penalty doesn't apply to contributions, which wouldn't be true of general withdrawals). Therefore, the second sentence must be about the earnings part of the withdrawal that you must make together with the contribution part as part of the return of contributions before the due date of the return. If the penalty it is talking about is only about other types of withdrawals and doesn't apply to the earnings part of the return of contribution before the due date of the return, then this sentence wouldn't make sense as it's in a part that's only about return of contribution before the due date of the return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6680baf685557a9bde7d1dc30b851ff3", "text": "You elected to defer paying taxes by contributing to an IRA. Lawmakers simply want to make sure that they collect those taxes by requiring you to either withdraw the money (incurring a tax liability) or pay a penalty (tax).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58017c0a2c7a33f0f09e62d12ebcacf7", "text": "Yes you can. This is known as a short selling against the box. In the old days, this was used to delay a taxable event. You could lock in a gain without triggering a taxable event. Any loss on one side of the box would be offset by a loss on the other side, and vice versa. However, the IRS clamped down on this, and you will realize the gain on your long position as soon as you go short on the other side. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sellagainstthebox.asp. As to how to initiate the short cover, just transfer the long position to the same account as your short position and make sure your broker covers the short. Should be relatively easy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e1bd20e6583336a2a461705b9cd9eba", "text": "\"The heart of the question is: why can't Bill just pay whatever he owes based on his income in that quarter? If Q2 is gang busters, he'll increase his tax payment. Then if Q3 is surprisingly slow, he'll pay less than he paid in Q2. I think what's most interesting about this question is that the other answers are geared towards how a taxpayer is supposed to estimate taxes. But that's not my objective -- nor is it Bill's objective. My [his] real objective is: In other words, the answer to this question either needs to deal with not overpaying, or it needs to deal with mitigating the underpayment penalty. AFAICT, there are 2 solutions: Solution 1 Figure your estimated taxes based on last year's tax. You won't owe a penalty if your withholding + estimated tax payments in each quarter are 25% or more of your previous year's tax liability. Here's the section that I am basing this on: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch04.html Minimum required each period. You will owe a penalty for any 2011 payment period for which your estimated tax payment plus your withholding for the period and overpayments for previous periods was less than the smaller of: 22.5% of your 2011 tax, or 25% of your 2010 tax. (Your 2010 tax return must cover a 12-month period.) Solution 2 Use the \"\"Annualized Income Installment Method\"\". This is not a method for calculating estimated taxes, per se. It's actually a method for reducing or eliminating your underpayment penalty. It's also intended to assist tax payers with unpredictable incomes. If you did not receive your income evenly throughout the year (for example, your income from a shop you operated at a marina was much larger in the summer than it was during the rest of the year), you may be able to lower or eliminate your penalty by figuring your underpayment using the annualized income installment method. Emphasis added. In order to take advantage of this, you'll need to send in a Schedule AI at the end of the year along with a Form 2210. The downside to this is that you're basically racking up underpayment penalties throughout the year, then at the end of the year you're asking the IRS to rescind your penalty. The other risk is that you still pay estimated taxes on your Q2 - Q4 earnings in Q1, you just pay much less than 25%. So if you have a windfall later in the year, I think you could get burned on your Q1 underpayment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d25e0544d7c8f33c5e088114db9e920", "text": "\"You must have $x of taxable income that year in order to make a contribution of $x to IRA for that year. It doesn't matter where the actual \"\"money\"\" that you contribute comes from -- for tax purposes, all that matters is the total amount of taxable income and the total amount of contributions; how you move your money around or divide it up is irrelevant.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1d75a9d9f906373a1292dd938390b96f	Is a “total stock market” index fund diverse enough alone?	[ { "docid": "fda874738f68f83b73d40aa1db1d01f1", "text": "You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e5d97779d66424a1f1b251caeed7bf6", "text": "and seems to do better than the S&P 500 too. No, that's not true. In fact, this fund is somewhere between S&P500 and the NASDAQ Composite indexes wrt to performance. From my experience (I have it too), it seems to fall almost in the middle between SPY and QQQ in daily moves. So it does provide diversification, but you're basically diversifying between various indexes. The cost is the higher expense ratios (compare VTI to VOO).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b64e6f44cfffa8152c4f202306b9333", "text": "Write off the entire asset class of corporate bonds? Finance theory says yes, the only two asset classes that you need are stocks and treasury bills (very short-term US government bonds). See the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fb16f6ebc255233b5509e56fee988c5", "text": "I don't think you are missing much, if anything, Brendan. You get massive diversification and low fees with a fund like VTI. I'm not sure if it is good to have everything with only one broker though. I would add to the conversation that the goal shouldn't be to have a giant pile of money in x years..and then spend it down in retirement. A much better/safer goal is to have enough dividends being generated that you never have to touch your capital. Looks like you are starting young so congrats.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cf6dc9d508ba6aec8645becf43c228b", "text": "\"Brendan, The short answer is no, there is no need to get into any other funds. For all intents and purposes the S&P 500 is \"\"The Stock Market\"\". The news media may quote the Dow when the market reaches new highs or crashes but all of the Dow 30 stocks are included in the S&P 500. The S&P is also marketcap weighted, which means that it owns in higher proportion the big \"\"Blue Chip\"\" stocks more than the smaller less known companies. To explain, the top 10 holdings in the S&P represent 18% of the total index, while the bottom 10 only represent 0.17% (less than 1 percent). They do have an equal weighted S&P in which all 500 companies represent only 1/500th of the index and that is technically even more diversified but in actuality it makes it more volatile because it has a higher concentration of those smaller less known companies. So it will tend to perform better during up markets and worse during down markets. As far as diversification into different asset classes or other countries, that's non-sense. The S&P 500 has companies in it that give you that exposure. For example, it includes companies that directly benefit from rising oil prices, rising gold prices, etc known as the Energy and Materials sector. It also includes companies that own malls, apartment complexes, etc. known as the Real Estate sector. And as far as other countries, most of the companies in the S&P are multi-national companies, meaning that they do business over seas in many parts of the world. Apple and FaceBook for example sell their products in many different countries. So you don't need to invest any of your money into an Emerging Market fund or an Asia Fund because most of our companies are already doing business in those parts of the world. Likewise, you don't need to specifically invest into a real estate or gold fund. As far as bonds go, if you're in your twenties you have no need for them either. Why, because the S&P 500 also pays you dividends and these dividends grow over time. So for example, if Microsoft increases its dividend payment by 100% over a ten year period , all of the shares you buy today at a 2.5% yield will, in 10 years, have a higher 5% yield. A bond on the other hand will never increase its yield over time. If it pays out 4%, that's all it will ever pay. You want to invest because you want to grow your money and if you want to invest passively the fastest way to do that is through index ETFs like the $SPY, $IVV, and $RSP. Also look into the $XIV, it's an inverse VIX ETF, it moves 5x faster than the S&P in the same direction. If you want to actively trade your money, you can grow it even faster by getting into things like options, highly volatile penny stocks, shorting stocks, and futures. Don't get involved in FX or currency trading, unless it through futures.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35c0f7c832b86a7798bfb34c447c78c9", "text": "Good idea to stay only with VTI if you are 30. For 50, I recommend: 65% VTI 15% VOO 10% VXUS 10% BND", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "63c887e3ce5fcbdc3b4a2d62eecfd837", "text": "Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68ca8ce246d0e966543105f3cfd308d4", "text": "Yes, it is unreasonable and unsustainable. We all want returns in excess of 15% but even the best and richest investors do not sustain those kinds of returns. You should not invest more than a fraction of your net worth in individual stocks in any case. You should diversify using index funds or ETFs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e58ec0d9172a4cbb4b23095ab7583a37", "text": "\"would constantly fluctuate and provide an indication of how well the market is doing. The index is there to tell if you made profit or loss by investing in the market. Using a pure total market cap will only tell you \"\"Did IPO activity exceed bankruptcy and privatization activity\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a198d0acdcc2a019260a9d70f0bdcf39", "text": "Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11d7b3a389522f80d9d899b9bff4ec81", "text": "\"You quickly run into issues of what denotes \"\"similar\"\", and how to construct an appropriate index methodology. For example, do you group all CB arb funds together globally or separate them by country? Is long-bias equity long-short different to no-bias and variable-bias? Is a fund that concentrates on sovereign debt more like a macro fund or a fixed income fund? And so on. By definition, hedge funds try not to mimic their peers, with varying degrees of success. Even if you get through that problem, how do you create the index? You may not be able to get return numbers for all the \"\"similar\"\" funds, and even if you do, how do you weight them? By AUM, or equal weight? There are commercial indices out there (CSFB, Eurekahedge, Marhedge, Barclays, MSCI, etc) but there's no one accepted standard, and it's unlikely that there ever will be as a result. It's certainly interesting to look at your performance versus one of these indices, and many investors do monitor fund performance this way, but to demand strict benchmarking to one of them is a big ask...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91ac8519ecdfef7fe122c4fde90a549d", "text": "\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \"\"market rate of return\"\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfe7cdcbff23350b408f12110c75cf4c", "text": "Funds can't limit themselves to a small number of stocks without also limiting themselves to a small amount of total investment. I think 25 companies is too small to be practical from their point of view.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfe08dfc688e3e87e95667f68f4eb311", "text": "\"Diversification is extremely important and the one true \"\"Free Lunch\"\" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about \"\"true\"\" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated \"\"Return Drivers.\"\" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc774863ed13c1d2f406183d15b26019", "text": "Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well. I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up? Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61a3236acf34529cae6bfa96e07ccccb", "text": "\"As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your \"\"S&P 500\"\" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fbab26ea90ed96ee595869a4742a7f8", "text": "diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46954434d854deff0918901928a5d57c", "text": "How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8eb242062af3deb1b43b4460f7fe2ce", "text": "As these all seem to be US Equity, just getting one broad based US Equity index might offer similar diversification at lower cost. Over 5 years, 20 basis points in fees will only make about 1% difference. However, for longer periods (retirement saving), it is worth it to aim for the lowest fees. For further diversification, you might want to consider other asset classes, such as foreign equity, fixed income, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ab67cb866af574225982bd99e0e663a", "text": "\"It sounds like you need an index fund that follows so called Sustainability index. A sustainability index does not simply select \"\"socially responsible\"\" industries. It attempts to replicate the target market, in terms of countries, industries, and company sizes, but it also aims to select most \"\"sustainable\"\" companies from each category. This document explains how Dow Jones Sustainability World index is constructed (emphasis mine): An example of a fund following such index is iShares Dow Jones Global Sustainability Screened UCITS ETF, which also excludes \"\"sin stocks\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42be91c24d44888a1d06dd8dd83d69fa", "text": "I am in the same boat as you right now, I have about a year experience working for a financial advisor but even then it is not relevant enough for being an analyst. I have put in over 120 apps over the past month and a half to any position that I meet 90% of requirements. The only thing I don't have is years of experience. I know how to code VBA, and how to build financial models but alas, I am looked over. I have also been trying to network like crazy and just accepted to do a temp job working for a bank as a loan analyst and hopefully that will pan out into something better. Many jobs want experiences with SAP and SQL, and I don't have either of those either, and there is no where to get experience because no junior analyst positions will take me without enough experience. I turned down a banking internship because I did not want to take out loans for college, and now I am thinking I made the wrong choice. Hopefully some one will pick us up and catch us up to speed soon! What area are you living in? I am in the Chicago area and I see new postings every day. Also are you going to every job board? Career-builder, Monster, Indeed, LinkedIn, Craigslist? I have also hooked up with a few recruiting firms, they are the ones who got me the temp job. If you are in the Chicago area I will recommend a few for you to look into and a couple to stay away from. Good luck on your search! I know you need it, because I need it too...", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
094591b1d9ab6d721d5afdd6b71384a4	Is the Net Profit the 'final word' on a company's health?	[ { "docid": "8f20d184f04a39ab58bee86c211d7adc", "text": "\"To answer your question briefly: net income is affected by many things inside and outside of management control, and must be supplemented by other elements to gain a clear picture of a company's health. To answer your question in-depth, we must look at the history of financial reporting: Initially, accounting was primarily cash-based. That is, a business records a sale when a customer pays them cash, and records expenses when cash goes out the door. This was not a perfectly accurate system, as cashflow might be quite erratic even if sales are stable (collection times may differ, etc.). To combat problems with cash-based accounting, financial reporting moved to an accrual-based system. An accrual is the recording of an item before it has fully completed in a cash transaction. For example, when you ship goods to a customer and they owe you money, you record the revenue - then you record the future collection of cash as a balance sheet item, rather than an income statement item. Another example: if your landlord charges you rent on December 31st for the past year, then in each month leading up to December, you accrue the expense on the income statement, even though you haven't paid the landlord yet. Accrual-based accounting leaves room for accounting manipulation. Enron is a prime example; among other things, they were accruing revenue for sales that had not occurred. This 'accelerated' their income, by having it recorded years before cash was ever collectible. There are specific guidelines that restrict doing things like this, but management will still attempt to accelerate net income as much as possible under accounting guidelines. Public companies have their financial statements audited by unrelated accounting firms - theoretically, they exist to catch material misstatements in the financial statements. Finally, some items impacting profit do not show up in net income - they show up in \"\"Other Comprehensive Income\"\" (OCI). OCI is meant to show items that occurred in the year, but were outside of management control. For example, changes in the value of foreign subsidiaries, due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Or changes in the value of company pension plan, which are impacted by the stock market. However, while OCI is meant to pick up all non-management-caused items, it is a grey area and may not be 100% representative of this idea. So in theory, net income is meant to represent items within management control. However, given the grey area in accounting interpretation, net income may be 'accelerated', and it also may include some items that occurred by some 'random business fluke' outside of company control. Finally, consider that financial statements are prepared months after the last year-end. So a company may show great profit for 2015 when statements come out in March, but perhaps Jan-March results are terrible. In conclusion, net income is an attempt at giving what you want: an accurate representation of the health of a company in terms of what is under management control. However it may be inaccurate due to various factors, from malfeasance to incompetence. That's why other financial measures exist - as another way to answer the same question about a company's health, to see if those answers agree. ex: Say net income is $10M this year, but was only $6M last year - great, it went up by $4M! But now assume that Accounts Receivable shows $7M owed to the company at Dec 31, when last year there was only $1M owed to the company. That might imply that there are problems collecting on that additional revenue (perhaps revenue was recorded prematurely, or perhaps they sold to customers who went bankrupt). Unfortunately there is no single number that you can use to see the whole company - different metrics must be used in conjunction to get a clear picture.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3acc8a3a418a3f0b1d7405347b21bc9c", "text": "Revenue is not profit. The vast majority of that revenue goes to the rest of the value chain of the products (manufacturers & distributors). [Wal-Mart's profit margin is 3.77% of revenue](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WMT). It's like saying VISA gets all the hundreds of billions of dollars people put on their credit cards, which is true, for a short period of time. But if you dont want to do any critical thinking and just looking for confirmation of your beliefs, this infographic is great. :P", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e45d5334eef5e00e04c8f2ea4c4cc892", "text": "\"Yes, that's true, but notice what you've done here. You have given two reasons why \"\"management is unable or unwilling to spend on innovation that could generate future earnings to shareholders\"\". You have expanded on rather than contradicted the statement made by the authors of the article.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d7f4d353dab4bde326ca491b6c9bf5b", "text": "Measures like GDP, unemployment, and wages are designed to measure the health of the economy. Those are the right measures to look at. When the economy is doing well, stock prices usually do well also, but not always. The stock market went up 23% in 2009, and the economy was in the shitter. And it shouldnt matter which newspaper published the numbers. If the numbers are right, the numbers are right. You dont need to hear GDP numbers on fox news to believe them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac8ebb8b553aee06cc7f8e9efc57f71a", "text": "If there are idiots saying nasty things, they will say nasty things about your competitors as well. There will ALWAYS be unhappy people. However, if there are significantly more unhappy people for you than there are for a competitor, then they're not dumb - you are doing something wrong. And you are right - you will sometimes disagree with the aggregate regarding relevant factors in judging a business. That happens, and there is currently nothing you can do about it. It does not diminish the value of the aggregate's opinion, though, for the vast majority of businesses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25c44d89601720a278622e8fb85a878b", "text": "When you've been running your business without a profit for 11 years (e.g. Tesla Motors), I would not call it a success. But maybe you happen to be very generous and think they should have another 11 to prove themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a37dde006cc3985b1f488161219edc97", "text": "\"Regardless of if the 'higher profits' are create from higher volumes and more workers, the key word there is PROFITS - not 'revenue', not 'income' or any similar word. PROFITS - a word used to describe the amount left AFTER paying expenses - such as the salaries of those additional workers (if any). The point is, the worker deserve a share of those profits. It is their work that has made them - in addition to the work of the CEO, of course, but still...the CEO could not have created 'better margins' or done 'better deployment of capital' if it were not for the efforts of those workers in the first place. This is the main problem with the economy right now. No one feels the responsibility to those who have helped them succeed. They keep using a 'slash and burn' financial strategy - slash salaries and benefits and burn up your labor force to extract every dollar you can for the top. The only problem is, now they're running out of things to slash and the workers they've burned have nothing left. And they wonder why the economy is in the crapper. I keep being reminded of a quote from Ladyhawke as said by the evil bishop: \"\"I raise their taxes, only to be told there's nothing left for me to tax. Imagine.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7b91053d1f4af486df95fc9edd1511e", "text": "You are correct. It's using accounting to accomplish different goals. First, relevant costs should be considered when making the decision to buy internally rather than externally. Second, by adding the possibility for a cost centre to turn a profit, even if it is only an accounting trick, means that interest are better aligned (profit motive and all). Third, you are right that on the consolidated/group level there is no real profit. It can give a better picture of actual economic performance though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2c3676b2b129cfa0ccd29b2f8cffcc2", "text": "\"One of the very best case studies of the dangers of sacrificing product quality for profit, [Schlitz Brewing Company](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schlitz_Brewing_Company) was [on the fortune 500 at one time](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/snapshots/1969/3214.html). In the 70's, Schlitz management [decided to make some changes to their beer to increase profit margins.](http://www.beerconnoisseur.com/the-fall-of-schlitz) They changed the fermentation process to a faster one, started using corn syrup instead of malt, and used hop pellets instead of fresh hops. They used unusual additives to compensate, which under certain circumstances make the beer the consistency of \"\"snot.\"\" Short-term profits went up, long-term customers stopped buying the beer. But if you want more modern examples, here are three from the [full list of 2012 fortune 500 companies](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/full_list/): * [Morgan Stanley](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley#Controversies_and_lawsuits) - responsible for global economic crash, sold financial products to customers while quietly betting against them. * Bank of America - doubles interest rates on customers in good standing and now charges fees for everything, including talking to a teller. * General Motors - now builds cars with interiors made mostly of cheap plastic. edit: fixed link\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e3880cd6b479618d8f67aa17c10f770", "text": "\"Marketing, namely advertising (Facebook, Google ads, maybe magazines, etc.) Despite all the nice words about \"\"healthy, green, and socially responsible\"\", the business of this company (and many, many similar ones) is not \"\"providing information\"\". It's affiliate marketing - getting people to click through to retail sites and buy stuff, on which the company earns commissions (often they also get paid for registrations). In a very real sense, their product is customers. They sell paying customers to the retail sites, and before that, they basically have to buy \"\"raw customers\"\" through advertising. The times when you could rely on getting enough people to visit your website for free are largely over - there is too much competition for peoples' attention. They can only be profitable if they can get the raw customers cheap enough, and can convert enough of them to paying customers. And this is really how it's talked about internally, in what is by now a highly organized industry: key performance measures are CPC (how much does it cost to get someone to come to your website), conversion rate (what percentage of visitors register) and ARPU (average revenue per user).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "656b679ad28e3cbb923d95a51b5719c2", "text": "\"The title of the submission you commented on is \"\"Antibiotic-Free Meat Business Is Booming, Thanks To Chipotle\"\". If the first sentence of your comment is \"\"Simply put this has to stop.\"\" From that, I can only reasonably infer that you think Chipotle needs to stop using antibiotic-free meat, which seems like a strange position.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c931bb2f9dcdb1cc4c7d39d26a373b32", "text": "\"No no no no and no. Headline accuracy is VERY important. People don't read articles. That was true two decades ago, let alone in the web age. The title could have easily read \"\"Survey of 2,000 US CEO's finds pay jump minimum Of 27 percent last year.\"\" Accurate, still gets point across. Your explanation really concerns me because it excuses lazy and/or salacious journalism.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32c9e041c72922c0a4efd5e86c9901a4", "text": "And again, not true. Ive been to literally hundreds of warehouses. The only ones with climate control are food storage warehouses that need to be below freezing, or amazon. No other company in my experience has the kind of systems in place to keep employees as comfortable as possible given the job. As for medical care, the warehouses i know the most about require an active EMT or paramedic license for medical responders in the warehouse. I remember the articles years ago about working conditions at Amazon, but ive not seen anything to prove those accusations, and ive seen plenty to convince me they either are no longer valid, or they never were in the first place", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3acf275d77964f6b617beee49dcc0d64", "text": "There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97576b7a5665b9d6703aa2b7af407aa2", "text": "Where we’re going, we don’t need profits Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Print this page 15 SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 By: Alexandra Scaggs Simply put, earnings no longer reliably reflect changes in corporate value and are thus an inadequate driver of investment analysis. – Profs Feng Gu and Baruch Lev, in a paper for the CFA Institute’s Financial Analysts Journal Well then! This idea challenges the very heart of traditional equity-market investment analysis. The authors point out that legendary stock-picker Benjamin Graham spent hundreds of pages of his 1962 book on analysing and predicting earnings and other quarterly metrics. Earnings prediction is still central to most sell-side analysis as well. But if profits, EBITDA or sales were truly central for corporate valuation, wouldn’t markets punish regular loss-makers like Tesla and Amazon more severely? And wouldn’t there be a stronger return to predicting profits? The returns to such predictions have diminished over time, according to the authors of the paper, which might help explain the persistent underperformance by active fund managers. While the professors commit a minor chart crime below by starting the Y-axis at 1.5 per cent, it seems notable that potential gains were lower during the 2009 downturn than during the dot-com bust: The 30-year pattern of the gains from the earnings growth investment strategy is depicted in Figure 2. Again, the deterioration of gains from perfect growth prediction is evident. Clearly, the problem lies with reported earnings, not in the way investors use them. Simply put, earnings no longer reliably reflect changes in corporate value and are thus an inadequate driver of investment analysis. The decline in profits’ importance can be explained by a fundamental change in the way companies create value, they say. There are lots of names for the change: The information revolution, the rise of the knowledge economy, and so on. No matter what you call it, the idea is that modern production relies less on physical capital and more on intellectual capital. Accounting and financial analysis methods have failed to adapt to this change, they say. For example, companies are required to expense R&D and sales expenses immediately, while they can amortise expenses from capital investment and acquisitions (including intangibles) over time. They argue those rules penalise the important methods of modern value creation, since R&D costs create lasting returns from new products and SG&A expenses create lasting returns from new customers. Of course, one person’s “internally generated intangibles” can be another’s “overpaid salesforce”. But the difference in accounting treatment between those costs and acquired intangibles can make it difficult to compare within industries: Thus, a company pursuing an innovation strategy based on acquisitions will appear more profitable and asset rich than a similar enterprise developing its innovations internally. Consequently, reported earnings, assets, and market multiples (P/E, book-to-market ratio) cannot be compared within industries, and earnings definitely do not reflect intrinsic value creation. And as far as we can tell, the professors aren’t lobbying to start amortising all sales costs and executive compensation. Instead, they say we should stop looking at the consequences of corporate value creation — the quarterly reports — and start looking at its causes. They suggest financial analysis based on strategic assets, which are (1) rare, (2) difficult to imitate and (3) generate net benefits, like growth in a customer base or sales. There would be four steps to this type of analysis. From the paper, with our emphasis: 1. Taking inventory of strategic assets: Compiling a list of the major strategic assets of the enterprise; distinguishing between operating and dormant assets (e.g., patents under development or licensed out versus abandoned patents), active brands (enabling the charging of a premium product price) and brands in name only, or producing oil and gas properties and those under exploration versus inactive properties. Such inventory taking establishes the foundation—active strategic assets—of the company’s competitive advantage. 2. Enhancing strategic assets: Without continued investment and replenishment, even highly productive assets will wither on the vine (recall Dell). You should ask, Is the spending on R&D, technology purchases, customer acquisition, brand support, and employee training sufficient to maintain and grow the business? Cutting R&D or employee training to “make the numbers” clearly bodes ill for future growth. 3. Defending strategic assets: These assets are vulnerable to competition (from similar products), infringement, and technological disruption, raising the question of whether the company’s assets are adequately protected by continuous innovation, patent defensive walls, and litigation. A continuous loss of market share clearly indicates a failure to protect assets. 4. Asset deployment and value creation: Are the strategic assets, along with other company resources, optimally deployed to create value (e.g., retail outlets with increasing same-store sales)? And what is this value? Note that in our analysis, the measurement of the periodic value created is a byproduct rather than the focus of the analysis. We prefer to measure value created by cash flows to avoid the multiple managerial estimates embedded in earnings. In contrast to the cash flows generally used by analysts (EBITDA), however, we add to cash flows the company’s investments in value-creating strategic assets, such as R&D, IT, and unusual brand creation expenditures, which are not really operating cash outflows. Now, if we are living in a period of secular stagnation, this could be seen as an attempt to lower the bar to make up for lackluster capital investment. (One academic literature review we found on the topic of strategic assets only cites papers from around the time of the dot-com bubble. Fancy that!) What’s more, “defending strategic assets” can sound a lot like “maintaining monopoly power”, depending on the methods companies use in their defence. So an investment analysis focussed on strategic assets might also require more aggressive anti-trust regulation. But if you accept the idea that widespread adoption of the internet brought a fundamental and irreversible change in the drivers of growth, there are worse approaches to financial analysis you can take. There’s more detail and argument in the paper, which you can find here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14022298e94e2e3e3adcb0b34f95ed17", "text": "\"Although I only cited product quality, I'm trying to think of examples of companies that incorporated and then immediately improved product quality, fostered good will, and treated its employees better than when they were private. None come to mind, can you think of any? Perhaps \"\"almost always\"\" was a bit of hyperbole, but in matters of cost vs. quality I'd expect publicly traded companies to prioritize short-term shareholder profit (or be sued by said shareholders.) Private companies can have more of a vested interest in the good will of their employees, product quality, and can make decisions that benefit themselves and society long-term because they do not have this fiduciary responsibility. Have you ever seen the documentary [the Corporation](http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46)? They make a compelling case that if corporations were people they'd be sociopaths (according to the ASM.)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
41ba851236f73b19d7bfb66d5a73de24	Is it really possible to get rich in only a few years by investing?	[ { "docid": "1cf7b44ccbe3ed58f6170f0f01d982bc", "text": "Yes, it's possible. However, it's not likely, at least not for most people. Earning a million is not that difficult, but when you talk about billions that's an entirely different story. I think the key point that you're missing is leverage. It's common knowledge that Warren Buffett likes to have a huge cash warchest at his disposal and does not soak himself in debt. However, in his early years Buffett did not get to where he's at by investing only his own money. He ran what was basically a hedge fund and leveraged other peoples' money in the market. This magnified his returns quite substantially. If you look at Buffett's investments, you'll notice that he had a handful of HUGE wins in his portfolio and many more just mediocre success stories. Not everything he invested in turned to gold, but his portfolio was rocketed by the large wins that continued to compound over many years because he held them for so long. Also, consider the fact that Buffett's wealth is largely measured in Berkshire stock. This stock is a reflection of anticipated future earnings by the company. There's no way that alone could turn $10k in 1950 into $50B today... could it? Why not? Take the two founders of Google for example, they became billionaires in short order when Google had it's IPO and basically started in a garage with very little cash. Of course, they didn't do this by buying and selling shares. There are many paths to earnings enormous sums of money like the people you're talking about, but one characteristic that the richest people in society seem to have in common is that they all own their own companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dca1c03c28fffa96353262e8587b694", "text": "To get rich in a short time, it's more likely what you want to do is go into business. You could go into a non-investment business such as opening a restaurant or starting a tech company, of course. Warren Buffett was working in investing, which is quite a bit different than just buying stocks: The three ways to get rich investing I can think of are: I think the maximum real (after-inflation) return you can really count on over a lot of years is in the 5-6% range at most, maybe less. Here's a post where David Merkel argues 3-4% (assuming cash interest is close to zero real return): http://alephblog.com/2009/07/15/the-equity-premium-is-no-longer-a-puzzle/ At that rate you can double every 10-15 years. Any higher rate is probably risking much lower returns. I often post this argument against that on investment questions: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Agree with you that lots of people seem to think they can make up for not saving money by picking a winning investment. Lots of people also use the lottery as a retirement strategy. I'm not sure this is totally irrational, if for some reason someone just can't save. But I'm sure it will fail for almost all the people who try it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6624eb2ad2488e72f86201f096a0e884", "text": "You are probably right that using a traditional buy and hold strategy on common equities or funds is very unlikely to generate the types of returns that would make you a millionaire in short order. However, that doesn't mean it isn't possible. You just have to accept a more risk to become eligible for such incredible returns that you'd need to do that. And by more risk I mean a LOT more risk, which is more likely to put you in the poorhouse than a mansion. Mostly we are talking about highly speculative investments like commodities and real estate. However, if you are looking for potential to make (or more likely lose) huge amounts of money in the stock market without a very large cache of cash. Options give you much more leverage than just buying a stock outright. That is, by buying option contracts you can get a much larger return on a small movement in the stock price compared to what you would get for the same investment if you bought the stock directly. Of course, you take on additional risk. A normal long position on a stock is very unlikely to cause you to lose your entire investment, whereas if the stock doesn't move far enough and in the right direction, you will lose your entire investment in option contracts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df9b1b2efa85ba277ffd48a061bf2790", "text": "10 year US Treasury bonds are currently yielding 3.46%. If you're offered an investment that looks better than that, you should ask yourself why big investors are putting their money in US Treasuries instead of what you've been offered. And obviously at 3.46% per year, you're not going to get rich quick -- it will take you over twenty years to double your money, and that's without allowing for inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6e7b1b0641929d6e87e5f84295c43ab", "text": "Short answer: Not likely. Long answer: As a rule of thumb, over the long run if you are generating 20% compounded returns on your money consistently, you are doing very good. Since in the average case your 10k would compound to $61.4k YoY, you are very unlikely to be rich in a decade starting with 10k.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "af1e7f772ced48852837068b40ff5770", "text": "Investments earn income relative to the principal amounts invested. If you do not have much to invest, then the only way to 'get rich' by investing is to take gambles. And those gambles are more likely to fail than succeed. The simplest way for someone without a high amount of 'capital' [funds available to invest] to build wealth, is to work more, and invest in yourself. Go to school, but only for proven career paths. Take self-study courses. Learn and expand your career opportunities. Only once you are stable financially, have minimal debt [or, understand and respect the debt you plan to pay down slowly, which some people choose to do with school and house debt], and are able to begin contributing regularly to investment plans, can you put your financial focus on investing. Until then, any investment gains would pale in comparison to gains from building your career.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b463b0f734e7d008506b1e57b6c5756", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf230205bb1a357e7a52292f2a695eb", "text": "\"There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the \"\"high-frequency trading\"\" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f36cd41b21b29b8de79e613e25b725aa", "text": "Currencies are a zero-sum game. If you make money, someone else will lose it. Because bank notes sitting in a pile don't create anything useful. But shares in companies are different, because companies actually do useful things and make money, so it's possible for all investors to make money. The best way to benefit is generally to put your money into a low-cost index fund and then forget about it for at least five years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8953063491a0162c87cdf123213b6f1a", "text": "I think it's because there are people who build entire wealth-gain strategies around certain conditions. When those conditions change, their mechanism of gaining wealth is threatened and they may take a short term loss as they transform their holdings to a new strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9d0671f97e043bc4c5aab149a7f419b", "text": "It is not unheard of. Celebrity investors such as Warren Buffet and Carl Icahn gained notoriety by more than doubling investments some years, with a few very stellar trades and bets. Doubling, as in a 100% gain, is actually conservative if you want to play that game, as 500%, 1200% and greater gains are possible and were achieved by the two otherwise unrelated people I mentioned. This reality is opposite of the comparably pitiful returns that Warren Buffet teaches baby boomers about, but compounding on 2-5% gains annually is a more likely way to build wealth. It is unreasonable to say and expect that you will get the outcome of doubling an investment year over year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6b4d48dae563f6f3dc7b9d654d5b22a", "text": "If you are going to work on making as much money as humanly possible, then you ought to consider investing in the market. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) agrees that investing in stocks is a fantastic technique to acquire prosperity on your own. Believe it or not, it’s the greatest source of wealth in the history of the world. For that reason, you need to ensure that you get started at the earliest opportunity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "025adc914ef3b24720ad4fd4af995e8d", "text": "\"I did once read a book titled \"\"How I made a million dollars on the stock market\"\". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck. (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, \"\"smart\"\" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal). Clearly not a matter of \"\"playing your cards right\"\", but of having an enormous amount of luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85900ebc68789698db6be8a22f18f029", "text": "As others have shown, if you assume that you can get 6% and you invest 15% of a reasonable US salary then you can hit 1 million by the time you retire. If you invest in property in a market like the UK (where I come from...) then insane house price inflation will do it for you as well. In 1968 my parents bought a house for £8000. They had a mortgage on it for about 75% of the value. They don't live there but that house is now valued at about £750,000. Okay, that's close to 60 years, but with a 55 year working life that's not so unreasonable. If you assume the property market (or the shares market) can go on rising forever... then invest in as much property as you can with your 15% as mortgage payments... and watch the million roll in. Of course, you've also got rent on your property portfolio as well in the intervening years. However, take the long view. Inflation will hit what a million is worth. In 1968, a million was a ridiculously huge amount of money. Now it's 'Pah, so what, real rich people have billions'. You'll get your million and it will not be enough to retire comfortably on! In 1968 my parents salaries as skilled people were about £2000 a year... equivalent jobs now pay closer to £50,000... 25x salary inflation in the time. Do that again, skilled professional salary in 60 years of £125000 a year... so your million is actually 4 years salary. Not being relentlessly negative... just suggesting that a financial target like 'own a million (dollars)' isn't a good strategy. 'Own something that yields a decent amount of money' is a better one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc13b77121e726d4bd44e842f8bf0db8", "text": "ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "274f148b0a145f15618ebf92b4b0a936", "text": "\"You most definitely can invest such an amount profitably, but it makes it even more important to avoid fees, um, at all costs, because fees tend to have a fixed component that will be much worse for you than for someone investing €200k. So: Edit: The above assumes that you actually want to invest in the long run, for modest but relatively certain gains (maybe 5% above inflation) while accepting temporary downswings of up to 30%. If those €2000 are \"\"funny money\"\" that you don't mind losing but would be really excited about maybe getting 100% return in less than 5 years, well, feel free to put them into an individual stock of an obscure small company, but be aware that you'd be gambling, not investing, and you can probably get better quotes playing Roulette.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47d9f11485eb276a283de6d2ec44239b", "text": "The basic problem here is that you need to have money to invest before you can make a profit from it. Now if you have say $500K or more, you can put that in mutual funds and live modestly off the profits. If you don't have that $500K to start out with, you're either looking at a long time frame to accumulate it - say by working a job for 30+ years, and contributing the max to your 401k - or are playing the market trying to get it. The last is essentially gambling (though with somewhat better odds than casinos or horse racing), and puts you up against the Gambler's Ruin problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_ruin You also, I think, have a very mistaken idea about the a typical investor's lifestyle. Take for instance the best known one, Warren Buffet. No offence to him, but from everything I've read he lives a pretty boring life. Spends all day reading financial reports, and what sort of life is that? As for flying places being exciting, ever tried it? I have (with scientific conferences, but I expect boardrooms are much the same), and it is boring. Flying at 30,000 ft is boring, and if it's a commercial flight, unpleasant as well. A conference room in London, Paris, or Milan is EXACTLY the same as a conference room in Podunk, Iowa. Even the cities outside the conference rooms are much of a muchness these days: you can eat at McDonalds in Paris or Shanghai. Only way to find interest is to take time from your work to get outside the conference rooms & commercial districts, and then you're losing money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63fde89d7c05259fa2e50d06f04f7286", "text": "Even straight index funds grow at about 6-7%. on average, or over long periods of time. In short time periods (quarters, years), they can fluctuate anywhere from -10% to +20%. Would you be happy if your bank account lost 10% of its value the week before you had to pay the bill for the repairs? Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? In general, no. Most investments are designed for long term appreciation. Even sophisticated financial companies can't do any better than 1 or 2% (annualized) on short-term cash reserves. Where you can make a huge difference is on the cost side. Bargain with suppliers, or wait for sales on retail items. Both will occasionally forego their margin on certain items in order to try to secure future business, which can make a difference of 20% or more in the cost of repairs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f230c86d7d8e9b1b4340c47982736a2", "text": "\"At what rate? \"\"Millions\"\"? No one would start at that rate, but the mid-100k range is standard for Harvard undergrads entering finance, plus generous benefits and bonuses. But the structure in most institutions weeds most of these people out after five years. That's fine for most people, who are just trying to pay off loans, buy a house, and maybe feel secure starting a business. People who stay for 5-10 years could certainly be in the million range when bonuses and benefits are considered.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f844c3721d14b0eb0bbbb2963e0852d", "text": "I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases. Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon. Source", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d4b6bdb9f59886a9b379e8693eac546f	When paying estimated quarterly taxes, can I prorate the amount based on the irregular payment due dates?	[ { "docid": "205ee66f682f0c4c21792a31c0241a1e", "text": "Varying the amount to reflect income during the quarter is entirely legitimate -- consider someone like a salesman whose income is partly driven by commissions, and who therefore can't predict the total. The payments are quarterly precisely so you can base them on actual results. Having said that, I suspect that as long as you show Good Intent they won't quibble if your estimate is off by a few percent. And they'll never complain if you overpay. So it may not be worth the effort to change the payment amount for that last quarter unless the income is very different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f73770a2da33ab40245475e5bc5ee82", "text": "\"You may want, or at least be thinking of, the annualized method described in Pub 505 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch02.html#en_US_2015_publink1000194669 (also downloadable in PDF) and referred to in Why are estimated taxes due \"\"early\"\" for the 2nd and 3rd quarters only? . This doesn't prorate your payments as such; instead you use your income and deductions etc for each of the 3,2,3,4-month \"\"quarters\"\" to compute a prorated tax for the partial year, and pay the excess over the amount already paid. If your income etc amounts are (nearly) the same each month, then this computation will result in payments that are 3,2,3,4/12ths of 90% of your whole-year tax, but not if your amounts vary over the year. If you do use this method (and benefit from it) you MUST file form 2210 schedule AI with your return next filing season to demonstrate that your quarterly computations, and payments, met the requirements. You need to keep good per-period (or per-month) records of all tax-relevant amounts, and don't even try to do this form by hand, it'll drive you nuts; use software or a professional preparer (who also uses software), but I'd expect someone in your situation probably needs to do one of those anyway. But partnership puts a wrinkle on this. As a partner, your taxable income and expense is not necessarily the cash you receive or pay; it is your allocated share of the partnership's income and expenses, whether or not they are distributed to you. A partnership to operate a business (like lawyers, as opposed to an investment partnership) probably distributes the allocated amounts, at least approximately, rather than holding them in the partnership; I expect this is your year-end draw (technically a draw can be any allowed amount, not necessarily the allocated amount). In other words, your husband does earn this money during the year, he just receives it at the end. If the year-end distribution (or allocation if different) is significant (say more than 5% of your total income) and the partnership is not tracking and reporting these amounts (promptly!) for the IRS quarters -- and I suspect that's what they were telling you \"\"affects other partners\"\" -- you won't have the data to correctly compute your \"\"quarterly\"\" taxes, and may thus subject yourself to penalty for not timely paying enough. If the amount is reasonably predictable you can probably get away with using a conservative (high-side) guess to compute your payments, and then divide the actual full-year amounts on your K-1 over 12 months for 2210-AI; this won't be exactly correct, but unless the partnership business is highly seasonal or volatile it will be close enough the IRS won't waste its time on you. PS- the \"\"quarters\"\" are much closer to 13,9,13,17 weeks. But it's months that matter.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7f0fededa670a411cea1e495d339388f", "text": "I went through this too. There's a safe-harbor provision. If you prepay as estimated tax payments, 110% of your previous year's tax liability, there's no penalty for underpayment of the big liquidity-event tax liability. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch04.html That's with the feds. Your state may have different rules. You would be very wise indeed to hire an accountant to prepare your return this year. If I were you I'd ask your company's CFO or finance chief to suggest somebody. Congratulations, by the way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33815eb947ceaf1d6ce9d49424d4d5eb", "text": "As was once famously said, Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. — Benjamin Franklin, 1789 It's very likely that either the company or you personally is going to have to pay taxes on that money. Really the only way to avoid it would be if the company spent that money on next year's expenses, and paid the bill before the end of this year. Of course you can only do that if the recipient is willing to receive their money so far in advance, which isn't necessarily the case since they would pay more taxes this year as a result. As for whether it's better to have the company pay the tax or for you to do as your accountant suggests, there are a lot of factors that go into that equation, and my gut feeling is that your accountant already ran it both ways and is suggesting the better choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bae6e8d76b98b2ba96a5520be36c2c8f", "text": "I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dbe615376361cbe5aee13c01dac142b", "text": "\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \"\"my friend told me.\"\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "653e490ace6c1b315324cea013d7d9ef", "text": "Not correct. First - when you say they don't tax the reimbursement, they are classifying it in a way that makes it taxable to you (just not withholding tax at that time). In effect, they are under-withholding, if these reimbursement are high enough, you'll have not just a tax bill, but penalties for not paying enough all year. My reimbursements do not produce any kind of pay stub, they are a direct deposit, and are not added to my income, not as they occur, nor at year end on W2. Have you asked them why they handle it this way? It's wrong, and it's costing you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbc4805402e3c2f938447a313d0ac5fe", "text": "\"I've consulted with 5-6 accountants and people who've had the issue before. The advice I received boils down to: \"\"If you do not attach your 83b with your personal tax return it is not effective. However you can still correct the requirement to file it along with your tax return, because you are within the 3 year window of when the return was originally due.\"\" So you can amend your return/file it late within a certain window and things should be OK. The accountants that have confirmed this are Vanessa Kruze, Wray Rives and Augie Rakow - all of them corporate and credible accountants. You also need to keep onto the confirmation the IRS sent you in case of an audit. There is nothing on IRS.gov about attaching your 83b on a filed late or amended return but those accountants are people who say they've seen it happen frequently, have consulted with the IRS for solutions and that's the one they'd advise one to do in such situation. disclaimer: I am not a CPA\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a67170ffc59dbf2ae2485ac4f2bd9", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ed3c177786d18301727f0854afccc2d", "text": "\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \"\"adjust the basis\"\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \"\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\"\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b80a4da09befcb5e2df91a2c39fd52a4", "text": "\"You report it when the expense was incurred/accrued. Which is, in your case, 2014. There's no such thing as \"\"accounts payable\"\" on tax forms, it is an account on balance sheet, but most likely it is irrelevant for you since your LLC is probably cash-based. The reimbursement is a red-herring, what matters is when you paid the money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4462ce3779ad4d896b290b0c34ec9834", "text": "There are penalties for failure to file and penalties for failure to pay tax. The penalties for both are based on the amount of tax due. So you would owe % penalties of zero, otherwise meaning no penalties at all. The IRS on late 1040 penalties: Here are eight important points about penalties for filing or paying late. A failure-to-file penalty may apply if you did not file by the tax filing deadline. A failure-to-pay penalty may apply if you did not pay all of the taxes you owe by the tax filing deadline. The failure-to-file penalty is generally more than the failure-to-pay penalty. You should file your tax return on time each year, even if you’re not able to pay all the taxes you owe by the due date. You can reduce additional interest and penalties by paying as much as you can with your tax return. You should explore other payment options such as getting a loan or making an installment agreement to make payments. The IRS will work with you. The penalty for filing late is normally 5 percent of the unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month that a tax return is late. That penalty starts accruing the day after the tax filing due date and will not exceed 25 percent of your unpaid taxes. If you do not pay your taxes by the tax deadline, you normally will face a failure-to-pay penalty of ½ of 1 percent of your unpaid taxes. That penalty applies for each month or part of a month after the due date and starts accruing the day after the tax-filing due date. If you timely requested an extension of time to file your individual income tax return and paid at least 90 percent of the taxes you owe with your request, you may not face a failure-to-pay penalty. However, you must pay any remaining balance by the extended due date. If both the 5 percent failure-to-file penalty and the ½ percent failure-to-pay penalties apply in any month, the maximum penalty that you’ll pay for both is 5 percent. If you file your return more than 60 days after the due date or extended due date, the minimum penalty is the smaller of $135 or 100 percent of the unpaid tax. You will not have to pay a late-filing or late-payment penalty if you can show reasonable cause for not filing or paying on time. If the IRS owes you a refund, April 15 isn't much of a deadline. I suppose the real deadline is April 15, three years later - that's when the IRS keeps your refund and it becomes property of the Treasury. Of course, there's little reason to wait that long. Don't let the Treasury get all your interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "798b7e6bc74d6616c7519f59123450e2", "text": "\"The IRS provides a little more information on the subject on this FAQ: Will I be charged interest and penalties for filing and paying my taxes late?: If you did not pay your tax on time, you will generally have to pay a late-payment penalty, which is also called a failure to pay penalty. Some guidance on what constitutes \"\"reasonable cause\"\" is found on the IRS page Penalty Relief Due to Reasonable Cause: The IRS will consider any sound reason for failing to file a tax return, make a deposit, or pay tax when due. Sound reasons, if established, include: Note: A lack of funds, in and of itself, is not reasonable cause for failure to file or pay on time. However, the reasons for the lack of funds may meet reasonable cause criteria for the failure-to-pay penalty. In this article from U.S. News and World Report, it is suggested that the IRS will generally waive the penalty one time, if you have a clean tax history and ask for the penalty to be waived. It is definitely worth asking them to waive the penalty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5923619c7a3b18fc6934a3f2d6b95dc8", "text": "You will not necessarily incur a penalty. You can potentially use the Annualized Income Installment method, which allows you to compute the tax due for each quarter based on income actually earned up to that point in the year. See Publication 505, in particular Worksheet 2-9. Form 2210 is also relevant as that is the form you will use when actually calculating whether you owe a penalty after the year is over. On my reading of Form 2210, if you had literally zero income during the first quarter, you won't be expected to make an estimated tax payment for that quarter (as long as you properly follow the Annualized Income Installment method for future quarters). However, you should go through the calculations yourself to see what the situation is with your actual numbers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "785d81e7e261c8f73ca537ce8b2c9d75", "text": "\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \"\"D\"\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \"\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\"\" that walks you through these calculations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6302253c06243087d1f4e543d757815", "text": "Ultimately, you are the one that is responsible for your tax filings and your payments (It's all linked to your SSN, after all). If this fee/interest is the result of a filing error, and you went through a preparing company which assumes liability for their own errors, then you should speak to them. They will likely correct this and pay the fees. On the other hand, if this is the result of not making quarterly payments, then you are responsible for it. (Source: Comptroller of Maryland Site) If you [...] do not have Maryland income taxes withheld by an employer, you can make quarterly estimated tax payments as part of a pay-as-you-go plan. If your employer does withhold Maryland taxes from your pay, you may still be required to make quarterly estimated income tax payments if you develop a tax liability that exceeds the amount withheld by your employer by more than $500. From this watered-down public-facing resource, it seems like you'll get hit with fees for not making quarterly payments if your tax liability exceeds $500 beyond what is withheld (currently: $0).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9382eb16f4d6ce49d0ad28fe94ebd29", "text": "The trickiest thing is the federal tax. It's typical to withhold 25% federal on this type of event. If your federal marginal rate was already towards the top of that bracket, you'll owe the missing 3% as you enter the 28% bracket. Nothing awful, just be aware.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8e66a89706cdd3e23f9cb7d07284010c	What's the folly with this stock selection strategy	[ { "docid": "1dc5ad53dbebd7ef9cc8e2a028298b67", "text": "\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8f81cfe7826c35c5015dcfe8210c013b", "text": "\"I don't know really is the best investment strategy. People think that they have to know everything to make money. But realistically, out of the hundreds of thousands of publicly traded securities, you really can only invest in a tiny number of them. Of the course of a week, you literally have more than a million \"\"buy\"\" or \"\"don't buy\"\" decisions, because the prices of those securities fluctuate every day. Simply due to the fact that there are so many securities, you cannot know what everything is going to do. You have to say \"\"I don't know\"\". Also, when you do understand something, it is usually fairly priced. So will you make money on it? \"\"I don't know\"\". Only very rarely will you find something that you actually understand well and it is significantly undervalued. You can be looking at a company a day for two years before you find it. But people get trigger happy. They bet on 51%/49% odds when they should only bet on 90%/10% odds or higher. If you are forced to bet on everything, it makes sense that you bet on everything you believe is greater than 50% chance of winning. But since you cannot bet on everything, you should only bet on the highest quality bets, those with greater than 90% chance of winning. To find such a bet, you may have to shuffle through 100 different companies and only make 2-3 bets. You are looking for something that is at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean. People are not good at doing a lot of work, most of which yields nothing, to find one big payoff. They are wired to only look at the present, so they take the best bet they can see at the moment, which is often barely above 50% (and with any misjudgment, it may actually be well below 50%). And people are not good at understanding compound/geometric growth. You can keep multipling 10% gains (1.10 * 1.10 * 1.10 ...), but that can all be wiped out by multiplying by one zero, which is why taking a 51%/49% bet is so dangerous (even though technically it is an advantageous one). They forget to adjust for the geometric aspect of compounding. A 99%/1% bet is one you should take, but if you are allowed to repeat it and you keep going all-in, you will eventually lose and have $0, which is the same as if you took a single all-in bet that has 0% chance of winning. As Buffett says, if you are only allowed to make 20 investments over a lifetime, you will most likely do better because it prevents you from making many of these mistakes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e76b027a9e1943e499ed139aa5f86886", "text": "The top ten holdings for these funds don't overlap by even one stock. It seems to me they are targeting an index for comparison, but making no attempt to replicate a list of holdings as would, say, a true S&P index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8ff7ca00fec2541fdf41386bef1ea37", "text": "\"Share prices change (or not) when shares are bought and sold. Unless he's sitting on a large percentage of the total shares, the fact that he isn't selling or buying means he's having no effect ar all on the stock price, and unless there's a vote war going on in the annual meeting his few stockholder votes aren't likely to have much effect there either (though there's always the outside chance of his being a tiebreaker). On the other hand, there's nothing inherently wrong with holding shares for a very long time and just taking the dividends (\"\"clipping coupons\"\"). Buy-and-hold is a legitimate strategy. Basically: His reason is wrong, but his action may be right, and you should probably just not ask.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f88856dbbc3fe0d416396b92487da2d", "text": "\"Well, everyone knows that a lot of funds have a strict policy to own a market-cap based part of shares from all listed companies above a certain threshold. Now, if I would go and inflate my share price and market cap, they would be forced to buy in; you can argue that this is \"\"just exploiting a weakness of the market\"\", but for me that's simply fraud.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99a35d8a21693b605106176989414fed", "text": "This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today. The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b21e111173e3ecdcd7780e47437aa2b", "text": "\"There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to \"\"win it back\"\" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bedb312ce400331910fcd7c5eccf3b41", "text": "My reaction to this is that your observation @D.W. is spot on correct: It sounds like long-term market timing: trying to do a better job than the rest of the market at predicting, based upon a simple formula, whether the market is over-priced or under-priced. I read the post by the founder of Valuation Informed Indexing, Rob Bennet. Glance at the comments section. Rob clearly states that he doesn't even use his own strategy, and has not owned, nor traded, any stocks since 1996! As another commenter summarizes it, addressing Rob: This is 2011. You’ve been 100% out of stocks — including indexes — since 1996? That’s 15 years of taking whatever the bond market, CDs or TIPS will yield (often and currently less than 2%)... I’m curious how you defend not following your own program even as you recommend it for others? Rob basically says that stocks haven't shown the right signals for buying since 1996, so he's stuck with bonds, CD's and fixed-income instead. This is a VERY long-term horizon point of view (a bit of sarcasm edges in from me). Answering your more general question, what do I think of this particular Price/ Earnings based ratio as a way to signal asset allocation change i.e. Valuation Informed Investing? I don't like it much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d69f5e6cf8b569f776788242ee66c6a8", "text": "\"Chris - you realize that when you buy a stock, the seller gets the money, not the company itself, unless of course, you bought IPO shares. And the amount you'd own would be such a small portion of the company, they don't know you exist. As far as morals go, if you wish to avoid certain stocks for this reason, look at the Socially Responsible funds that are out there. There are also funds that are targeted to certain religions and avoid alcohol and tobacco. The other choice is to invest in individual stocks which for the small investor is very tough and expensive. You'll spend more money to avoid the shares than these very shares are worth. Your proposal is interesting but impractical. In a portfolio of say $100K in the S&P, the bottom 400 stocks are disproportionately smaller amounts of money in those shares than the top 100. So we're talking $100 or less. You'd need to short 2 or 3 shares. Even at $1M in that fund, 20-30 shares shorted is pretty silly, no offense. Why not 'do the math' and during the year you purchase the fund, donate the amount you own in the \"\"bad\"\" companies to charity. And what littleadv said - that too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18fce050e0c4f56603652a1fe3692f0b", "text": "I'll just add this: In the best hedge funds and proprietary trading funds, stock selection is approached very scientifically in order to minimize losses/maximize gains. Researchers think of a trading idea and carefully test it to see which methods of stock selection work and how well, and finally they combine them. Every day researchers update their models based on the past performance of each indicator. All this is just too much work to be done manually. Firms use machine learning methods to understand markets. They try to figure out what is normal, what did not happen correctly at a specific time, what will happen in future. For instance, they use deep learning networks to look at unlabeled data, and figure out what is normal and what is not. These networks can analyze an unstructured haystack of noise, and separate out the signal. This is very relevant to finance and markets because finding the patterns and anomalies in market data has been the bread and butter of traders for decades. Deep learning networks give us applications like feature learning. By 'features,' I'm referring to certain attributes in data that indicate an event. By anticipating them, we can help predict future price movements. New technology is allowing us to break new ground in managing risk, to be a-typical and manage risk in ever-improving ways. It's the responsibility of every trader, whether working for themselves or others, to take advantage of this technology to improve the collective investing experience. I care very deeply about this. I have many close friends, in the finance world and without, who have lost large amounts of money to poor trade tools and lack of transparency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "715832a0ce5dd6bfc23d850927768807", "text": "One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c134ebc1ace5a864bb15aa77dfb3407", "text": "\"Don't compare investing with a roll of the dice, compare it with blackjack and the decision to stand or hit, or put more money on the table (double down or increase bet size) , based on an assessment of the state of the table and history. A naive strategy of say \"\"always hitting to 16\"\" isn't as awful as randomly hitting and standing (which, from time to to time will draw to 21 fair and square) , but there's a basic strategy that gets close to 50% and by increasing or decreasing bet based on counting face cards can get into positive expectations. Randomly buying and selling stock is randomly hitting. Buying a market index fund is like always hitting to 16. Determining an asset allocation strategy and periodically rebalancing is basic strategy. Adjusting allocations based on business cycle and economic indicators is turning skill into advantage.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61a3236acf34529cae6bfa96e07ccccb", "text": "\"As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your \"\"S&P 500\"\" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45a8ae902750a2970edde773d6d2b1a0", "text": "That makes sense. So it's sort of a thoughtless process on a short time scale, but if you add up all that noise over time you could (potentially) end up with a more meaningful position than if you had valued and bet on each stock individually. And I could see how these things could spread along a chain to unrelated stocks as well...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95c307473b769daf340b2e899be1f5d1", "text": "If I'm buying preferred stock with liquidation preferences, I care what that class of equity is worth. I don't give a shit what common is worth. The article takes a pretty banal point - common may not be worth what other classes are worth - and tries to make it into a conspiracy, which is fucking stupid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db3816bf403891ee9fd6cf579b261951", "text": "What you found is that when your were on website X on day y when you clicked on the link they told you to buy 7 stocks and you performed an experiment, but the values went down. Somebody else on website A on day B saw a lightly different list, they may have been flat. But if you were on website W on day D that list hit the jackpot. Which of the three decided that the people running the ad knew what they were talking about? They could have tailored the list based on the nature of the website. Sports and recreation ones on ESPN, high tech on a computer focus site. They could have varied the size of the lit, they could have varied the way they described their analysis. They could have even varied the name of the expert to make it sound familiar or authoritative. What you found was a marketing plan. It may have been a scam, or it may have been just a way to try and convince you they know what they were doing. If you clicked on the wrong list, they probably lost you as a potential customer, unless you can convince yourself that they were close, and deserve a second look....", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0f35c75ac70f7652b97f95457628f061	How do amortization schedules work and when are they used?	[ { "docid": "adec58e5102508233bfc4c6560c3bb52", "text": "An amortization schedule is often used to produce identical payments for the term (repayment period) of a loan, resulting in the principal being paid off and the debt retired at the end of the loan. This is in contrast to an interest only, or balloon loan. These loans require little or no payment against the balance of the loan, requiring the loan to be paid indefinitely if there is no term, or requiring the loan to be entirely paid off from cash or a new loan at the end of the term. A basic amortization formula can be derived from the compound interest formula: This formula comes from the Wikipedia article on amortization. The basics of the formula are the periodic payment amount, A (your monthly payment), can be determined by the principal loan, P, the rate, r, and the number of payments, n. Lenders lend money to make a profit on the interest. They'd like to get back all the money they lent out. Amortization schedules are popular because the fixed low payments make it easier for borrowers to pay the loan off eventually. They also tend to be very profitable for lenders, especially at the start of the term, because they make a lot of profit on interest, just like the start of your mortgage. The principal of a mortgage has more meaning than the principal of a revolving debt credit card. The mortgage principal is fixed at the start, and represents the value of the collateral property that is your home. You could consider the amount of principal paid to be the percentage of your home that you actually own (as part of your net worth calculation). A credit card has a new balance each month depending on how much you charge and how much you pay off. Principal has less meaning in this case, because there is no collateral to compare against, and the balance will change monthly. In this case, the meaning of the amortization schedule on your credit card is how long it will take you to pay off the balance if you stop charging and pay at the proscribed payment level over the term described. Given the high interest rate on credit cards, you may end up paying twice as much for goods in the long run if you follow your lenders schedule. Amortizing loans are common for consumer loans, unless a borrower is seeking out the lowest possible monthly payment. Lenders recognize that people will eventually die, and want to be paid off before that happens. Balloon and interest only bonds and loans are more commonly issued by businesses and governments who are (hopefully) investing in capital improvements that will pay off in the long run. Thousands of people and businesses have gone bankrupt in this financial crisis because their interest only loans reached term, and no one was willing to lend them money anymore to replace their existing loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a5c999f6f2d116c516acbe766c1eaae", "text": "Amortization is the process by which your loan balance decreases over time. For both mortgages and credit card balances, your interest charges are based on what you owe. The calculation of the balance is a little different, but it still is based on what you owe. You're observing correctly that most of the first payments on a mortgage are interest. This stands to reason since an amortization schedule (for a fixed-rate mortgage) is constructed on the assumption that you're making your payments equally over the course of the mortgage. Since you owe more at the beginning, you accrue more interest, and a larger fraction of your payment is interest. Near the end, you owe little, and most of your payment, therefore, is principal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33566963de30c4b510e893fd513777f9", "text": "Both Credit Card and Mortgage work on same principle. The interest is calculated on the remaining balance. As the balance reduces the interest reduces. The Mortgage schedule is calculated with the assumption that you would be paying a certain amount over a period of years. However if you pay more, then the balance becomes less, and hence the subsequent interest also reduces. This means you would pay the loan faster and also pay less then originaly forecasted. The other type of loan, typically personal loans / auto loans in older days worked on fixed schedule. This means that you need to pay principal + Pre Determined interest. This is then broken into equal monthly installment. However in such a schedule, even if you pay a lumpsum amount in between, the total amount you need to pay remains same. Only the tenor reduces.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3415a1c53a9d79df08c7fa642104a2f", "text": "Simply put, for a mortgage, interest is charged only on the balance as well. Think of it this way - on a $100K 6% loan, on day one, 1/2% is $500, and the payment is just under $600, so barely $100 goes to principal. But the last payment of $600 is nearly all principal. By the way, you are welcome to make extra principal payments along with the payment due each month. An extra $244 in this example, paid each and every month, will drop the term to just 15 years. Think about that, 40% higher payment, all attacking the principal, and you cut the term by 1/2 the time.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7e2ae1fcb74c88fc96b0b69032761916", "text": "How does compounding of annual interest work? answers this question. It's not simple compound interest. It's a time value of money calculation similar to mortgage calculations. Only the cash flow is the other way, a 'deposit' instead of 'payment'. When using a finance calculator such as the TI-BA35 (Note, it's no longer manufactured, but you can find secondhand. It was the first electronic device I ever loved. Seriously) you enter PV (present value) FV (future value) Int (the interest rate) nPer (number of periods) PMT (payment). For a mortgage, there's a PV, but FV = $0. For you, it's reversed. PMT on this model is a positive number, for you it's negative, the amount you deposit. You also need to account for the fact that a mortgage is paid on day 31, but you start deposits on Day 1. See the other answer (I linked at start) for the equations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff4d4bc62843ecc3a7e577f770f4cfb4", "text": "Many people, especially with lower income/skill/education, have poor money management skills to the point where they will not be able to ration their money for a full month. If the payment schedule is reduced to weekly or bi-weekly it becomes easier for such people to make non-discretionary payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a69573b10bc69c804febd5912f716dc", "text": "\"There is no formula that can be applied to most variations of the problem you pose. The reason is that there is no simple, fixed relationship between the two time periods involved: the time interval for successive payments, and the time period for successive interest compounding. Suppose you have daily compounding and you want to make weekly payments (A case that can be handled). Say the quoted rate is 4.2% per year, compounded daily Then the rate per day is 4.2/365, or 0.0115068 % So, in one week, a debt would grow through seven compoundings. A debt of $1 would grow to 1 * (1+.000225068)^7, or 1.000805754 So, the equivalent interest rate for weekly compounding is 0.0805754% Now you have weekly compounding, and weekly payments, so the standard annuity formulas apply. The problem lies in that number \"\"7\"\", the number of days in a week. But if you were trying to handle daily / monthly, or weekly / quarterly, what value would you use? In such cases, the most practical method is to convert any compounding rate to a daily compounding rate, and use a spreadsheet to handle the irregularly spaced payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55c6a70dc07cee2d9521fb386f8a4a85", "text": "\"they apply it to my next payment That's what my bank did with my auto loan. I got so far ahead that once I was able to skip a payment and use the money I would have sent the bank that month for something else. Still, though, I kept on paying extra, and eventually it was paid off faster than \"\"normal\"\". EDIT: what does your loan agreement say is supposed to happen to extra payments?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aa076ab8960aa77009c1706bff7e023", "text": "I think they're compounding the interest daily. That means you have to look at the number of days between payments to judge how much the interest charge is. From February 3 to March 2 is 28 days (2012 was a leap year). From March 2 to April 3 is 32 days. That's an increase of about 14% in number of days between payments, which accounts reasonably well to the ~$18 difference in interest charge. Daily compounding also explains the minor fluctuations in the other interest charges. I think if you compute interest/day for each month, you'll find that it is, indeed, decreasing over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54100a57d47534dc11922682d2510962", "text": "In the prior PMI discussions here, it's been stated that the bank is not obligated to remove PMI until the mortgage's natural amortization puts the debt at 78% LTV. So, paying in advance like this will not automatically remove the PMI. Nor will a lump sum payment be certain to move the next payment ahead a year. If it's entered as a principal prepayment, the next month's payment is still due. In the world of coupon books, if you sent in a year's payments, you'd not benefit from the interest saved, in one year you'd owe what the amortization table tells you. There's no free lunch when it comes to mortgages or finance in general. This is why we usually caution that one should not be cash poor the day after buying a house. Best to save 30%, put down 20%, and have a cushion after the closing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1eee4f33571648fb95733b26e6f5736", "text": "\"Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07fdc7b5970696df79b88b33158237ba", "text": "\"I recently requested an off-schedule escrow analysis. We refinanced a house in August and the servicer got confused about when the home owner's insurance was due (in October). They refunded the \"\"insurance\"\" money to us in September. That combined with the fact that the insurance amount was different than what they expected, made me request the escrow analysis. That way I can decide whether to pay up the escrow account now or do it over the next year. The servicer agent just said that the monthly payment amounts might change again in January when they do the usual analysis. If you like to set up automatic payments, that would be a downside. I haven't done that yet, so not a problem for me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "855bbd660fa58a9434d0eaa33570e747", "text": "When I called Navient about this exact question last year they told me that my loan is a term length loan; so if I were to make extra payments on one of my dozen loans then my total monthly payment would be adjusted (go down) in order to make sure that my loans would still be paid off in x months. It is very important to note however that Navient has at least 4 loan payment types that I know of so I can make no assurances that yours will work the same way. The only way to get an absolute answer to this is going to be to Call Navient and ask them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f8f990af90faba58a954153cb31db3a", "text": "\"There are some loan types where your minimum payment may be less than the interest due in the current period; this is not true of credit cards in the US. Separately, if you have a minimum payment amount due of less than the interest due in the period, the net interest amount would just become principal anyway so differentiating it isn't meaningful. With credit cards in the US, the general minimum calculation is 1% of the principal outstanding plus all interest accrued in the period plus any fees. Any overpayment is applied to the principal outstanding, because this is a revolving line of credit and unpaid interest or fees appear as a charge just like your coffee and also begin to accrue interest. The issue arises if you have multiple interest rates. Maybe you did a balance transfer at a discounted interest rate; does that balance get credited before the balance carried at the standard rate? You'll have to call your lender. While there is a regulation in place requiring payment to credit the highest rate balance first the banks still have latitude on how the payment is literally applied; explained below. When there IS an amortization schedule, the issue is not \"\"principal or interest\"\" the issue is principle, or the next payment on the amortization schedule. If the monthly payment on your car loan is $200, but you send $250, the bank will use the additional $50 to credit the next payment due. When you get your statement next month (it's usually monthly) it will indicate an amount due of $150. When you've prepaid more than an entire payment, the next payment is just farther in to the future. You need to talk to your lender about \"\"unscheduled\"\" principal payments because the process will vary by lender and by specific loan. Call your lender. You are a customer, you have a contract, they will explain this stuff to you. There is no harm that can possibly come from learning the nuances of your agreement with them. Regarding the nuance to the payment regulation: A federal credit card reform law enacted in May 2009 requires that credit card companies must apply your entire payment, minus the required minimum payment amount, to the highest interest rate balance on your card. Some credit card issuers are aggressive here and apply the non-interest portion of the minimum payment to the lowest interest rate first. You'll need to call your bank and ask them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36030ca6e5aee86487df2458ca0ce83e", "text": "Why won't anyone just answer the original question? The question was not about opportunity cost or flexibility or family expenses. There are no right answers to any of those things and they all depend on individual circumstances. I believe the answer to the question of whether paying off a 30-year mortgage in 15 years would cost the same amount as a 15-year mortgage of the same interest rate is yes but ONLY if you pay it off on the exact same schedule as your supposed 15-year. In reality, the answer is NO for two reasons: the amortization schedule; and the fact that the 30-year will always have a higher interest rate than the 15-year. The way mortgages are amortized, the interest is paid first, essentially. For most people the majority of the monthly payment is interest for the first half of the loan's life. This is good for most people because, in reality, most mortgages only last a couple years after which people refinance or move and for those first couple years the majority of one's housing costs (interest) are tax deductible. It is arguable whether perpetuating this for one's entire life is wise... but that's the reality of most mortgages. So, unless you pay off your 30-year on the exact same amortization schedule of your theoretical 15-year, you will pay more in interest. A common strategy people pursue is paying an extra monthly payment (or more) each year. By the time you get around to chipping away at your principal in that way, you will already have paid a lot more interest than you would have on a 15-year. And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings. For example: a 300k mortgage at 3.5% will have a monthly payment of ~$2150 for a 15-year and ~$1350 for a 30-year, both will start with ~$875/month of that being in interest (gradually declining with time). What I think most people undervalue is the freedom and peace of mind that comes with a paid off or nearly paid off home... and 15 years is a lot more tangible than 30, plus a lot cheaper over all. If you can afford a 15-year mortgage without putting too much stress on your budget, it is definitely the better option for financial security. And be careful of the index fund opportunity cost advice. On average it may be a good idea when you look at the very long run, historically, but a lot of people get less than average returns depending on when they buy and what the market does in the short run. There is no certainty around what returns you will get from the stock market, but if you have a 30-year mortgage there is a lot of certainty around what you will owe every month for the next 30-years. Different mixes of investments make sense for different people, and most people would be wise to get some exposure to the stock market for its returns and liquidity. However, if someone's goal is borrowing more money for their house in order to invest more money in the stock market for their retirement, they would actually be better served in achieving security and independence 15 years sooner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a5c235f65fc1356e1a56bb1815957f7", "text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69ac5ff91f14b449464ffc5a50c2545a", "text": "\"Is there more on where Dalio gets his definitions for the short-term debt cycle (5-8 years or so) and \"\"deleveraging\"\" and the long-term debt cycle (75-100 years)? (or his evidence that separates the two)? At one point 18:10, he says the difference is that in a deleveraging, interest rates hit 0 and can no longer go lower, but I don't know if that works as a definition per se. There are other things that central banks do when interest rates hit 0, like buy up assets (which he does mention and include in the \"\"print money\"\" category of things that can be done during a deleveraging). And one of the deleveragings he cites, England in the 1950s, according to Wikipedia was due to difficulty in transitioning out from war production, and according to [this excel file](http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Documents/rates/baserate.xls) from the Bank of England on historical rates, it doesn't say interest rates went to 0 at that time (unless Dalio is referring to another point in history when he cites 1950s England). 20:30 His definition of a depression is when debt restructuring or defaults happen. Interesting. What I learned was that there isn't really a hard and fast definition for recessions and depressions (e.g. a recession is two quarters of negative growth in a row and a depression is just a reeeaallly bad/long recession). And I don't think I recall encountering in the past an attempt to define what a \"\"deleveraging\"\" event of an economy is. 24:30 Is debt reduction and redistribution of wealth deflationary? I think it depends on how much the debt reduction or redistribution hurts the spending of the lender or wealthy versus how much it helps the spending of the borrower or the poor. Both are actually similarly \"\"giving some from the haves to the have nots,\"\" and especially redistribution of wealth is similar to fiscal spending, which is mentioned 25:30 as a valid inflationary way to try to help the economy. 26:00 Are deflationary methods (say, austerity) needed to balance out the inflationary methods (central bank buying assets and fiscal spending)? Aren't central bank (interest rates, quantitative easing) and the government (fiscal policy) still the main things that move inflation or deflation? I would think that debt reduction and redistribution of wealth are good when needed, but I wouldn't think you would do those things mainly for their (supposed, see above for my doubts) deflationary effects. Still, a very interesting video and one of the best presented videos on a difficult subject.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5841080e5f9aba6ff7e24e94ad1e718b", "text": "\"This sounds like an accounting nightmare to be 100% precise. With each payment you're going to have to track: If you can account for those, then the fair thing to do is for one person to stop paying after they have paid the amount of principal they had at the beginning of the process, or possibly after they have paid an amount equivalent to the total principal and accrued interest they would have paid if they paid their loans individually. The problem is, one of you is likely going to pay more interest than you would have under the individual plan. In the example you gave, if your brother pays off any of your loans, he is going to be paying more in interest than if he paid on his 5% loans. If you pay the highest rate loans first, whoever has the lower total balance is going to pay more interest since they'll be paying on the higher rates until they've paid their \"\"fair share\"\". I don't see a clean way for you to divvy up the interest savings appropriately unless you trueup at the very end of the process. Math aside, these types of agreements can be dangerous to relationships. What if one of you decides that they don't want to participate anymore? What if one of you gets all of their loans paid off much earlier - they get the joy of being debt free while the other still has all of the debt left? What if they then don't feel obligates to pay the other's remaining debt? Are you both equally committed to cutting lifestyle in order to attack these debts? In my opinion, the complexity and risk to the relationship don't justify the interest savings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3acc09fce33e69930d2bf14ced64bb7", "text": "If I recall correctly, the pay schedule is such that you initially pay mostly interest. As James Roth suggests, look at the terms of the loan, specifically the payment schedule. It should detail how much is being applied to interest and how much to the actual balance.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ba530ca262290048e55b156665487e0e	Importance of dividend yield when evaluating a stock?	[ { "docid": "0959c99d79a684031f47071d3fa756db", "text": "But I wish to know why the parameter is dividend/market price rather than just 'dividend'? What 'extra' info you can uncover by looking at dividend/market price that you cannot get from 'dividend'? Consider two stocks A and B. A offers a dividend of $1 per year. B offers a dividend of $2 per year. Let's remove all complications aside and assume that this trend continues. If you were to buy each of these stocks you will get the following amounts over its life (assumed infinity for simplicity): cash flows from A = $1/(0.04) = $25, assuming risk free is 4% per annum cash flows from B = $2/(0.04) = $50, assuming risk free is 4% per annum The price you buy them at is an important factor to consider because let's say if A was trading for $10 and B for $60, then A would look like a profitable nvestment while B won't. Of course, this is a very simplistic view. Dividend rates are not constant and many companies pose a significant risk of going bust but this should help illustrate the general idea behind the D/P ratio. P.S.:- The formula I have used is one for computing the NPV of a perpetuity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "492db3c18446fccb7a5f0bfc2ba81784", "text": "The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "709d76dc519d425b8b5da7e48547fd43", "text": "\"Dividend yields can also reflect important information about the company's status. For example, a company that has never lowered or stopped paying dividends is a \"\"strong\"\" company because it has the cash/earnings power to maintain its dividend regardless of the market. Ideally, a company should pay dividends for at least 10 years for an investor to consider the company as a \"\"consistent payer.\"\" Furthermore, when a company pays dividend, it generally means that it has more cash than it can profitably reinvest in the business, so companies that pay dividends tend to be older but more stable. An important exception is REIT's and their ilk - to avoid taxation, these types of funds must distribute 90% of their earnings to their shareholders, so they pay very high dividends. Just look at stocks like NLY or CMO to get an idea. The issue here, however, is two fold: So a high dividend can be great [if it has been paid consistently] or risky [if the company is new or has a short payment history], and dividends can also tell us about what the company's status is. Lastly, taxation on dividend income is higher than taxation on capital gains, but by reinvesting dividends you can avoid this tax and lower your potential capital gain amount, thus limiting taxes. http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/papers/highdiv_research.pdf is an excellent paper on dividend yields and investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70895340e89e2ed79c06404366e1c4f7", "text": "\"Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a \"\"normal\"\" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1d75ffbcf884babd71bbaa5d04df609", "text": "Dividends yield and yield history are often neglected, but are very important factors that you should consider when looking at a stock for long-term investment. The more conservative portion of my portfolio is loaded up with dividend paying stocks/MLPs like that are yielding 6-11% income. In an environment when deposit and bond yields are so poor, they are a great way to earn reasonably safe income.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "472d859ac9e683dca392918550d040e1", "text": "I had read a book about finance, and it had mentioned that you can gain big profits from investing in the best companies in the most boring markets, like the funeral business for example. These markets are slow growing, but the companies pay a good dividend. Many books recommend investing in dividends because of the compound growth and stable income. Remember that at the end of the day, you should put the same amount of research into buying a stock as you would buying the entire company. With that being said, you may find a great company that may or may not offer dividends, but it should not be of great significance since you feel you are buying into a great company at a fair price. Though dividend growth is a great tool to use to see if a company is doing well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67bc3979d4e8d6e5a329e82b5f8ab282", "text": "Join me for a look at the Quote for SPY. A yield of 1.82%. So over a year's time, your $100K investment will give you $1820 in dividends. The Top 10 holdings show that Apple is now 3% of the S&P. With a current dividend of 2.3%. Every stock in the S&P has its own different dividend. (Although the zeros are all the same. Not every stock has a dividend.) The aggregate gets you to the 1.82% current dividend. Dividends are accumulated and paid out quarterly, regardless of which months the individual stocks pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88bad5cf03d3a2c8d04785fcf5589fec", "text": "\"One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had \"\"priced in\"\" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91b720167fd3efe4a248785f4df1a208", "text": "\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3c2a7eda895cea7c4aa4b482fc9f5e9", "text": "Hey desquinbnt & pontsone, I had an explanation written up about Share and Bond evaluation and in which, one share evaluation technique utilizes the P/E ratio - hence I explained it. Have a read, if you'd want me to go more in depth, let me know! :) http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/09/introduction-to-bonds-and-share-valuation/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35ec6ed1d2beb27b9ab3d584c9de8470", "text": "Dividend yield is a tough thing to track because it's a moving target. Dividends are paid periodically the yield is calculated based on the stock price when the dividend is declared (usually, though some services may update this more frequently). I like to calculate my own dividend by annualizing the dividend payment divided by my cost basis per share. As an example, say you have shares in X, Co. X issues a quarterly dividend of $1 per share and the share price is $100; coincidentally this is the price at which you purchased your shares. But a few years goes by and now X issues it's quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share, and the share price is $160. However your shares only cost you $100. Your annual yield on X is 6%, not the published 3.75%. All of this is to say that looking back on dividend yields is somewhat similar to nailing jello to the wall. Do you look at actual dividends paid through the year divided by share price? Do you look at the annualized dividend at the time of issue then average those? The stock price will fluctuate, that will change the yield; depending on where you bought your stock, your actual yield will vary from the published amount as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b630929af30262fb03a36642052d7bd0", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c0a6a7b35ac9112eed32eb54bc897d7", "text": "Ex-Dividend Price Behavior of Common Stocks would be a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and University of Minnesota if you want a source for some data. Abstract This study examines common stock prices around ex-dividend dates. Such price data usually contain a mixture of observations - some with and some without arbitrageurs and/or dividend capturers active. Our theory predicts such mixing will result in a nonlinear relation between percentage price drop and dividend yield - not the commonly assumed linear relation. This prediction and another important prediction of theory are supported empirically. In a variety of tests, marginal price drop is not significantly different from the dividend amount. Thus, over the last several decades, one-for-one marginal price drop have been an excellent (average) rule of thumb.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b69eea97ab6432c7cde802d6fd58942", "text": "Dividend yield is not the only criteria for stock selection. Companies past performance, management, past deals, future expansion plans, and debt equity ratio should be considered. I would also like to suggest you that one should avoid making any investment in the companies that are directly affected by frequent changes in regulations released by government. All the above mentioned criteria are important for your decision as they make an impact on your investment and can highly affect the profits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce", "text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adb62c59688d717c78ad88e05c417a2b", "text": "\"Is evaluating stocks just a loss of time if the stock is traded very much? Not at all! Making sound investment decisions based on fundamental analysis of companies will help you to do decide whether a given company is right for you and your risk appetite. Investing is not a zero-sum game, and you can achieve a positive long-term (or short-term, depending on what you're after) outcome for yourself without compromising your ability to sleep at night if you take the time to become acquainted with the companies that you are investing in. How can you ensure that your evaluation is more precise than the market ones which consists of the evaluation of thousands of people and professionals? For the average individual, the answer is often simply \"\"you probably cannot\"\". But you don't have to set the bar that high - what you can do is ensure that your evaluation gives you a better understanding of your investment and allows you to better align it with your investment objectives. You don't have to beat the professionals, you just have to lose less money than you would by paying them to make the decision for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "275df9312e040d3309fae20aff051c75", "text": "Technically you should take the quarterly dividend yield as a fraction, add one, take the cube root, and subtract one (and then multiple by the stock price, if you want a dollar amount per share rather than a rate). This is to account for the fact that you could have re-invested the monthly dividends and earned dividends on that reinvestment. However, the difference between this and just dividing by three is going to be negligible over the range of dividend rates that are realistically paid out by ordinary stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51a19c3ec2b20ff8db1f6607bf091252", "text": "I would say that the answer is yes. Investors may move on purchasing a stock as a result of news that a stock is set to pay out their dividend. It would be interesting to analyze the trend based on a company's dividend payouts over 10 or so years to see what/how this impacts the market value of a given company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76a1ddda269ce2c42c5770630688753b", "text": "Two of the main ways that investors benefit financially from a stock are dividends and increases in the price of the stock. In the example as described, the benefits came primarily from dividends, leaving less benefits to be realized in terms of an increase in the value of the company. Another way to put that is that the company paid its profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend, instead of accumulating that as an increase in the value of the company. The company could have chosen to take those profits and reinvest them in growing the business, which would lead to lower dividends but (hopefully) an increase in the valuation of the stock, but they chose to pay dividends instead. This still rewards the investors, but share prices stay low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6080f06d854becc8d455196ebab574c5", "text": "Price doesn't mean anything. Price is simply total value (market capitalization) divided by number of shares. Make sure you consider historical dividends when hunting for big yields. It's very possible that the data you're pulling is only the annualized yield on the most recent dividend payment. Typically dividends are declared in dollar terms. The total amount of the dividend to be issued is then divided by the number of shares and paid out. Companies rarely (probably never but rarely to avoid the peanut gallery comments about the one company that does this) decide dividend payments based on some proportion of the stock price. Between company A and company B paying approximately the same historical yield, I'd look at both companies to make sure neither is circling the tank. If both look strong, I'd probably buy a bit of both. If one looks terrible buy the other one. Don't pick based on the price.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0bb28562eba30c58f37a555aa078fc4d	Is the very long-term growth of the stock market bound by aggregate net income?	[ { "docid": "975afab33ca5399d20620a9803c4ba9c", "text": "I am a believer in that theory. My opinion is that over the long term, we can expect 25% of income to reflect the payment on one's mortgage, and if you drew a line over time reflecting the mortgage this represents plus the downpayment, you'd be very close to a median home price. The bubble that occurred was real, but not as dramatic as Schiller's chart implies. $1000 will support a $124K 30yr mortgage, but $209K at 4%. This is with no hype, and exact same supply/demand pressures. The market cap of all US companies adds to about $18T. The total wealth in the US, about $60T. Of course US stocks aren't just held by US citizens, it's a big world. Let me suggest two things - the world is poor in comparison to much of the US. A $100,000 net worth puts you in the top 8% in the world. The implication of this is that as the poorer 90% work their way up from poverty, money will seek investments, and there's room for growth. Even if you looked at a closed system, the US only, the limit, absent bubbles, would be one that would have to put a cap on productivity. In today's dollars we produce more than we did years ago, and less than we will in the future. We invent new things faster than the old ones are obsoleted. So any prognostication that our $18T market can grow to say, $30T, does not need to discuss P/Es or bubbles, but rather the creation of new products and businesses that will increase the total market. To summarize - Population growth (not really discussed), Productivity, and long term reduced Poverty will all keep that boundary to be a growing number. That said, this question may be economic, and not PF, in which case my analysis is bound for the Off-Topic barrel. Fascinating question.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e5c08b35cfcbd50dd86e92a143e7f99e", "text": "Stock prices reflect future expectations of large groups of people, and may not be directly linked to traditional valuations for a number of reasons (not definitive). For example, a service like Twitter is so popular that even though it has no significant revenue and loses money, people are simply betting that it is deeply embedded enough that it will eventually find some way to make money. You can also see a number of cases of IPOs of various types of companies that do not even have a revenue model at all. Also, if there is rapid sales growth in A but B sales are flat, no one is likely to expect future profit growth in B such that the valuation will remain steady. If sales in A are accelerating, there may be anticipation that future profits will be high. Sometimes there are also other reasons, such as if A owns valuable proprietary assets, that will hold the values up. However, more information about these companies' financials is really needed in order to understand why this would be the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3e39ff25ed01dced50884cf62b30858", "text": "\"A 'indexed guaranteed income certificate' (Market Growth GIC) fits the criteria defined in the OP. The \"\"guaranteed\"\" part of the name means that, if the market falls, your capital is guaranteed (they cover the loss and return all your capital to you); and the \"\"index linked\"\" or \"\"market growth\"\" means that instead of the ROI being fixed/determined when you buy the GIC, the ROI depends on (is linked to) the market growth, e.g. an index (so you get a fraction of profit, which you share with the fund manager). The upside is that you can't 'lose' (lose capital). The fund manager doesn't just share the losses with you, they take/cover all the losses. The downside is that you only make a fraction of whatever profit you might make by investing directly in the market (e.g. in an index fund). Another caveat is that you buy a GIC over some fixed term, e.g. you have to give them you money for a year or more, two years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1ce8250eb72a7472e0fcb696d1dc384", "text": "\"In general, when dealing with quantities like net income that are not restricted to being positive, \"\"percentage change\"\" is a problematic measure. Even with small positive values it can be difficult to interpret. For example, compare these two companies: Company A: Company B: At a glance, I think most people would come away with the impression that both companies did badly in Y2, but A made a much stronger recovery. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9 looks unimportant compared to the difference between 100,000 and 40,000. But if we translate those to dollars: Company A: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.1m, Y3 $100.1m Company B: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.3m, Y3 $120.3m Company B has grown by a net of 20% over two years; Company A by only 1%. If you're lucky enough to know that income will always be positive after Y1 and won't drop too close to zero, then this doesn't matter very much and you can just look at year-on-year growth, leaving Y1 as undefined. If you don't have that guarantee, then you may do better to look for a different and more stable metric, the other answers are correct: Y1 growth should be left blank. If you don't have that guarantee, then it might be time to look for a more robust measure, e.g. change in net income as a percentage of turnover or of company value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00e8698d18a6edb4b5965c3a58a3bfa3", "text": "GDP growth is one of several components of nominal equity returns; the (probably not comprehensive) list includes: Real GDP/earnings growth Inflation Dividend payouts and share buybacks Multiple expansion (the market willing to pay more per dollar of earnings) Changes in interest rate expectations As other comments mention you could also see larger companies tending to deliver higher returns as for any number of reasons related to M&A, expansion into foreign markets, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fd5934bdc397c5a38d18e5334ea2156", "text": "Monetary base and growth are no longer correlated, at least that's what we know from QE in the US. Source, some research I did as an undergrad and papers I can't cite from my phone. But in all seriousness, I doubt there are many mainstream economists that would cite the monetary base as a key driver of growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "974603438efffb44dbeb13d6df665925", "text": "I don’t know specifics of the situation but one possibility would be that Buffett may have billions in various assets etc companies he owns, stocks bonds, but if he doesn’t sell any of those stocks or cash in any of those bonds, then on paper he didn’t make any money that year because he’s letting the assets appreciate. I would say net income is the amount of income you claimed that year, so if you had sold some stock, the amount of money you sold them for would be your income. As opposed to net worth being “if they wanted to” if Buffett sold all of his stocks and assets, he would be able to get billions for it. So while he technically is worth billions, on his tax returns he doesn’t claim much income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d36523369ec95cd476b356b42b3d32a2", "text": "See the Moneychimp site. From 1934 to 2006, the S&P returned an 'average' 12.81%. But the CAGR was 11.26%. I wrote an article Average Return vs Compound Annual Growth to address this issue. Interesting that over time only a few funds have managed to get anywhere near this return, but the low cost indexer can get the long term CAGR minus .05% or so, if they wish.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "636c82034cad8c30b43c9f13cad4e238", "text": "\"The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to \"\"private\"\" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, \"\"gross,\"\" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the \"\"net\"\" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the \"\"just under 3% a year\"\" GDP growth during that time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28e5a864f6bc6bba8050209a3d569d11", "text": "\"1. That's a really complicated answer. In short, I think we need to make accounting rules much simpler (I say this as an accountant) in combination with financial education in K-12 school. Most adults in this country can't tell you which is a better investment: something that returns 5% monthly or something that returns 10% annually. They don't know that accounting income and cash flow are different things and what they mean. Accounting rules are sometimes ridiculous. Look at the balance sheet of even a moderate size company. What's in \"\"Other Comprehensive Income\"\" and why is that different than net income? Why is it that American Airlines, one of the largest airlines in the world doesn't have a single airplane on their balance sheet? 2. That might be a step in the right direction, but I'm just not sure how effective something like that would be. More comprehensive might be better, but then there's going to be less people that want to take the time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8df5b3b082821867dd585002bb527be4", "text": "[Here's a link to the actual paper](https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/Piketty-Saez-ZucmanNBER16.pdf) Something I found interesting from it: >Third, we find that the upsurge of top incomes has mostly been a capital-driven phenomenon since the late 1990s. There is a widespread view that rising income inequality mostly owes to booming wages at the top end, i.e., a rise of the “working rich.” Our results confirm that this view is correct from the 1970s to the 1990s. But in contrast to earlier decades, the increase in income concentration over the last fifteen years owes to a boom in the income from equity and bonds at the top. The working rich are either turning into or being replaced by rentiers. Top earners became younger in the 1980s and 1990s but have been growing older since then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "131aac61bf5067e8aaeace19aae82435", "text": "Great question. Surprisingly, stock returns and GDP growth are mostly unrelated. In fact, they are slightly inversely correlated when you look across countries. Consider a firm that earns $100 on average per year with zero growth. If investors apply a 10% discount rate to this firm, the company will have a market value of $100/10% = $1,000. If it continues to earn $100 per year, it will produce 10% returns despite zero growth in earnings. You can see that realized returns are largely a function of the return investors demand for putting their money in risky assets. I say mostly unrelated because an increase in GDP growth may increase our firms earnings (though the relationship to earnings per share is muddied by new share issuances, buybacks, M&A, etc.). But you can see from the above example that returns can vastly exceed growth in perpetuity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b93de284953fa5486669f0c77bcc3907", "text": "You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy. I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”. It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d2d90e1bda83babf879836b40840068", "text": "\"If you look at the biotech breakdown, you'll find a lot of NAs when it comes to P/E since there are many young biotech companies that have yet to make a profit. Thus, there may be something to be said for how is the entire industry stat computed. Biotechnology can include pharmaceutical companies that can have big profits due to patents on drugs. As an example, look at Shire PLC which has a P/E of 1243 which is pretty high with a Market Capitalization of over a billion dollars, so this isn't a small company. I wonder what dot-com companies would have looked like in 1998/1999 that could well be similar as some industries will have bubbles you do realize, right? The reason for pointing out the Market Capitalization is that this a way to measure the size of a company, as this is merely the sum of all the stock of the company. There could be small companies that have low market capitalizations that could have high P/Es as they are relatively young and could be believed to have enough hype that there is a great deal of confidence in the stock. For example, Amazon.com was public for years before turning a profit. In being without profits, there is no P/E and thus it is worth understanding the limitations of a P/E as the computation just takes the previous year's earnings for a company divided by the current stock price. If the expected growth rate is high enough this can be a way to justify a high P/E for a stock. The question you asked about an industry having this is the derivation from a set of stocks. If most of the stocks are high enough, then whatever mean or median one wants to use as the \"\"industry average\"\" will come from that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f988fc7610be7ccd2e8685e75ebb6fe5", "text": "Assuming S&P value as % of GDP doesn't change, to get S&P return you add (Nominal GDP % growth + Dividend Yield) -> S&P return. Historically the S&P has grown faster as corporations of won market share and therefore grown to a larger portion of GDP. While this can continue (or possibly reverse), and can happen globally as well, you are correct in pointing out that it cannot continue ad infinitum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac087fe705c43712747a7c55daaad272", "text": "A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely. Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5661993745d5e0905da258e992938c65	Avoiding Double-Reporting Income (1099-MISC plus 1099-K)	[ { "docid": "843d1c84ec17b539f7167ab34ab5d784", "text": "Your clients should not send you 1099-MISC if they paid with a credit card. You can refer them to this text in the instructions for the form 1099-MISC: Payments made with a credit card or payment card and certain other types of payments, including third party network transactions, must be reported on Form 1099-K by the payment settlement entity under section 6050W and are not subject to reporting on Form 1099-MISC. See the separate Instructions for Form 1099-K. By sending out the 1099-MISC, your clients are essentially saying that they paid you directly (check or cash) in addition to the payment they made with a credit card (which will be reported on 1099-K). In case of an audit, you'll have trouble convincing the IRS that it didn't happen. I suggest asking the clients not to do this to you, since it may cost you significant amounts to fight the IRS later on. In any case, you report on your tax return what you really got, not what the 1099 says. If you have two 1099's covering the same income - there's no legal obligation to report the income twice. You do not have to pay twice the tax just because you have stupid clients. But you may have troubles explaining it to the IRS, especially if you're dealing with cash in your business. If you want to avoid matching issues, consider reporting all the 1099s, and then subtracting the duplicates and attaching a statement (the software will do it automatically when you add the description in the miscellaneous item) about what it is.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "65c68a828b7a4907e8704f5296b345ee", "text": "If you're under audit - you should get a proper representation. I.e.: EA or CPA licensed in California and experienced with the FTB audit representation. There's a penalty on failure to file form 1099, but it is with the IRS, not the FTB. If I remember correctly, it's something like $50 or $100 per instance. Technically they can disqualify deductions claiming you paid under the table and no taxes were paid on the other side, however I doubt they'd do it in a case of simple omission of filing 1099 forms. Check with your licensed tax adviser. Keep in mind that for the IRS 2011 is now closed, since the 3-year statute of limitations has passed. For California the statute is 4 years, and you're almost at the end of it. However since you're already under audit they may ask you to agree to extend it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42491be125040c117b0ed28d837d1b74", "text": "Form 1099-misc reports PAYMENTS, not earnings. This does not imply the EARNINGS are not taxable in the year they were earned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fb392db66de88a0af8f251d21c68b04", "text": "\"IRA distributions are reported on line 15b on the standard form 1040. That is in the same Income section as most of your other income (including that 1099 income and W2 income, etc.). Its income is included in the Line 22 \"\"Total Income\"\", from which the Personal Exemption (calculated on 6d, subtracted from the total in line 42) and the Standard Deduction (line 40 - also Itemized Deduction total would be here) are later reduced to arrive at Line 43, \"\"Taxable Income\"\". As such, yes, he might owe only the 10% penalty (which is reported on line 59, and you do not reduce this by the deductions, as you surmised).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35f09e6454b7f5a6700a7e3e843615d0", "text": "\"This is going to depend on the tax jurisdiction and I have no knowledge of the rules in Illinois. But I'd like to give you some direction about how to think about this. The biggest problem that you might hit is that if you collect a single check and then distribute to the tutors, you may be considered their employer. As an employer, you would be responsible for things like This is not meant as an exhaustive list. Even if not an employer, you are still paying them. You would be responsible for issuing 1099 forms to anyone who goes above $600 for the year (source). You would need to file for a taxpayer identification number for your organization, as it is acting as a business. You need to give this number to the school so that they can issue the correct form to you. You might have to register a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" name. It's conceivable that you could get away with having the school write the check to you as an individual. But if you do that, it will show up as income on your taxes and you will have to deduct payments to the other tutors. If the organization already has a separate tax identity, then you could use that. Note that the organization will be responsible for paying income tax. It should be able to deduct payments to the tutors as well as marketing expenses, etc. If the school will go for it, consider structuring things with a payment to your organization for your organization duties. Then you tell the school how much to pay each tutor. You would be responsible for giving the school the necessary information, like name, address, Social Security number, and cost (or possibly hours worked).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49beb5701fd58d0437b4ff5bea88d312", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fd632a34c4689f4fcdbfb85bb386537", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e316d41336ca3bda6eb126bcc4115790", "text": "\"Can I use the foreign earned income exclusion in my situation? Only partially, since the days you spent in the US should be excluded. You'll have to prorate your exclusion limit, and only apply it to the income earned while not in the US. If not, how should I go about this to avoid being doubly taxed for 2014? The amounts you cannot exclude are taxable in the US, and you can use a portion of your Norwegian tax to offset the US tax liability. Use form 1116 for that. Form 1116 with form 2555 on the same return will require some arithmetic exercises, but there are worksheets for that in the instructions. In addition, US-Norwegian treaty may come into play, so check that out. It may help you reduce the tax liability in the US or claim credit on the US taxes in Norway. It seems that Norway has a bilateral tax treaty with the US, that, if I'm reading it correctly, seems to indicate that \"\"visiting researchers to universities\"\" (which really seems like I would qualify as) should not be taxed by either country for the duration of their stay. The relevant portion of the treaty is Article 16. Article 16(2)(b) allows you $5000 exemption for up to a year stay in the US for your salary from the Norwegian school. You will still be taxed in Norway. To claim the treaty benefit you need to attach form 8833 to your tax return, and deduct the appropriate amount on line 21 of your form 1040. However, since you're a US citizen, that article doesn't apply to you (See the \"\"savings clause\"\" in the Article 22). I didn't even give a thought to state taxes; those should only apply to income sourced from the state I lived in, right (AKA $0)? I don't know what State you were in, so hard to say, but yes - the State you were in is the one to tax you. Note that the tax treaty between Norway and the US is between Norway and the Federal government, and doesn't apply to States. So the income you earned while in the US will be taxable by the State you were at, and you'll need to file a \"\"non-resident\"\" return there (if that State has income taxes - not all do).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f31499789d7290c5909610351f06461a", "text": "I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0980ca2d1a7e51b55220dd25da641b4f", "text": "question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df1e56fb20ac2062c3ea4d7c85015ded", "text": "\"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \"\"young\"\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e714ca3f65ef959e2f5a651731a8f4bf", "text": "The GnuCash tutorial has some basics on double entry accounting: http://www.gnucash.org/docs/v1.8/C/gnucash-guide/basics_accounting1.html#basics_accountingdouble2", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d11e107b45fdc610c799bfd97e53ba5", "text": "\"This seems to depend on what kind of corporation you have set up. If you're set up as a sole proprietor, then the Solo 401k contributions, whether employee or employer, will be deducted from your gross income. Thus they don't reduce it. If you're set up as an S-Corp, then the employer contributions, similar to large employer contributions, will be deducted from wages, and won't show up in Box 1 on your W-2, so they would reduce your gross income. (Note, employee contributions also would go away from Box 1, but would still be in Box 3 and 5 for FICA/payroll tax purposes). This is nicely discussed in detail here. The IRS page that discusses this in more (harder to understand) detail is here. Separately, I think a discussion of \"\"Gross Income\"\" is merited, as it has a special definition for sole proprietorships. The IRS defines it in publication 501 as: Gross income. Gross income is all income you receive in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax. If you are married and live with your spouse in a community property state, half of any income defined by state law as community income may be considered yours. For a list of community property states, see Community property states under Married Filing Separately, later. Self-employed persons. If you are self-employed in a business that provides services (where products are not a factor), your gross income from that business is the gross receipts. If you are self-employed in a business involving manufacturing, merchandising, or mining, your gross income from that business is the total sales minus the cost of goods sold. In either case, you must add any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. So I think that regardless of 401(k) contributions, your gross income is your gross receipts (if you're a contractor, it's probably the total listed on your 1099(s)).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0493d4f827147a296d9f105fe8748726", "text": "They might be concerned with having to charge sales tax in California if they have a single employee in California, creating a nexus situation with CA. If that's the case, or even if there is some other issue, you might be able to switch from being a W2 employee to being a 1099 independent contractor. There's a host of additional issues this could cause, but it alleviate the nexus problem (if THAT is the problem). Here's a terrible solution you can bring up, but shouldn't do under any circumstances: offer to set up a mailing address in an allowed State, and give your company plausible deniability with regards to your legal residence. Obviously, this is a terrible idea, but exploring that option with your employer would help you suss out what the actual objection is. Ultimately, anything said here about the reason is just conjecture. You need to talk to the decision maker(s) about the real reason behind the denial. Then you can talk through solutions. Also - don't forget that you can get another job. If you are serious about a future with your girlfriend, you should put that relationship ahead of your current employment comfort and security. If you are willing to walk away from your position, you are in a much better situation to negotiate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e13b682ffb08bdfdfb9f4297d66fb225", "text": "If you want to be safe, only claim deductions for which you have a receipt. This explanation may help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca45fdfb71adf33769492b71c096b555", "text": "There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bb8d16d3c46d5c0c56746815556ee28f	What is a mutual fund?	[ { "docid": "63c887e3ce5fcbdc3b4a2d62eecfd837", "text": "Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d7ee3420c962c48e9922a2fe399011b", "text": "The simple answer is: YES, the JP Morgan emerging markets equity fund is a mutual fund. A mutual fund is a pooling of money from investors to invest in stocks and bonds. Investors in mutual funds arrive there in different ways. Some get there via their company 401K, others by an IRA, still others as a taxable account. The fund can be sold by the company directly or through a broker. You can also have a fund of funds. So the investors are other funds. Some investors are only indirect investors. They are owed a pension by a past or current employer, and the pension fund has invested in a mutual fund.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3749bd9223d2080c026d8c67c9ac9201", "text": "\"Translation : Funds managers that use traditionnal methods to select stocks will have less success than those who use artificial intelligence and computer programs to select stocks. Meaning : The use of computer programs and artificial intelligence is THE way to go for hedge fund managers in the future because they give better results. \"\"No man is better than a machine, but no machine is better than a man with a machine.\"\" Alternative article : Hedge-fund firms, Wall Street Journal. A little humour : \"\"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.\"\" wrote Nicolas Boileau in 1674.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fabea6350f01303b2b65be7350ad13c9", "text": "Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b48f6c8c1f4bcf06e99385b9b00f8cc9", "text": "The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35c459b8792369297e41681430c55724", "text": "Mutual funds are collections of investments that other people pay to join. It would be simpler to calculate the value of all these investments at one time each day, and then to deem that any purchases or sales happen at that price. The fund diversifies rather than magnifies risk, looking to hold rather than enjoy a quick turnaround. Nobody really needs hourly updated price information for an investment they intend to hold for decades. They quote their prices on a daily basis and you take the daily price. This makes sense for a vehicle that is a balanced collection of many different assets, most of which will have varying prices over the course a day. That makes pricing complicated. This primer explains mutual fund pricing and the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which mandates daily price reporting. It also illustrates the complexity: How does the fund pricing process work? Mutual fund pricing is an intensive process that takes place in a short time frame at the end of the day. Generally, a fund’s pricing process begins at the close of the New York Stock Exchange, normally 4 p.m. Eastern time. The fund’s accounting agent, which may be an affiliated entity such as the fund’s adviser, or a third-party servicer such as the fund’s administrator or custodian bank, is usually responsible for calculating the share price. The accounting agent obtains prices for the fund’s securities from pricing services and directly from brokers. Pricing services collect securities prices from exchanges, brokers, and other sources and then transmit them to the fund’s accounting agent. Fund accounting agents internally validate the prices received by subjecting them to various control procedures. For example, depending on the nature and extent of its holdings, a fund may use one or more pricing services to ensure accuracy. Note that under Rule 22c-1 forward pricing, fund shareholders receive the next daily price, not the last daily price. Forward pricing makes sense if you want shareholders to get the most accurate sale or purchase price, but not if you want purchasers and sellers to be able to make precise calculations about gains and losses (how can you be precise if the price won't be known until after you buy or sell?).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00a9f862539eb72f41fbe7097b892ae0", "text": "Ordinary investors who own mutual funds (like vanguard or whatever) are subject to HFT scalping. Mutual funds, pensions, etc are all operating in the markets with HFTs who are front running them for a tiny spread profit. Million of ordinary investors are invested in those funds and therefore are getting charged this spread by the HFTs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "451a1147ad21efe2f898c5a001fd5c8a", "text": "\"This can be answered by looking at the fine print for any prospectus for any stock, bond or mutual fund. It says: \"\"Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.\"\". A mutual fund is a portfolio of common stocks, managed by somebody for a fee. There are many factors that can drive performance of a fund up or down. Here are a few: I'm sure there are many more market influences that I cannot think of that push fund prices up or down. What the fund did last year is not one of them. If it were, making money in the mutual fund market would be as easy as investing in last year's winners and everyone would be doing it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66a992f8c824c3f1a22da60fbff8cbc0", "text": "This edition of News Bites looks at an article by Bob Pozen and Theresa Hamacher, published by the Financial Analysts Journal in December, at a speech by Don Phillips of Morningstar given at the Business & Wealth Management Forum held in October, and at McKinsey & Company’s most recent annual review of the asset management industry. All three discuss factors leading to success in the mutual fund industry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7281e2011dcf9a28ad110b6fda9ae354", "text": "\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5521a4a179cffa66f2ce27f3bba39ebd", "text": "\"There are places that call themselves quant funds that are like what you describe, but most are not. \"\"Quant fund\"\" can just about mean anything from \"\"we use computer screens when we read 10-Ks\"\" to \"\"our PhDs write signal processing programs without even knowing what the input data represents, and we run those programs with no manual intervention.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b61ef059affedae539796acc1a0dbf3", "text": "\"There is a lot of interesting information that can be found in a fund's prospectus. I have found it very helpful to read books on the issue, one I just finished was \"\"The Boglehead's Guide to Investing\"\" which speaks mostly on mutual and index funds. Actively managed funds mean that someone is choosing which stocks to buy and which to sell. If they think a stock will be \"\"hot\"\" then they buy it. Research has shown that people cannot predict the stock market, which is why many people suggest index based funds. An index fund generally tracks a group of companies. Example: an index fund of the S&P 500 will try to mimic the returns that the S&P 500 has. Overall, managed funds are more expensive than index funds because the fund manager must be paid to manage it. Also, there is generally more buying and selling so that also increases the tax amount you would owe. What I am planning on doing is opening a Roth IRA with Vanguard, as their funds have incredibly low fees (0.2% on many). One of the most important things you do before you buy is to figure out your target allocation (% of stocks vs % of bonds). Once you figure that out then you can start narrowing down the funds that you wish to invest in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c976a1f9cf1a5014ba73a9b00bd8da2b", "text": "A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund. Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund. The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe83ddf6d27545bcef60021d1489080", "text": "\"A \"\"Fund\"\" is generally speaking a collection of similar financial products, which are bundled into a single investment, so that you as an individual can buy a portion of the Fund rather than buying 50 portions of various products. e.g. a \"\"Bond Fund\"\" may be a collection of various corporate bonds that are bundled together. The performance of the Fund would be the aggregate of each individual item. Generally speaking Funds are like pre-packaged \"\"diversification\"\". Rather than take time (and fees) to buy 50 different stocks on the same stock index, you could buy an \"\"Index Fund\"\" which represents the values of all of those stocks. A \"\"Portfolio\"\" is your individual package of investments. ie: the 20k you have in bonds + the 5k you have in shares, + the 50k you have in \"\"Funds\"\" + the 100k rental property you own. You might split the definition further buy saying \"\"My 401(k) portfolio & my taxable portfolio & my real estate portfolio\"\"(etc.), to denote how those items are invested. The implication of \"\"Portfolio\"\" is that you have considered how all of your investments work together; ie: your 5k in stocks is not so risky, because it is only 5k out of your entire 185k portfolio, which includes some low risk bonds and funds. Another way of looking at it, is that a Fund is a special type of Portfolio. That is, a Fund is a portfolio, that someone will sell to someone else (see Daniel's answer below). For example: Imagine you had $5,000 invested in IBM shares, and also had $5,000 invested in Apple shares. Call this your portfolio. But you also want to sell your portfolio, so let's also call it a 'fund'. Then you sell half of your 'fund' to a friend. So your friend (let's call him Maurice) pays you $4,000, to invest in your 'Fund'. Maurice gives you $4k, and in return, you given him a note that says \"\"Maurice owns 40% of atp9's Fund\"\". The following month, IBM pays you $100 in dividends. But, Maurice owns 40% of those dividends. So you give him a cheque for $40 (some funds automatically reinvest dividends for their clients instead of paying them out immediately). Then you sell your Apple shares for $6,000 (a gain of $1,000 since you bought them). But Maurice owns 40% of that 6k, so you give him $2,400 (or perhaps, instead of giving him the money immediately, you reinvest it within the fund, and buy $6k of Microsoft shares). Why would you set up this Fund? Because Maurice will pay you a fee equal to, let's say, 1% of his total investment. Your job is now to invest the money in the Fund, in a way that aligns with what you told Maurice when he signed the contract. ie: maybe it's a tech fund, and you can only invest in big Tech companies. Maybe it's an Index fund, and your investment needs to exactly match a specific portion of the New York Stock Exchange. Maybe it's a bond fund, and you can only invest in corporate bonds. So to reiterate, a portfolio is a collection of investments (think of an artist's portfolio, being a collection of their work). Usually, people refer to their own 'portfolio', of personal investments. A fund is someone's portfolio, that other people can invest in. This allows an individual investor to give some of their decision making over to a Fund manager. In addition to relying on expertise of others, this allows the investor to save on transaction costs, because they can have a well-diversified portfolio (see what I did there?) while only buying into one or a few funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46b129bf40544b2543dc880dfa3a75c0", "text": "A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cd8c165d5a3432ca97e0bc8d9c44877", "text": "The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfc24837add38637dbfd3d31ad3af4d8", "text": "\"Your \"\"money market\"\" is cash or a \"\"sweep account\"\" that your broker is holding for you and on which the broker is paying you interest. The mutual fund is paying you dividends, not interest, even if it is a money-market mutual fund (often bearing a name such as Prime Reserve Fund) or bond mutual fund that is collecting interest on its investments and passing them on to you.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cb3344271dbe555193fa577457c9b147	Investing in a growth stock periodically	[ { "docid": "40ead7a7f462b5e7c70fea1d19b68f18", "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!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7fd41a325f0fb649082ee85699cff9a3", "text": "First, you need to understand that not every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in companies that pay a regular dividend and use that income while keeping his investment intact. Imagine this: Let's say I own a profitable company, and I offer to sell you part ownership in that company. However, I tell you this upfront: no matter how much profit our company makes, you will never get a penny from me. You will be getting a stock certificate - a piece of paper - and that's it. You can watch the company grow, and you can tell yourself you own it, but the only way you will personally benefit from your investment would be to sell your piece to someone else, who would also never see a penny in profit. Does that sound like a good investment? The fact of the matter is, stocks in companies that do not distribute dividends do have value, but this value is largely based on the potential of profits/dividends at some point in the future. If a company vows never ever to pay dividends, why would anyone invest? An investment would be more of a donation (like Kickstarter) at that point. A company that pays dividends is possibly past their growth stage. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have stopped growing altogether, but remember that an expansion project for any company does not automatically yield a good result. If a company does not have a good opportunity currently for a growth project, I as an investor would rather get a dividend than have the company blow all the profit on a ill-fated gamble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5a728a9343d324f805da3dee3ef082c", "text": "Your example shows a 4% dividend. If we assume the stock continues to yield 4%, the math drops to something simple. Rule of 72 says your shares will double in 18 years. So in 18 years, 1000 shares will be 2000, at whatever price it's trading. Shares X (1.04)^N years = shares after N years. This is as good an oversimplification as any.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d54dbd5a6b33f419ebeafe4f977782", "text": "\"I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part. But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the \"\"fundamental index\"\" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think \"\"beating the market\"\" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying \"\"you can't beat the market so buy the index\"\" or Greenblatt saying \"\"here's how to beat the market with this strategy,\"\" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an \"\"index hugger,\"\" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a \"\"moat\"\" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fdf8698afbbce4fdfcff1a82a3e7435", "text": "\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \"\"income\"\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "281b87ce29ace56b33b832593ffd7a81", "text": "Avoiding tobacco, etc is fairly standard for a fund claiming ethical investing, though it varies. The hard one on your list is loans. You might want to check out Islamic mutual funds. Charging interest is against Sharia law. For example: http://www.saturna.com/amana/index.shtml From their about page: Our Funds favor companies with low price-to-earnings multiples, strong balance sheets, and proven businesses. They follow a value-oriented approach consistent with Islamic finance principles. Generally, these principles require that investors avoid interest and investments in businesses such as liquor, pornography, gambling, and banks. The Funds avoid bonds and other conventional fixed-income securities. So, it looks like it's got your list covered. (Not a recommendation, btw. I know nothing about Amana's performance.) Edit: A little more detail of their philosophy from Amana's growth fund page: Generally, Islamic principles require that investors share in profit and loss, that they receive no usury or interest, and that they do not invest in a business that is prohibited by Islamic principles. Some of the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography, insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or finance associations. The Growth Fund does not make any investments that pay interest. In accordance with Islamic principles, the Fund shall not purchase conventional bonds, debentures, or other interest-paying obligations of indebtedness. Islamic principles discourage speculation, and the Fund tends to hold investments for several years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992d568e9fb89ec12d5ec9d42554e089", "text": "What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7a5a99324e8131e0591b96330f6b8c1", "text": "Investing in companies because they are successful and growing is a common fallacy. Their stocks usually don't perform any better than average stocks because you get what you pay for. You have to consider valuation even when selecting growth stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4fd3346b362b43bc4afa5ecfc367ae3", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56941f61022dfec7fea49b5f306ff12e", "text": "\"You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for \"\"frequent traders\"\" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4243204acd7aa7a6f881b59294cbe58", "text": "2.5 years is a short period in the stock market. That means there is a significant chance it will be lower in 2.5 years, whereas it is very likely to be higher over a longer time period like 5-10 years. So if you want the funds to grow for sure then consider an online savings account, where you might earn 1-2%. If you want to do stocks anyway, but don't have any idea what fund to buy, the safest default choice is to buy an index fund that tracks the S&P 500. Vanguard's VFINX is one example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9d0671f97e043bc4c5aab149a7f419b", "text": "It is not unheard of. Celebrity investors such as Warren Buffet and Carl Icahn gained notoriety by more than doubling investments some years, with a few very stellar trades and bets. Doubling, as in a 100% gain, is actually conservative if you want to play that game, as 500%, 1200% and greater gains are possible and were achieved by the two otherwise unrelated people I mentioned. This reality is opposite of the comparably pitiful returns that Warren Buffet teaches baby boomers about, but compounding on 2-5% gains annually is a more likely way to build wealth. It is unreasonable to say and expect that you will get the outcome of doubling an investment year over year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9", "text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cac2f8096f2ec2234d0b587551f30b9", "text": "You could buy debt/notes or other instruments that pay out periodically. Some examples are If there is an income stream you can discount the present value and then buy it/own the rights to income stream. Typically you pay a discounted price for the face value and then receive the income stream over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86704e9414561fb2c3e4e274142c69d4", "text": "Sad part is that you aren't going to make meaningful gains with small account like that unless you are putting everything into one stock and trying to squeeze out 10% gains each trade. At this point, your main focus contributing money into the account regularly. You will be able to trade more frequently as you get more money into the account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73ef8e8eee6d0af27702fa012c74a352", "text": "Katherine from Betterment here. I wanted to address your inquiry and another comment regarding our services. I agree with JAGAnalyst - it's detrimental to your returns and potential for growth if you try to time the market. That's why Betterment offers customized asset allocation for each portfolio based on the nature of your goal, time horizon, and how much you are able to put towards your investments. We do this so regardless of what's happening in the markets, you can feel comfortable that your asset allocation plus other determining factors will get you where you need to go, without having to time your investing. We also put out quite a bit of content regarding market timing and why we think it's an unwise practice. We believe continuously depositing to your goal, especially through auto-deposits, compounding returns, tax-efficient auto-rebalancing, and reinvesting dividends are the best ways to grow your assets. Let me know if you would like additional information regarding Betterment accounts and our best practices. I am available at buck@betterment.com and am always happy to speak about Betterment's services. Katherine Buck, Betterment Community Manager", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
25666b205feda35b41578beadfe92dda	S&P is consistently beating inflation?	[ { "docid": "9b7c5fcd4fce83c37e92792c0c83ace5", "text": "\"TL;DR: Because stocks represent added value from corporate profits, and not the price the goods themselves are sold at. This is actually a very complicated subject. But here's the simplest answer I can come up with. Stocks are a commodity, just like milk, eggs, and bread. The government only tracks certain commodities (consumables) as part of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). These are generally commodities that the typical person will consume on a daily or weekly basis, or need to survive (food, rent, etc.). These are present values. Stock prices, on the other hand, represent an educated guess (or bet) on a company's future performance. If Apple has historically performed well, and analysts expect it to continue to perform, then investors will pay more for a stock that they feel will continue pay good dividends in the future. Compound this with the fact that there is usually limited a supply of stock for a particular company (unless they issue more stock). If we go back to Apple as an example, they can raise their price they charge on an iPhone from $400 to $450 over the course of say a couple years. Some of this may be due to higher wage costs, but efficiencies in the marketplace actually tend to drive down costs to produce goods, so they will probably actually turn a higher profit by raising their price, even if they have to pay higher wages (or possibly even if they don't raise their price!). This, in economics, is termed value added. Finally, @Hart is absolutely correct in his comment about the stocks in the S&P 500 not being static. Additionally, the S&P 500 is a hand picked set of \"\"winners\"\", if you will. These are not run-of-the-mill penny stocks for companies that will be out of business in a week. These are companies that Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC thinks will perform well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf488aa5ec973e17a92d53852a16100c", "text": "\"Inflation and stock returns are completely different things The CPI tracks the changes in the prices of a basket of goods a consumer might buy, the S&P 500 tracks the returns earned by investors in the equity of large companies. The two are very different things, and not closely linked. Example: A world without inflation Consider a world in which there was no inflation. Prices are fixed. Should stocks return zero? Certainly not. Companies take raw materials and produce goods and services that have value greater than that of the raw materials. They create new wealth. This wealth becomes profit for the company, which then is passed on to the owners of the company (equityholders) either in the form of dividends or, more commonly, price increases. Example: A world with no inflation and no economic growth Note that I have not implied above that companies have to grow in order for returns to outperform inflation. Total stock returns depend on the current and expected profit of the firm. Firms can remain the same size and continually kick out profits. Total returns will be positive in this environment even if there is no growth and no inflation. If the firms pay the money out as dividends, investors get a cash flow. If they retain these earnings, the value of the firm's equity increases. Total returns take both types of income into account. Technically the S&P 500 is not a total return index, but in our current legal and corporate culture environment, there is a preference for retaining profits rather than paying them out. This causes price increases. Risk bearing In principle, if profit was assured, then investors would bid up stock prices so high that profit would have to compete with the risk-free rate, which often is close to inflation (like, right now). However, profit is not assured. Firm profit swings around over time and constitutes a significant source of risk. We can think of the owners of the firm as being the bondholders and equityholders. These assets are structured such that almost all the profit risk is born by equityholders. We can therefore think of equityholders as being compensated for bearing the risk that would otherwise be born by bondholders. Because equityholders are bearing risk, stock prices must be low enough that stocks have a positive expected return (above the risk-free rate, which is presumably not significantly below inflation). This is true for the same reason that insurance premiums are positive--people have to be compensated for bearing risk. See my answer to this question for a discussion of why risk means we should expect stock prices to increase indefinitely (even if inflation halts). The S&P is not a measure of firm size or value The S&P measures the return earned by investors, not the size of US companies. True, if constituent companies grow and nothing else changes, the index goes up, but if a company shrinks a lot, it gets dropped out, rather than dragging the index down. By the way, please note that dollars \"\"put into\"\" equities are not stuck somewhere. They are passed on to the seller, who then uses it to buy something (even if this is a new equity issuance and the seller is the firm itself). The logic that growth of firms somehow sucks money out of usage is incorrect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "636c82034cad8c30b43c9f13cad4e238", "text": "\"The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to \"\"private\"\" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, \"\"gross,\"\" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the \"\"net\"\" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the \"\"just under 3% a year\"\" GDP growth during that time.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8d2417fd1e8eb8a7ede06951fc8de9c8", "text": "\"Yes. The definition of unreasonable shows as \"\"not guided by or based on good sense.\"\" 100% years require a high risk. Can your one stock double, or even go up three fold? Sure, but that would likely be a small part of your portfolio. Overall, long term, you are not likely to beat the market by such high numbers. That said, I had 2 years of returns well over 100%. 1998, and 1999. The S&P was up 26.7% and 19.5%, and I was very leverage in high tech stock options. As others mentioned, leverage was key. (Mark used the term 'gearing' which I think is leverage). When 2000 started crashing, I had taken enough off the table to end the year down 12% vs the S&P -10%, but this was down from a near 50% gain in Q1 of that year. As the crash continued, I was no longer leveraged and haven't been since. The last 12 years or so, I've happily lagged the S&P by a few basis points (.04-.02%). Also note, Buffet has returned an amazing 15.9%/yr on average for the last 30 years (vs the S&P 11.4%). 16% is far from 100%. The last 10 year, however, his return was a modest 8.6%, just .1% above the S&P.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c844760b10919a890be503d0f7d801", "text": "\"They don't, actually. Though in some time frames S&P 500 growth out performs S&P 500, it often lags. This is because \"\"growth\"\" doesn't refer to what happens to your account, but rather the type of stock in the index -- roughly speaking, it's the half of the S&P with the best earnings growth. That would be great, except it's not looking for is to see if that growth is worth buying. A stock with a 20% growth rate is a great buy at a P/E of 15, but a terrible buy at P/E/ 50. That leads to what JB King was talking about -- there's also the S&P 500 Value, which is roughly the cheapest stocks relative to earnings. Value does tend to beat the broad index over the long haul, because there's nothing like getting a good deal (note a stock can be in both the growth and value categories). This holds true with other indexes as well like the Russel 2000. All that said, you're not going to see a huge difference between S&P 500 and S&P 500 Growth. I believe this is because the S&P 500 itself leans a bit to the growthy side. PS: With VOOG Vanguard is tracking the S&P 500 Growth Index, which is actually a thing and not Vanguard itself filtering stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84b3cf05ee6db62987649b0d8dafb074", "text": "\"You can see how much of a percentage the S&P 500 is of the GDP over the past 10 years in this handy graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=oCZ When the stock market was doing poorly (2009) it was only 0.06% of GDP. When it's doing well (now) it's 0.12% of the GDP. It's also not useful to directly compare percentages like you're doing. Just because one averages 6% growth and one averages 3% growth, that doesn't mean that the 6% one will take over. It doesn't take much of a correction to wipe out decades of S&P vs GDP growth. You might also be interested in knowing that this ratio is similar to the \"\"Buffet Indicator\"\", how Warren Buffet decides if stocks are overvalued as a whole: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/04/04/market-cap-to-gdp-an-updated-look-at-the-buffett-valuation-indicator\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d468a0e6187ebb28e046806b9f0ccf5", "text": "\"Your explanation is nearly perfect and not \"\"hand wavy\"\" at all. Stock prices reflect the collective wisdom of all participating investors. Investors value stocks based on how much value they expect the stock to produce now and in the future. So, the stability of the stock prices is a reflection of the accuracy of the investors predictions. Investor naivity can be seen as a sequence of increasingly sophisticated stock pricing strategies: If investors were able to predict the future perfectly, then all stock prices would rise at the same constant rate. In theory, if a particular investor is able to \"\"beat the market\"\", it is because they are better at predicting the future profits of companies (or they are lucky, or they are better at predicting the irrational behavior of other investors......)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2649f29b989d8e7f895fca5b3d7d7194", "text": "\"At the bottom of Yahoo! Finance's S & P 500 quote Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT. See also delay times for other exchanges. All information provided \"\"as is\"\" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by Morningstar, Inc. Orderbook quotes are provided by BATS Exchange. US Financials data provided by Edgar Online and all other Financials provided by Capital IQ. International historical chart data, daily updates, fundAnalyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial Network. All data povided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo! and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Thus, yes there is a DB being accessed that there is likely an agreement between Yahoo! and the providers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fe88507bbc13e2adef09b375816123b", "text": "\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd66966f0541ccfd05860777d41fc257", "text": "Eh using a benchmark that's designed for Hedge Funds is a little different. I was guessing the other comment was referring to SPX or similar for the 10%. Most people don't understand HF as investment vehicles. They are meant to be market neutral and focused on absolute returns. Yes, you can benchmark them against each other / strategy but most people here seem to think that HFs want to beat the S&P 500.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "340b75b1e37eecd052b891c6d5bbe629", "text": "Inflation can be a misleading indicator. Partly because it is not measured as a function of the change in prices of everything in the economy, just the basket of goods deemed essential. The other problem is that several things operate on it, the supply of money, the total quantity of goods being exchanged, and the supply of credit. Because the supply of goods divides - as more stuff is available prices drop - it's not possible to know purely from the price level, if prices are rising because there's an actual shortage (say a crop failure), or simply monetary expansion. At this point it also helps to know that the total money supply of the USA (as measured by total quantity of money in bank deposits) doubles every 10 years, and has done that consistently since the 1970's. USA Total Bank Deposits So I would say Simon Moore manages to be right for the wrong reasons. Despite low inflation, cash holdings are being proportionally devalued as the money supply increases. Most of the increase, is going into the stock market. However, since shares aren't included in the measures of inflation, then it doesn't influence the inflation rate. Still, if you look at the quantity of shares your money will buy now, as opposed to 5 years ago, it's clear that the value of your money has dropped substantially. The joker in the pack is the influence of the credit supply on the price level.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c84d0cd8ba4ce0d23663e0591844911", "text": "Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57165bce8395c150584db3d30c37a8d3", "text": "Well, you can't really have it both ways. You said that they were both using the same method, but, in fact, they aren't. You can call the weighting biased, but in fact if appears that BPP is doing little or minimal weighting, and yet still is showing that prices, in general, are mapping similarly to the BLS published CPI. Unless you're arguing an MIT 'academic conspiracy' (and even if you are), I think you've failed to make your case. BPP is independant, it uses a different methodology, and yet the results confirm those of the BLS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4db9c2c21d5bcb01b3362aa9694b5d97", "text": ">I would be interested in knowing how much of the recent returns of the S&P are being driven purely by the Fed bond purchase program, controlling for other macro-economic variables. The correlation of asset purchase dollars and SPX level does not answer this question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1688c0affff288ef6402d045731b746", "text": "The answer would depend on the equities held. Some can weather inflation better than others (such as companies that have solid dividend growth) and even outpace inflation. Some industries are also safer against inflation than others, such as consumer staples and utilities since people usually have to purchase these regardless of how much $ they have. In looking over the data comparing S&P 500 returns, dividends, and inflation, the results are all over the map. In the 50's the total return was 19.3% with inflation at 2.2%. Then in the 70's returns were 5.8% with inflation at 7.4 percent, leading one to think that inflation diminished returns. But then in the 80's inflation was 5.1%, yet the return on the S&P was up to 17.3% Either way, aside from the 70's every other decade since 1950 has outpaced inflation (as long as you are including dividends; hence my first paragraph). S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns Also, the 7% average stock appreciation you mention is just that, an average. You are comparing a year-over-year number (7% inflation) with an aggregated one (stock performance over x number of years) and that is a misrepresentation and is not being weighted for the difference in what those numbers mean. Finally, there are thousands of things that have an effect on the stock market and stocks. Some are controllable and others are not. The idea that any one of them, such as inflation, has any sort of long-term, everlasting effect on prices that they cannot outmaneuver is improbable. This is where researching your stocks comes in...and if done prudently, who cares what the inflation rate is?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bb9adeade58010a31af818f57c0402f", "text": "Ok opinion but too bad it's not supported by data in the article. The opinion is backed by a survey of opinions, not actual inflation and employment figures. If prices are rising generally (and not just in individual commodities), why isn't that being reflected in inflation and employment numbers? Wouldn't we expect to see gross employment numbers trending downwards and inflation trending upwards since the beginning of the year?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbcdc4709a26a75edae1f33af053105b", "text": "This didn't answer his question. Also, while I agree with you that the Dow is meaningless (and your explanation why). In the investment industry, we don't only focus on the S&P Index.. Many have a specific benchmark they aim to outperform that matches their investment strategy (i.e. Russell Mid Cap Value, Russell 3000, etc.).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "802d65fbf36c083b5d83d94fbb814bc0", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-13/fed-s-patient-or-preemptive-clash-looms-as-inflation-misses-goal?cmpId=flipboard) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) *** > The debate over whether the Fed should get ahead of the inflation curve or stick with a wait-and-see approach is heating up ahead of the Federal Open Market Committee&#039;s meeting next week. > Part of the doubt is due to low inflation expectations, which may represent the underlying, trend level of inflation. > &quot;The key question in my mind is how to achieve an improvement in longer-run inflation expectations to a level that will allow us to achieve our inflation objective,&quot; Brainard said. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6zwx8i/act_or_wait_fed_debate_heats_up_after_inflation/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~209135 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: inflation^#1 whether^#2 market^#3 policy^#4 year^#5\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6464e4b23eff3abca47946f31101e6b4	How to rebalance a portfolio without moving money into losing investments	[ { "docid": "dbd9c00442847632ae387f2b69c7b500", "text": "You are very correct, rebalancing is basically selling off winners to buy losers. Of course the thinking is that selling a winner that has already increased 100% on the basis that it has doubled so it is likely to go down in the near future. However, just look at Apple as an example, if you bought Apple in June 2009 for $20 (adjusted price) and sold it as part of rebalancing when it rose to $40 (adjusted price) in September 2010, you would have missed out on it reaching over $95 2 years later. Similarly you look to rebalance by buying assets which have been battered (say dropped by 50%) on the basis that it has dropped so much that it should start increasing in the near future. But many times the price can fall even further. A better method would be to sell your winners when they stop being winners (i.e. their uptrend ends) and replace them with assets that are just starting their winning ways (i.e. their downtrend has ended and are now starting to Uptrend). This can be achieved by looking at price action and referring to the definitions of an uptrend and a downtrend. Definition of an uptrend - higher highs and higher lows. Definition of a downtrend - lower lows and lower highs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45856bc2be034a008457fdc32d73a8dc", "text": "A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually. Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef9429865803bf29a1a71258184dcea3", "text": "Also, almost by definition rebalancing involves making more trades than you would have otherwise; wouldn't the additional trading fees you incurred in doing so reduce the benefits of this strategy? You forgot to mention taxes. Rebalancing does or rather can incur costs. One way to minimize the costs is to use the parts of the portfolio that have essentially zero cost of moving. These generally are the funds in your retirement accounts. In the United States they can be in IRAs or 401Ks; they can be regular or Roth. Selling winners withing the structure of the plan doesn't trigger capital gains taxes, and many have funds within them that have zero loads. Another way to reduce trading fees is to only rebalance once a year or once every two years; or by setting a limit on how far out of balance. For example don't rebalance at 61/39 to get back to 60/40 even if it has been two years. Given that the ratio of investments is often rather arbitrary to begin with, how do I know whether I'm selling high and buying low or just obstinately sticking with a losing asset ratio? The ratio used in an example or in an article may be arbitrary, but your desired ratio isn't arbitrary. You selected the ratio of your investments based on several criteria: your age, your time horizon, your goals for the money, how comfortable you are with risk. As these change during your investing career those ratios would also morph. But they aren't arbitrary. These decisions to rebalance are separate from the ones to sell a particular investment. You could sell Computer Company X because of how it is performing, and buy stock in Technology Company Y because you think it has a better chance of growing. That transaction would not be a re-balancing. Selling part of your stock in Domestic Company A to buy stock in international Company B would be part of a re-balancing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eef9aedb0ad4b895b7f771712e625179", "text": "If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f000b3d3ea91278770cbb20cd4af0ced", "text": "What you're describing is called timing the market. That is, if you correctly predict when the market will drop, you can sell before the drop, wait for the drop, then buy after the drop has occurred. Sell high, buy low. The fundamental problem with that, though, is: What ends up happening, on average, is you end up slightly behind. There's quite a lot of literature on this; see Betterment's explanation for example. Forbes (click through ad first) also has a detailed piece on the matter. Now, we're not really talking HFT issues here; and there are some structural things that some argue you can take advantage of (restrictions on some organizational investors, for example, similar to a blackjack dealer who has to hit on 16). However, everyone else knows about these too - so it's hard to gain much of an edge. Plenty of people say they can time the market right, and even yourself perhaps you timed a particular drop accurately. This tends to lead to false confidence though; how many drops that you timed badly do you remember? Ultimately, most investors end up slightly down when they attempt to time the market, because of the transaction costs (if you guess two drops, one 'right' and one 'wrong', and they have exactly opposite gains/losses before commissions, you will lose a bit on each due to commission), and because of the overall upward trend in the market (ie, if you picked at random one month a year to be out of the market, you'd lose around 10% annualized gains from doing that; same applies here). All of that aside, there is one major caveat: risk tolerance. If you are highly risk tolerant, say a 30 year old investing your 401(k), then you should stay in no matter what. If you're not - say you're 58 and retiring in a few years - then knowledge that there's a higher risk time period coming up might suggest moving to a less risky portfolio, even at the known cost of some gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a", "text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b49aa1173c6209877e4cc7134568228f", "text": "Note that if 1) The stock prices are continuously differentiable (they aren't) 2) You rebalance continuously in the absence of trading fees and taxes then the return fraction (future price / original price) will be the geometric mean of the return fractions for each investment. If you don't rebalance then the return fraction will be the arithmetic mean. But the arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the geometric mean, so continuous rebalancing in the case of continuously differentiable prices will always hurt you, even abscent trading costs/taxes. Any argument in favor of blind rebalancing which does not somehow fail in the continuously differentiable case is simply wrong. See https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38536036/to%20karim.pdf -JT", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2df67d91e2c1c9ae4457d083be5beb0c", "text": "I think you're missing Simon Moore's point. His point is that, due to low inflation, the returns on almost all asset classes should be less than they have been historically, so we shouldn't rebalance our portfolio or withdraw from the market and hold cash based on the assumption that stocks (or any other asset) seem to be underperforming relative to historical trends. His last paragraph is written in case someone might misunderstand him, he is not advocating to hold cash, just that investors should not expect as good returns as has happened historically, since those happened in higher inflation environments. To explain: If the inflation rate historically has been 5% and now it's 2%, and the risk-free-market return should be about 2%, then historically the return on a risk-free asset would be 7% (2%+5%), and now it should be expected to be 4% (2%+2%). So, if you have had a portfolio over some time you might be concerned that the rate of return is worsening, but Simon's point is that before you sell off your stocks / switch investment brokers, you should try to figure out if inflation is the cause of the performance loss. On the subject of cash: cash always loses value over time from inflation, since inflation is a measure of the increase in prices over time-- it's a part of the definition of what inflation is. That said, cash holdings lose value more slowly when inflation is lower, so they are relatively less worse than before. The future value of cash doesn't go up in low inflation (you'd need deflation for that), it just decreases at a lower rate, that is, it becomes less expensive to hold- but there still is a price. As an addendum, unless a completely new economic paradigm is adopted by world leaders, we will always see cash holdings decrease in value over time, since modern economics holds that deflation is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cedfdaf74a6b62e2c8d8004af049661d", "text": "Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "634312a11375ed10181224df31580810", "text": "\"I'm assuming that all the savings are of 'defined contribution' type, and not 'defined benefit' as per marktristan's comment to the original question. Aside from convenience of having all the pension money in one place, which may or may not be something you care about, there may be a benefit associated with being able to rebalance your portfolio when you need do. Say you invest your pension pot in a 60%/40% of equities and bonds respectively. Due higher risk/reward ratio of the equities part, in the long run equities tend to get 'overweight' turning your mix into 70%/30% or even 80%/20%, therefore raising your overall exposure to equities. General practice is to rebalance your portfolio every now and then, in this case, by selling some equities and buying more bonds (\"\"sell high, buy low\"\"). Now if you have few small pockets of pension money, it makes it harder to keep track of the overall asset allocation and actually do the rebalancing as you cannot see and trade everything from one place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bf25fbe8c8183d101281c3efbe087c4", "text": "You have to understand what risk is and how much risk you want to take on, and weight your portfolio accordingly. I think your 80/20 split based on wrong assumptions is the wrong way to look at it. It sounds like your risk appetite has changed. Risk is deviation from expected, so risk is not bad, and you can have cases where everyone would prefer the riskier asset. If you think the roulette table is too risky, instead of betting $1, stick 50c in your pocket and you changed the payoffs from $2 or 0 to 50c or $1.50 If your risk appetite has changed - change your risk exposure. If not, then all you are saying is I bought the wrong stuff earlier, now I should get out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44eb02cae8302ba335d2032af7a43460", "text": "You can only lose your 7%. The idea that a certain security is more volatile than others in your portfolio does not mean that you can lose more than the value of the investment. The one exception is that a short position has unlimited downside, but i dont think there are any straight short mutual funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101679bbac4e296e705bad5e77b74459", "text": "I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bdccbd5c576bbbfa192d1788df6e45a", "text": "\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210", "text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5f8e55a69c763efd9c32592762998ef", "text": "When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bc71668a8b9096a2bcfb406c5bacf23", "text": "In your entire question, the only time you mention that this is an investment inside an IRA is when you say Every quarter, six months, whatever Id have to rebalance my IRA while Vanguard would do this for the fund of funds without me needing to. Within an IRA, there are no tax implications to the rebalancing. But if this investment were not inside an IRA, then the rebalancing done by you will have tax implications. In particular, any gains realized when you sell shares in one fund and buy shares in another fund during the rebalancing process are subject to income tax. Similarly, losses also might be realized (and will affect your taxes). However, if you are invested in a fund of funds, there are no capital gains (or capital losses) when re-balancing is done; you have gains or losses only when you sell shares of the fund of funds for a price different than the price you paid for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f6dbee2a64e74d7236cc6693d80ca1c", "text": "I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals. I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8beada6940fcd19d31b2e64fb168897f", "text": "If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. I have my back account (i.e. chequing account) and VISA account at/from the same bank (which, in my case, is the Royal Bank of Canada). I asked my bank to set up an automatic transfer, so that they automatically pay off my whole VISA balance every month, on time, by taking the money from my bank account. In that way I am never late paying the VISA so I never pay interest charges. IOW I use the VISA like a debit card; the difference is that it's accepted at some places where a debit card isn't (e.g. online, and for car rentals), and that the money is deducted from my bank account at the end of the month instead of immediately.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
97b3b9b8e44e93085f5c478e314dbff2	Are the guaranteed returns of regulated utilities really what they sound like?	[ { "docid": "b1e00b39ad638ff408ef177d9410a9e8", "text": "Typically a private company is hit by demand supply issues and cost of inputs. In effect at times the cost of input may go up, it cannot raise the prices, because this will reduce demand. However certain public sectors companies, typically in Oil & Engery segements the services are offered by Public sector companies, and the price they charge is governed by Regulatory authorities. In essence the PG&E, the agreement for price to customers would be calculated as cost of inputs to PG&E, Plus Expenses Plus 11.35% Profit. Thus the regulated price itself governs that the company makes atleast 11.35% profit year on year. Does this mean that the shares are good buy? Just to give an example, say the price was $100 at face value, So essentially by year end logically you would have made 111.35/-. Assuming the company did not pay dividend ... Now lets say you began trading this share, there would be quite a few people who would say I am ready to pay $200 and even if I get 11.35 [on 200] it still means I have got ~6% return. Someone may be ready to pay $400, it still gives ~3% ... So in short the price of the stock would keep changing depending how the market percieves the value that a company would return. If the markets are down or the sentiments are down on energy sectors, the prices would go down. So investing in PG&E is not a sure shot way of making money. For actual returns over the years see the graph at http://www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report_proxy_statement/ar_html/2011/index.htm#CS", "title": "" }, { "docid": "683104378e7088f185902f2ccb001608", "text": "\"No. That return on equity number is a target that the regulators consider when approving price hikes. If PG&E tried to get a 20% RoE, the regulator would deny the request. Utilities are basically compelled to accept price regulation in return for a monopoly on utility business in a geographic area. There are obviously no guarantees that a utility will make money, but these good utilities are good stable investments that generally speaking will not make you rich, but appreciate nicely over time. Due to deregulation, however, they are a more complex investment than they once were. Basically, the utility builds and maintains a bunch of physical infrastructure, buys fuel and turns it into electricity. So they have fixed costs, regulated pricing, market-driven costs for fuel, and market-driven demand for electricity. Also consider that the marginal cost of adding capacity to the electric grid is incredibly high, so uneven demand growth or economic disruption in the utility service area can hurt the firms return on equity (and thus the stock price). Compare the stock performance of HE (the Hawaiian electric utlity) to ED (Consolidated Edison, the NYC utility) to SO (Southern Companies, the utility for much of the South). You can see that the severe impact of the recession on HE really damaged the stock -- location matters. Buying strategy is key as well -- during bad market conditions, money flows into these stocks (which are considered to be low-risk \"\"defensive\"\" investments) and inflates the price. You don't want to buy utilities at a peak... you need to dollar-cost average a position over a period of years and hold it. Focus on the high quality utilities or quality local utilities if you understand your local market. Look at Southern Co, Progress Energy, Duke Energy or American Electric Power as high-quality benchmarks to compare with other utilities.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "055d50d1148a5045c9afa3008cdd3e96", "text": "\"It's not my title. It's the original title. I was pointing out that as a headline, it makes more sense to point out that the businesses are apparently against this regulation. Rather than have the headline be formulated as a tautology, i.e. \"\"Consumers win after CFPB opens door to thing that benefits consumers\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5c828411013510f191bb0f58be880db", "text": "I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're using to measure hedge fund performance, but based on the name alone, comparing market returns to market neutral hedge fund returns seems a bit disingenuous. That doesn't mean the article is wrong, and they have a point about the democratization of data, but still.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87da2357c61d0267338d13fbd7c6e88e", "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).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c49bd44e7d3b0a7175b32dfd136e5cd2", "text": "\"Let me see if I can restate your question: are speculative investments more volatile (subject to greater spikes and drops in pricing) than are more long-term investments which are defined by the predictability of their dividend returns? The short answer is: yes. However, where it gets complicated is in deciding whether something is a speculative investment. Take your example of housing. People who buy a house as an investment either choose to rent it out (so receive \"\"rent\"\" as \"\"dividend\"\") or live in it (foregoing dividends). Either way, the scale of the investment is large and this is often the only direct investment that people manage themselves. For this reason houses are bound up in the sentimental value people attach to a home, the difficulty of uprooting and moving elsewhere in search of cheaper housing or better employment, or the sunk cost of debt that can't be recovered by a fire-sale. Such inertia can lead to sudden sell-offs as critical inflection points are reached (such as hoped-for economic improvements fail to materialise and cash needs become critical). At different levels that is true of just about every investment. Driving price-volatility is the ease of sale and the trade-offs involved. A share that offers regular and dependable dividends, even if its absolute value falls, is going to be hung on to more frequently than those shares that suffer a similar decline but only offer a capital gain. For the latter, the race is on to sell before the drop neutralises any remaining capital gain the investor may have experienced. A house with a good tenant or a share with stable dividends will be kept in preference for the quick cash-return of selling an asset that offers no such ongoing returns. This would result, visually, in more eratic curves for \"\"speculative\"\" shares while more stable shares are characterised by periods of stability interspersed with moments of mania. But I have to take your query further, since you provide graphical evidence to support your thesis. Your charts combine varying time-scales, different sample rates and different scales (one of which is even a log scale). It becomes impossible to draw any sort of meaningful micro-comparison unless they're all presented using exactly the same criteria.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7913cc64d78cdbe244b3cf1c7757cbe4", "text": "Ok, the point you're missing is that installed base is irrelevant. Yes, there's much more total installed natgas than solar/wind, but that's not important for calculating the impact on coal retirements. To displace coal, you need to install something new. That new generation means coal needs to be less profitable or get turned off. So the real question is how much solar/wind have been installed in the last 5 years compared to natgas. These new installations replace coal that used to be burning. Again, early in the thread you stated that solar/wind had very little effect. That's not true, they have a very significant effect. Natgas deserves significant credit, but certainly not all of it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62a7fbd2c10236456f10836f11537282", "text": "Yes, but the move to regulated monopolies is tactical. Duke's deeper strategy is to prepare for the coming rise of distributed generation. Hiding behind regulatory barriers is a way to do that, and it gives them a stronger lobbying platform from which to attack DG, pushing for grid connection surcharges that will cripple rooftop solar. It's a copy of similar utility strategies in places like Spain and Australia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37a0e0449da9a00d606b4d394d13947f", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1509023288a8da3734b8ee61111d8871", "text": "I actually deal with the regulators, and am familiar with the regs. So no, I'm not getting my information from the news. There's a really strong bias there. The news is only going to mention things that seem objectionable. Believe it or not, everyone in government is not crooked.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9e7117f420db974d1c03f20f111c167", "text": "That's not at all what I said. I said regulation is inevitable. The question is, in whose favour we regulate? Employers, owners of capital, or workers. Deregulation usually favours owners of capital and employers, and ends up concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. Because surprise surprise people would rather invest their money in something that just goes up in value rather than put all the effort into creating jobs or paying workers more. Since there are no laws to encourage them to do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa219a29dc45802ac90dbaada0427f03", "text": "Returns: Variable, as with all investments. Legitimate: Contact the usual major investment-fund houses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fdc842cd9d91b75fc1315bd0d29e4a0", "text": "\"> all we need to do is show that such a thought process is theoretically sound in order to throw that premise into serious question Not really. You're splitting hairs. If you want to suggest that Wall Street enjoys tax paying, the onus is on you. > But if the actuaries can't figure out a way to do it, then wouldn't that be cause to reevaluate the blind faith many people place in markets? I feel like I'm a freshman in college again. There are plenty of examples of market failures. The temptation is to say that merely because there is a market failure, that therefore control by means of bureaucrats is necessary, without considering whether there is also a bureaucratic failure or whether the possibility of failure is as high as the original market scenario. A power plant causes pollution, leading to reduced air quality and quality of life for the surrounding population. This is a problem! The power plant is imposing a cost on me and I deserve to be compensated. \"\"Therefore, bureaucrats!\"\" Fine. But now you've shifted the problem from simply compensating for pollution to figuring out how on earth to do it fairly. And you've introduced a means for abuse of the system, incentivizing people to live closer to the problem or claim damages they don't have. Power plants still require a profit to operate, so costs will rise. We're now charging people more money to go to the company to then go back to the people with the additional inefficiency of a government watch group. Is the original scenario a problem? Absolutely. It's a failure of the free market to correctly provide according to individual's rights since everyone's air is collectively polluted. Is the alternative better? I don't know. It's certainly more complicated. > which is an asinine thing to do if you're concerned with actually changing the system Why do you think this, exactly? I agree with you, but I'm curious if we agree for the same reasons. I agree for the same reason I don't give my alcoholic family members any money at the end of the month.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3275bd81118f9fd05283645ea8c09d79", "text": "Hey, sorry man, I didn't mean to come off as so argumentative. This is clearly an issue that rustles a lot of jimmies. Thanks for the article, I'll read it over. I used to work in HFT and the people I worked with were some of the brightest people I know and the work was extremely fulfilling, so I have a bit of an emotional soft spot for it that can cloud my debate skills. It's clearly not as one sided as I believe but I encourage you to keep learning as I am. Dark Pools by Scott Paterson is another book that while it leans towards Michael Lewis' position, I found it to be a much more historically accurate account based on what I've learned from people in industry, you should check it out!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc70d2da679cab4f2df92d9dfa71a212", "text": "You'd have to investigate, ask the right questions. I'd say that's a speculative bet since the electric companies would see that coming a mile away and would have a plan so that it didn't materially affect their business. I don't think it would affect securities or derivatives market significantly enough to bring certain profits. Once again I'm no expert though, it all depends on what your research uncovers and how confident you are in your prediction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67fb4b269d933ad77eb2517f031ef028", "text": "Just to be clear, I've been in the industry, specifically in government and regulatory affairs, seven years. In the US, there is generation, transmission, distribution, merchant function/retail function, and government impositions (fees, taxes, environmental regulations, etc), just like presented in the image. In my experience, attributing approximately 50% to T&D and 50% to everything else is pretty accurate (in fact, T&D costs are often higher than all the others). I'm sure our overall rates are lower (depending on location -- Hawaii's rates are astronomical), but I don't think these percentages are that off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a34d93c4315a369011138b72d6ea2cd4", "text": "The site you link to suggests the majority save on this plan. AC is tough, but most other power hogs are in your control, washer/drier, dish washer, etc. This is part of a bigger picture of power transmission, and management. The utility cost is the highest for peak demand, i.e. they need to have capacity for the peak use, but only selling average use, on average. This billing plan matches what you pay with the true cost, and you save by avoiding the peak times.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
89815ca10cba84b003fab778e029bec5	Avoiding Capital Gains Long Term	[ { "docid": "0b631aebd88b85b7ad0afe37b73654d3", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88ad101812c46ae30dfe93a1ece147d7", "text": "\"It's correct. Be sure of your personal opportunity cost and not that you're letting the tax tail wag the dog just to score \"\"tax free\"\". Your upside is $3,700 (single) or $7,000 (married) in taxes saved until you're out of the 0% zone. Is that worth not receiving an income? Even if your savings are such that you don't need to work for income for a fiscal year, how would this affect the rest of your career and lifetime total earning prospects? Now, maybe: Otherwise, I'd hope you have solid contacts in your network who won't be fazed by a resume gap and be delighted to have a position open for you in 2019 (and won't give you the \"\"mother returning to the workforce\"\" treatment in salary negotiations).\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b58965eac1ac22be6c97704ca003a1f0", "text": "My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3cc2326e8fa93452b5c41bfe54f0584", "text": "Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically. The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock. However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6d3a46eb56646f68888503be0d54000", "text": "Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeb476540810014f56d055b895dba62b", "text": "In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "395e4a466026a14fb6261c61f25969b5", "text": "\"A lot of people have already explained that your assumptions are the issue, but I'll throw in my 2¢. There are a lot of people who do the opposite of long term investing. It's called high frequency trading. I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia article for more info, but very basically, high frequency traders use programs to determine which stocks to buy and which ones to sell. An example program might be \"\"buy if the stock is increasing and sell if I've held it more than 1 second.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ec4040c3ac8334ab36c650435360cd4", "text": "\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8615e9a68e1874e10f12d06764d16009", "text": "Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60a3de3c4b6ba916c9d838b8a08d250c", "text": "\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \"\"for tax purposes\"\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "398402f51ec457500408822627b1c4f2", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817", "text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.158K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97e65970f20cad08d3fe6ee5ebb651e8", "text": "Do not use a stop loss order as a long-term investor. The arguments in favor of stop losses being presented by a few users here rely on a faulty premise, namely, that there is some kind of formula that will let you set your stop such that it won't trigger on day-to-day fluctuations but will trigger in time to protect you from a significant loss in a serious market downturn. No such formula exists. No matter where you set your stop, it is as likely to dump you from your investment just before it begins climbing again as it is to shield you from continued losses. Each time that happens, you will have sold low and bought high, incurring trading fees into the bargain. It is very unlikely that the losses you avoid in a bear market (remember, you still incur the loss up until your stop is hit; it's only the losses after that that you avoid) will make up the costs of false alarms. On top of that, once you have stopped out of your first investment choice, then what? Will you reinvest in some other stock or fund? If those investments didn't look good to you when you first set up your asset allocation, then why should they look any better now, just because your primary investment has dropped by some arbitrary[] amount? Will you park the money in cash while you wait for prices to bottom out? The market bottom is only apparent in retrospect. There is no formula for calling it in real time. Perhaps stop loss orders have their uses in active trading strategies, or maybe they're just chrome that trading platforms use to attract customers. Either way, using them on long-term investments will just cost you money in the long run. Forget the fancy order types, and manage your risk through your asset allocation. The overwhelming likelihood is that you will get better performance, and you will spend less time worrying about your investments to boot. [] Why are the stop levels recommended by the formulae invariably multiples of 5%? Do the market gods have a thing for round numbers?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c843dc9c5c342b9205e36ba2aa3344f", "text": "\"You should check with your broker for details, but you can generally specify which \"\"lot\"\" you are selling. where I've seen it, that's done by concurrently sending a \"\"letter of instruction\"\" documenting your choice of lot concurrent with the sale, but different brokers may handle this differently. I would think this should work for the case that you describe. (In addition, the default rule used by your broker is \"\"probably\"\" first-in-first-out, which will do what you want here.) Note that this may come into play even in a margin account to the extent that you might want to specify a lot in order to obtain (or set yourself up for later benefit of) favorable tax treatment under the long-term capital gains rules\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b650fc4e0e907668b3089ab88e802163", "text": "Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49f29b55b33e9105340e11bfb78539e9", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54e0ff2c5558fea04519a7243a6722a4", "text": "Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d955c2cdbb5a9209baab141d3a24de95	What is the best asset allocation for a retirement portfolio, and why?	[ { "docid": "8e0cc6474e82e1d2d036cd295fc54b37", "text": "\"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio. I agree 110%. If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each. From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice. Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc. Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago. Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, \"\"The Nature of the Portfolio\"\", that address some of the points you've asked about. All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation process] is not really that hard: The investor only makes two important decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a higher portion of stocks because they have the ability to apply their regular savings to the markets at depressed prices. More precisely, young investors possess more \"\"human capital\"\" than financial capital; that is, their total future earnings dwarf their savings and investments. From a financial perspective, human capital looks like a bond whose coupons escalate with inflation. Page 78: The most important asset allocation decision is the overall stock/bind mix; start with age = bond allocation rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance. If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets] This process, called \"\"rebalancing,\"\" provides the investor with an automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually – but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction is the combination of asset classes that move in different directions at least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future allocation, which offers the maximum return for the minimum risk? No, but people still try. [... continues with description of Markowitz's \"\"mean-variance analysis\"\" technique...] It took investment professionals quite a while to realize that limitation of mean-variance analysis, and other \"\"black box\"\" techniques for allocating assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47949a3d96c655c0cb45eba95c6e912e", "text": "\"This turned out be a lot longer than I expected. So, here's the overview. Despite the presence of asset allocation calculators and what not, this is a subjective matter. Only you know how much risk you are willing to take. You seem to be aware of one rule of thumb, namely that with a longer investing horizon you can stand to take on more risk. However, how much risk you should take is subject to your own risk aversion. Honestly, the best way to answer your questions is to educate yourself about the individual topics. There are just too many variables to provide neat, concise answers to such a broad question. There are no easy ways around this. You should not blindly rely on the opinions of others, but rather use your own judgment to asses their advice. Some of the links I provide in the main text: S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns 10-year index fund returns The Motley Fool Risk aversion Disclaimer: These are the opinions of an enthusiastic amateur. Why should I invest 20% in domestic large cap and 10% in developing markets instead of 10% in domestic large cap and 20% in developing markets? Should I invest in REITs? Why or why not? Simply put, developing markets are very risky. Even if you have a long investment horizon, you should pace yourself and not take on too much risk. How much is \"\"too much\"\" is ultimately subjective. Specific to why 10% in developing vs 20% in large cap, it is probably because 10% seems like a reasonable amount of your total portfolio to gamble. Another way to look at this is to consider that 10% as gone, because it is invested in very risky markets. So, if you're willing to take a 20% haircut, then by all means do that. However, realize that you may be throwing 1/5 of your money out the window. Meanwhile, REITs can be quite risky as investing in the real estate market itself can be quite risky. One reason is that the assets are very much fixed in place and thus can not be liquidated in the same way as other assets. Thus, you are subject to the vicissitudes of a relatively small market. Another issue is the large capital outlays required for most commercial building projects, thus typically requiring quite a bit of credit and risk. Another way to put it: Donald Trump made his name in real estate, but it was (and still is) a very bumpy ride. Yet another way to put it: you have to build it before they will come and there is no guarantee that they will like what you built. What mutual funds or index funds should I investigate to implement these strategies? I would generally avoid actively managed mutual funds, due to the expenses. They can seriously eat into the returns. There is a reason that the most mutual funds compare themselves to the Lipper average instead of something like the S&P 500. All of those costs involved in managing a mutual fund (teams of people and trading costs) tend to weigh down on them quite heavily. As the Motley Fool expounded on years ago, if you can not do better than the S&P 500, you should save yourself the headaches and simply invest in an S&P 500 index fund. That said, depending on your skill (and luck) picking stocks (or even funds), you may very well have been able to beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Of course, you may have also done a whole lot worse. This article discusses the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 60 years. As you can see, the past 10 years have been a very bumpy ride yielding in a negative return. Again, keep in mind that you could have done much worse with other investments. That site, Simple Stock Investing may be a good place to start educating yourself. I am not familiar with the site, so do not take this as an endorsement. A quick once-over of the material on the site leads me to believe that it may provide a good bit of information in readily digestible forms. The Motley Fool was a favorite site of mine in the past for the individual investor. However, they seem to have turned to the dark side, charging for much of their advice. That said, it may still be a good place to get started. You may also decide that it is worth paying for their advice. This blog post, though dated, compares some Vanguard index funds and is a light introduction into the contrarian view of investing. Simply put, this view holds that one should not be a lemming following the crowd, rather one should do the opposite of what everyone else is doing. One strong argument in favor of this view is the fact that as more people pile onto an investing strategy or into a particular market, the yields thin out and the risk of a correction (i.e. a downturn) increases. In the worst case, this leads to a bubble, which corrects itself suddenly (or \"\"pops\"\" thus the term \"\"bubble\"\") leading to quite a bit of pain for the unprepared participants. An unprepared participant is one who is not hedged properly. Basically, this means they were not invested in other markets/strategies that would increase in yield as a result of the event that caused the bubble to pop. Note that the recent housing bubble and resulting credit crunch beat quite heavily on the both the stock and bond markets. So, the easy hedge for stocks being bonds did not necessarily work out so well. This makes sense, as the housing bubble burst due to concerns over easy credit. Unfortunately, I don't have any good resources on hand that may provide starting points or discuss the various investing strategies. I must admit that I am turning my interests back to investing after a hiatus. As I stated, I used to really like the Motley Fool, but now I am somewhat suspicious of them. The main reason is the fact that as they were exploring alternatives to advertising driven revenue for their site, they promised to always have free resources available for those unwilling to pay for their advice. A cursory review of their site does show a decent amount of general investing information, so take these words with a grain of salt. (Another reason I am suspicious of them is the fact that they \"\"spammed\"\" me with lots of enticements to pay for their advice which seemed just like the type of advice they spoke against.) Anyway, time to put the soapbox away. As I do that though, I should explain the reason for this soapboxing. Simply put, investing is a risky endeavor, any way you slice it. You can never eliminate risk, you can only hope to reduce it to an acceptable level. What is acceptable is subject to your situation and to the magnitude of your risk aversion. Ultimately, it is rather subjective and you should not blindly follow someone else's opinion (professional or otherwise). Point being, use your judgment to evaluate anything you read about investing. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If someone purports to have some strategy for guaranteed (steady) returns, be very suspicious of it. (Read up on the Bernard Madoff scandal.) If someone is putting on a heavy sales pitch, be weary. Be especially suspicious of anyone asking you to pay for their advice before giving you any solid understanding of their strategy. Sure, many people want to get paid for their advice in some way (in fact, I am getting \"\"paid\"\" with reputation on this site). However, if they take the sketchy approach of a slimy salesmen, they are likely making more money from selling their strategy, than they are from the advice itself. Most likely, if they were getting outsized returns from their strategy they would keep quiet about it and continue using it themselves. As stated before, the more people pile onto a strategy, the smaller the returns. The typical model for selling is to make money from the sale. When the item being sold is an intangible good, your risk as a buyer increases. You may wonder why I have written at length without much discussion of asset allocation. One reason is that I am still a relative neophyte and have a mostly high level understanding of the various strategies. While I feel confident enough in my understanding for my own purposes, I do not necessarily feel confident creating an asset allocation strategy for someone else. The more important reason is that this is a subjective matter with a lot of variables to consider. If you want a quick and simple answer, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The best approach is to educate yourself and make these decisions for yourself. Hence, my attempt to educate you as best as I can at this point in time. Personally, I suggest you do what I did. Start reading the Wall Street Journal every day. (An acceptable substitute may be the business section of the New York Times.) At first you will be overwhelmed with information, but in the long run it will pay off. Another good piece of advice is to be patient and not rush into investing. If you are in a hurry to determine how you should invest in a 401(k) or other such investment vehicle due to a desire to take advantage of an employer's matching funds, then I would place my money in an S&P 500 index fund. I would also explore placing some of that money into broad index funds from other regions of the globe. The reason for broad index funds is to provide some protection from the normal fluctuations and to reduce the risk of a sudden downturn causing you a lot pain while you determine the best approach for yourself. In this scenario, think more about capital preservation and hedging against inflation then about \"\"beating\"\" the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c00e188521bb82ead41c19c72e51825", "text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce9537c51f2349ef3b2921eeeec8a658", "text": "It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8788fb6f09f2e04cc799dc597098b48c", "text": "The best asset allocation is one that lets you sleep well at night. Can you stomach a loss of 50% and hold on to that asset for 3 years, 5 years, or however long it will take to bounce back while everyone is telling you to sell it at a loss? All these calculations will be thrown out the window at the next market panic. You've probably been in situations where everyone's panicking and the market seems upside down and there are no rules. Most people think they'll stay rational, but unless you've been through a market panic, you don't really know how you'll react.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acd6ecb60230cccbe47d3f7ed7d5ef80", "text": "Take the easy approach - as suggested by John Bogle (founder of Vanguard - and a man worthy of tremendous respect). Two portfolios consisting of 1 index fund each. Invest your age% in the Fixed Income index fund. Invest (1-age)% in the stock index fund. Examples of these funds are the Total Market Index Fund (VTSMX) and the Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX). If you wish to be slightly more adventurous, blend (1-age-10)% as the Total Market Index Fund and a fixed 10% as Total International Stock Index (VGTSX). You will sleep well at night for most of your life.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1bea3acc878bbc52ef38fcc73324835a", "text": "\"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd2ff40e912f08c9192831e67f19e90d", "text": "Look through the related questions. Make sure you fund the max your tax advantaged retirement funds will take this year. Use the 30k to backstop any shortfalls. Invest the rest in a brokerage account. In and out of your tax advantaged accounts, try to invest in index funds. Your feeling that paying someone to manage your investments might not be the best use is shared by many. jlcollinsnh is a financial independence blogger. He, and many others, recommend the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares. I have not heard of a lower expense ratio (0.05%). Search for financial independence and FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early). Use your windfall to set yourself on that road, and you will be less likely to sit where I am 25 years from now wishing you had done things differently. Edit: Your attitude should be that the earliest money in your portfolio is in there the longest, and earns the most. Starting with a big windfall puts you years ahead of where you'd normally be. If you set your goal to retire at 40, that money will be worth significantly more in 20 years. (4x what you start with, assuming 7% average yearly return).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "789d3dcae90ef6d21ef686157bc50cf5", "text": "I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7034b1830c9bba00e0fa8ff154ab84d5", "text": "\"Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. \"\"US-LC\"\" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. \"\"Intl-Dev\"\" is international stocks from developed economies, \"\"Emer\"\" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f0cca52044dd1b928369fc8e2ad8a9e", "text": "\"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: \"\"target retirement,\"\" \"\"lifecycle,\"\" \"\"balanced,\"\" \"\"conservative/moderate allocation.\"\" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some \"\"mental accounting\"\" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "504c08e32f4e3ff825c97a72198693ce", "text": "\"It depends on what you're talking about. If this is for your retirement accounts, like IRAs, then ABSOLUTELY NOT! In your retirement accounts you should be broadly diversified - not just between stocks, but also other markets like bonds. Target retirement funds and solid conservative or moderate allocation funds are the best 'quick-and-dirty' recommendation for those accounts. Since it's for the long haul, you want to be managing risk, not chasing returns. Returns will happen over the 40 or so years they have to grow. Now, if you're talking about a taxable stock account, and you've gotten past PF questions like \"\"am I saving enough for retirement\"\", and \"\"have I paid off my debt\"\", then the question becomes a little more murky. First, yes, you should be diversified. The bulk of how a stock's movement will be in keeping with how its sector moves; so even a really great stock can get creamed if its sector is going down. Diversification between several sectors will help balance that. However, you will have some advantage in this sector. Knowing which products are good, which products everybody in the industry is excited about, is a huge advantage over other investors. It'll help you pick the ones that go up more when the sector goes up, and down less when the sector goes down. That, over time and investments, really adds up. Just remember that a good company and a good stock investment are not the same thing. A great company can have a sky-high valuation -- and if you buy it at that price, you can sit there and watch your investment sink even as the company is growing and doing great things. Have patience, know which companies are good and which are bad, and wait for the price to come to you. One final note: it also depends on what spot you are in. If you're a young guy looking looking to invest his first few thousand in the market, then go for it. On the other hand, if you're older, and we're talking about a couple hundred grand you've got saved up, then it's a whole different ball of wax. It that spot, you're back to managing risk, and need to build a solid portfolio, at a measured pace.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7d9c4bf2b61eb3db9597a0ec295392c", "text": "\"Here is the \"\"investing for retirement\"\" theoretical background you should have. You should base your investment decisions not simply on the historical return of the fund, but on its potential for future returns and its risk. Past performance does not indicate future results: the past performance is frequently at its best the moment before the bubble pops. While no one knows the specifics of future returns, there are a few types of assets that it's (relatively) safe to make blanket statements about: The future returns of your portfolio will primarily be determined by your asset allocation . The general rules look like: There are a variety of guides out there to help decide your asset allocation and tell you specifically what to do. The other thing that you should consider is the cost of your funds. While it's easy to get lucky enough to make a mutual fund outperform the market in the short term, it's very hard to keep that up for decades on end. Moreover, chasing performance is risky, and expensive. So look at your fund information and locate the expense ratio. If the fund's expense ratio is 1%, that's super-expensive (the stock market's annualized real rate of return is about 4%, so that could be a quarter of your returns). All else being equal, choose the cheap index fund (with an expense ratio closer to 0.1%). Many 401(k) providers only have expensive mutual funds. This is because you're trapped and can't switch to a cheaper fund, so they're free to take lots of your money. If this is the case, deal with it in the short term for the tax benefits, then open a specific type of account called a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" when you change jobs, and move your assets there. Or, if your savings are small enough, just open an IRA (a \"\"traditional IRA\"\" or \"\"Roth IRA\"\") and use those instead. (Or, yell at your HR department, in the event that you think that'll actually accomplish anything.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40ded5eaf1e822f9c6f32a36d2678a0f", "text": "The safest investment is probably a money market fund [originally I said a TIPS fund but they appear to be riskier than I had thought]. But you might not want to invest everything there because the returns are not going to be great. High returns come with high risk. The best portfolio has some percentage (which may be 0) of your money in a safe asset like a money market and some in a risky portfolio (this percentage may also be zero for some people). You should consult your own risk aversion and decide how much money to put in each. If you are super risk-averse, put almost all of it in the money market. If you want a little more return, put more of it in the risky portfolio. This is a fundamental result of finance theory. What's the risky asset? A fully diversified portfolio of bonds and stocks. People don't agree on exactly what the weights should be. The rule of thumb back in the day was 60% stock and 40% bonds. These days lots of financial planners recommend 120 minus your age in stock and the rest in bonds. But no one really knows what the perfect weights in the risky portfolio should be (the rules of thumb I just gave have little or no theoretical foundation) so you have to choose for yourself what you think makes sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2af54e9f869b44c4f65083b7c30d1f2d", "text": "Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "050c767b77c61494380662aa4b300d36", "text": "\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "073cb8a7fb44788cd73b350958d3e45c", "text": "\"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it. By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions. But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution. I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things \"\"average out\"\" over time. If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical. Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return. You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion. When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks? In many cases, less risks. This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills). When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk. Buying risky securities adds to that risk. When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky. You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so. But I can't be sure.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "883e13003661c691b6adae423ffef8b1", "text": "\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c6ab5bb3293780622eb0644d28f7890", "text": "The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe0703305a3f003fdb6704d235718cf", "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!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83fa503ea90a4e5fea21255a9997700b", "text": "\"A bank is a technology that allows society to consume now at the expense of later. Think about it this way: to consume later at the expense of now, all you have to do is save your stuff. If you want to eat pizza in a year, you can buy a bunch of pizza now, freeze it, then eat it a year later. Or you can hide money under your mattress now, and buy pizza a year later from now. But what if you want to eat pizza now, but you don't have the money to buy it? Well, you're stuck. There's no time travel: you can't go into the future and get resources from your future self to buy the pizza now with! Well, you could go to your wealthy friend who has a lot of pizza, and say, hey, if you give me pizza/money now, I will pay you back with more later! Except then your ability to get pizza/money depends on the whims of some really wealthy people who may not like you. And what if your wealthy friend really wants to keep all of his pizza? There is nothing you can do to get it now. A bank is an entity that can provide the resources/purchasing power for you to get your pizza now without anyone in the economy eating less now as a result. It does this via what is known as \"\"Fractional Reserve Banking,\"\" which is pretty simple. I borrow $100 from person A, keep $10 in reserve, then lend the remaining $90 to person B, who deposits it back into his bank. I keep $9 of person B's deposit in reserve, then lend $89 to person C, who deposits it in the bank, and so on and so forth. The total amount of purchasing power I can create is $1000 out of the initial $100 I borrowed from person A. As long as all my depositors don't all try to get their money out at once, society can essentially \"\"cheat time\"\" by pretending there is $1000 in existence when in reality there is only $100. Thus I have increased the purchasing power of the economy now at the expense of later (when the loans have to be repaid), and no one has to stop consuming now for me to do it! Note that this is not the typical academic answer. Neoclassical economists will say that banks are \"\"mere intermediaries\"\" between savers and borrowers. They are wrong. Banks provide the ability to consume now at the expense of later even if no one in society is saving now. That means when there is lots of lending going on, that we have an economic boom. But when there is little to no lending going on, and people are paying back their debts, we don't have as much (if any) growth.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3ff3761ee5c032337d7ba1a25ffad7e7	Can Mutual Funds Invest In the Start Up Market?	[ { "docid": "5332ab4fcf9969669a3adebdc5e92194", "text": "\"Bloomberg suggests that two Fidelity funds hold preferred shares of Snapchat Inc.. Preferred shares hold more in common with bonds than with ordinary stock as they pay a fixed dividend, have lower liquidity, and don't have voting rights. Because of this lower liquidity they are not usually offered for sale on the market. Whether these funds are allowed to hold such illiquid assets is more a question for their strategy document than the law; it is completely legal for a company to hold a non-marketable interest in another, even if the company is privately held as Snapchat is. The strategy documents governing what the fund is permitted to hold, however, may restrict ownership either banning non-market holdings or restricting the percentage of assets held in illiquid instruments. Since IPO is very costly, funds like these who look to invest in new companies who have not been through IPO yet are a very good way of taking a diversified position in start-ups. Since they look to invest directly rather than through the market they are an attractive, low cost way for start-ups to generate funds to grow. The fund deals directly with the owners of the company to buy its shares. The markdown of the stock value reflects the accounting principle of marking to market (MTM) financial assets that do not have a trade price so as to reflect their fair value. This markdown implies that Fidelity believe that the total NPV of the company's net assets is lower than they had previously calculated. This probably reflects a lack of revenue streams coming into the business in the case of Snapchat. edit: by the way, since there is no market for start-up \"\"stocks\"\" pre-IPO my heart sinks a little every time I read the title of this question. I'm going to be sad all day now :(.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1ac350ec5c33d3492610d3b014ba7a37", "text": "\"Yes, you can. You could either go through brokerages like Ameritrade or fund companies like Fidelity or Vanguard. Yes there are minimums depending on the fund where some retail funds may waive a minimum if you sign up for an \"\"Automatic Investment Plan\"\" and some of the lower cost funds may have higher initial investment as Vanguard's Admiral share class is different from Investor for example.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bd8572aed467d1f9e285837d5171f92", "text": "You could use a stock-only ISA and invest in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). ETFs are managed mutual funds that trade on open exchanges in the same manner as stocks. This changes the specific fund options you have open to you, but there are so many ETFs at this point that any sector you want to invest in is almost certainly represented.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a239311eb2a819b7aadbbc3c95fa014", "text": "The very term 'market conditions' is subjective and needs context. There are 'market conditions' that favor buying (such as post crash) or market conditions that favor selling (such as the peak of a bubble). Problem with mutual funds is you can't really pick these points yourself; because you're effectively outsourcing that to a firm. If you're tight on time and are looking for weekly update on the economy a good solution is to identify a reputable economist (with a solid track record) and simply follow their commentary via blog or newsletter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "495225d04ffeab031a08f801216b4612", "text": "When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3ead6164c50ccbd9cdb1398b9d611c2", "text": "I don't know if this is exactly what you're looking for but Seedrs sorta fits what you're looking for. Private companies can raise money through funding rounds on Seedrs website. It wouldn't necessarily be local companies though. I've only recently found it myself so not sure if it has a uk or European slant to it. Personally I think it's a very interesting concept, private equity through crowd funding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab3fa3b48b665dad5943843d32607325", "text": "You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "793ccb71f403b6df10f6d9e5aeef7d72", "text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "793b5be391b5c0601b8ea3ed19ca1fb5", "text": "\"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \"\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afc9e163be701e521007a05232e59cc0", "text": "I am not entirely sold on investing in start-up companies, but I really like the idea of crowdfunding investments. I've been an investor at [LendingClub](https://www.lendingclub.com/) for 10 months now and am quite happy so far. For those of you who don't know, Lending Club is where you can crowdfund consumer loans. I'm also very interested in [Solar Mosaic](https://solarmosaic.com/). Once their quiet period ends I am planning on investing in solar projects through them. Of course I'll want to see some data related to their risk and returns, but I love the idea of earning a return from funding solar projects. I think that crowdfunding allows you to invest in areas that are normally off-limits to those of us who aren't rich. At the very least these investments offer a nice source of portfolio diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e5bb05701d5b40caffbc5d98be9d723", "text": "Domini offers such a fund. It might suit you, or it might include things you wish to avoid. I'm not judging your goals, but would suggest that it might be tough to find a fund that has the same values as you. If you choose individual stocks, you might have to do a lot of reading, and decide if it's all or none, i.e. if a company seems to do well, but somehow has an tiny portion in a sector you don't like, do you dismiss them? In the US, Costco, for example, is a warehouse club, and treats employees well. A fair wage, benefits, etc. But they have a liquor store at many locations. Absent the alcohol, would you research every one of their suppliers?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ac3e8aebe0e7a8e86731ab7190d5925", "text": "How do (index and active) mutual funds trade? Do they buy stocks as soon as a I buy a share in the mutual fund, or do they have fixed times they trade, such as once every week/month/quarter? Is it theoretical possible for someone to front run mutual funds, if someone holds individual stocks? Let's say an institutional investor creates an order of $100m in a mutual fund, how likely can a broker, which holds a fraction of the fund's portfolio, front run and take advantage of that trade? It is more likely to front run that fund if it's an active small cap fund, but how likely is it to front run trades for index funds?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4ed4fb03c9a393b737c5da1e8f0a6fe", "text": "No chance. First off, unless the company provides audited financials (and they don't from what I can tell), there is no way I'm tinkering with a bunch of small business owners. Transparency is a substantial part of investing and this actually exempts or excludes these companies, from what I can tell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbae56ad4aca8a1caeb2c6a7ab08472", "text": "\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b58cf19afffa931f223dcdf2e6a57a6", "text": "At this time I would say that the electric car industry as a whole is too new to be able to invest in it as a sector. There are only a handful of companies that focus solely on electric cars to create a moderately diverse portfolio, let alone a mutual fund. You can invest in mutual funds that include EV stocks as part of an auto sector or clean energy play, for example, but there's just not enough for an EV-only fund at this point. At this point, perhaps the best you can do if you want an exclusively EV portfolio is add some exposure to the companies that are the biggest players in the market and review the market periodically to see if any additional investments could be made to improve your diversification. Look at EV-only car makers, battery makers, infrastructure providers, etc. to get a decent balance of stocks. I would not put any more than 10% of your entire investment portfolio into any one stock, and not more than 20% or so in this sector.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f733c669f45268778a0bccf62fb4aab9", "text": "Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings. (I have an account there.) Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
13ee73be00c339accdd326846273608e	How do I get into investing?	[ { "docid": "60a9f5107226f646e8d26736cf930801", "text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4acb25e5b3c6f679fac607e6eabfdf5e", "text": "\"Before anything else, read up on the basics of economics. After that, there a few things you need to ask yourself before you even think about investing in anything: If you have an answer to those questions: Once you answered those questions I could make a simple first suggestion: Confident in handling it yourself and low maintenance with uncertain horizon: look up an online bank that offers ETFs such as IWDA (accumulation (dividend is not payed but reinvested) or income(dividend is payed out)) and maybe a few more specific ones then buy and hold for at least 5 years. Confident and high maintenance with long horizon: maybe stock picking but you'll probably never be able to beat the market unless you invest 10's of hours in research per week. However this will also cost a bit and given your initial amount not advisable to do. Be sure that you also have a VERY close look at the prospectus of an investment (especially if you go with a (retail) bank and they \"\"recommend\"\" you certain actively traded funds). They tend to charge you quite a bit (yearly management fees of 2-3% (which is A LOT if you are eying maybe 7%-8% yearly) aren't unheard of). ETF's such IWDA only have for example a yearly cost of 0.20%. Personally I have one portfolio (of many) only consisting of that ETF (so IWDA) and one global small cap. It's one of the best and most consistant ones to date. In the end, the amount you start with doesn't really matter so much as long as it's enough to buy at least a few shares of what you have in mind. If you can then increase your portfolio over time and keep the expenses in check, compounding interest should do the rest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da302fbfa3c5fd4fc872d67cf29b8eae", "text": "Don't try individual stocks. If you have a job, any job, even one from mowing lawns, you can open a Roth IRA. If you are under 18 you will need your parents/guardian to setting up the account. You can put the an amount equal to your earned income into the Roth IRA, up to the annual maximum of $5500. There are advantages to a Roth IRA: What happens if you are using your income to pay for your car, insurance, etc? You can get the money from your parents, grandparents. The only rule is that you can't invest more than you have earned. Act before Tax day (April 15th). You know what you made last year. If you open the account and make the contribution before April 15th it can count for last year, as long as you are clear with the broker/bank when you make the deposit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddcd57afd6bc86c1fa0c5230b92e65dc", "text": "The simplest way is to invest in a few ETFs, depending on your tolerance for risk; assuming you're very short-term risk tolerant you can invest almost all in a stock ETF like VOO or VTI. Stock market ETFs return close to 10% (unadjusted) over long periods of time, which will out-earn almost any other option and are very easy for a non-finance person to invest in (You don't trade actively - you leave the money there for years). If you want to hedge some of your risk, you can also invest in Bond funds, which tend to move up in stock market downturns - but if you're looking for the long term, you don't need to put much there. Otherwise, try to make sure you take advantage of tax breaks when you can - IRAs, 401Ks, etc.; most of those will have ETFs (whether Vanguard or similar) available to invest in. Look for funds that have low expense ratios and are fairly diversified (ie, don't just invest in one small sector of the economy); as long as the economy continues to grow, the ETFs will grow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54ce4f503afc151425f30f55a31e5e08", "text": "You are smart to read books to better inform yourself of the investment process. I recommend reading some of the passive investment classics before focusing on active investment books: If you still feel like you can generate after-tax / after-expenses alpha (returns in excess of the market returns), take a shot at some active investing. If you actively invest, I recommend the Core & Satellite approach: invest most of your money in a well diversified basket of stocks via index funds and actively manage a small portion of your account. Carefully track the expenses and returns of the active portion of your account and see if you are one of the lucky few that can generate excess returns. To truly understand a text like The Intelligent Investor, you need to understand finance and accounting. For example, the price to earnings ratio is the equity value of an enterprise (total shares outstanding times price per share) divided by the earnings of the business. At a high level, earnings are just revenue, less COGS, less operating expenses, less taxes and interest. Earnings depend on a company's revenue recognition, inventory accounting methods (FIFO, LIFO), purchase price allocations from acquisitions, etc. If you don't have a business degree / business background, I don't think books are going to provide you with the requisite knowledge (unless you have the discipline to read textbooks). I learned these concepts by completing the Chartered Financial Analyst program.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a15d9b3e75f2df1225a2d4ab3dd55f90", "text": "The best way to start out is to know that even the experts typically under-perform the market, so you have no chance. Your best bet is to invest in diversified funds, either through something like Betterment or something like Vanguard's ETFs that track the markets. Buying individual stocks isn't typically a winning strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04b9c34b353fc353f0aafb56a22df8c5", "text": "Start by paying down any high interest debt you may have, like credit cards. Reason being that they ultimately eat into any (positive) returns you may have from investing. Another good reason is to build up some discipline. You will need discipline to be a successful investor. Educate yourself about investing. The Motley Fool is probably still a good place to start. I would also suggest getting into the habit of reading the Wall Street Journal or at the very least the business section of the New York Times. You'll be overwhelmed with the terminology at first, but stick with it. It is certainly worth it, if you want to be an investor. The Investor's Business Daily is another good resource for information, though you will be lost in the deep end of the pool with that publication for sure. (That is not a reason to avoid getting familiar with it. Though at first, it may very well be overkill.) Save some money to open a brokerage account or even an IRA. (You'll learn that there are some restrictions on what you can do in an IRA account. Though they shouldn't necessarily be shunned as a result. Money placed in an IRA is tax deductible, up to certain limits.) ????? Profit! Note: In case you are not familiar with the joke, steps 4 & 5 are supposed to be humorous. Which provides a good time to bring up another point, if you are not having fun investing, then get out. Put your money in something like an S&P 500 index fund and enjoy your life. There are a lot more things to say on this subject, though that could take up a book. Come back with more questions as you learn about investing. Edit: I forgot to mention DRIPs and Investment Clubs. Both ideas are suggested by The Motley Fool.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642c68dc6fda0293fac0df91b1ed1ae6", "text": "\"First, you need to figure out what your objectives for the money are. Mostly, this boils down to how soon you are going to need the money. If you are, as you say, very busy and you don't need the money until retirement, I'd suggest putting your money in a single target date fund, such as the BlackRock LifePath fund. You figure out when you are going to retire, and put your money in that fund. The fund will then pick a mix of stocks, bonds, and other investments, adjusting the risk for your time horizon. Maybe your objectives are different, and you want to become an trader. You value being able to say at a BBQ, \"\"oh, I bought AAPL at $20\"\", or \"\"I think small caps are over valued\"\". I'd suggest you take your $50,000, and structure it so you invest $5,000 a year over 10 years. Nothing teaches you about investing like making or losing a bit of money in the market. If you put it all in at once, you risk losing it all - well before you've learned many valuable lessons which only the market can teach you. I'd suggest you study the Efficient-market hypothesis before studying specific markets or strategies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3adfcbe31a6b9bb6731237d8769eecb4", "text": "For the mechanices/terms of stock investing, I recommend Learn to Earn by Peter Lynch. I also like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. It explains why indexing is the best choice for most people. For stock picking, a good intro is The Little Book of Value Investing by Chris Brown. And then there is The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. IMO, this is the bible of investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52683fac8adacb6501cef0f04b28178d", "text": "The best way I know of is to join an investment club. They club will act like a mutual fund, investing in stocks researched and selected by the group. Taking part in research and presenting results to the group for peer review is an excellent way to learn. You'll learn what is a good reason to invest and what isn't. You'll probably pick both winners and losers. The goal of participation is education. Some people learn how to invest and continue happily doing so. Others learn how to invest in single stocks and learn it is not for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1836169d4b281e472f6b660492a5e2ed", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a8cc22dc42ac35add72e11e607880fa", "text": "Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1d1092c729bf1c0d6d13a0404f41686", "text": "Since then I had gotten a job at a supermarket stocking shelves, but recently got fired because I kept zoning out at work This is not a good sign for day trading, where you spend all day monitoring investments. If you start focusing on the interesting math problem and ignoring your portfolio, you can easily lose money. Not so big a problem for missed buy opportunities, but this could be fatal for missed sale opportunities. Realize that in day trading, if you miss the uptick, you can get caught in a stock that is now going down. And I agree with those who say that you aren't capitalized well enough to get started. You need significantly more capital so that you can buy a diversified portfolio (diversification is your limitation, not hedging). Let's say that you make money on two out of three stocks on average. What are the chances that you will lose money on three stocks in a row? One in twenty-seven. What if that happens on your first three stocks? What if your odds at starting are really one in three to make money? Then you'll lose money more than half the time on each of your first three stocks. The odds don't favor you. If you really think that finance would interest you, consider signing up for an internship at an investment management firm or hedge fund. Rather than being the person who monitors stocks for changes, you would be the person doing mathematical analysis on stock information. Focusing on the math problem over other things is then what you are supposed to be doing. If you are good at that, you should be able to turn that into a permanent job. If not, then go back to school somewhere. You may not like your schooling options, but they may be better than your work options at this time. Note that most internships will be easier to get if you imply that you are only taking a break from schooling. Avoid outright lying, but saying things like needing to find the right fit should work. You may even want to start applying to schools now. Then you can truthfully say that you are involved in the application process. Be open about your interest in the mathematics of finance. Serious math minds can be difficult to find at those firms. Given your finances, it is not practical to become a day trader. If you want proof, pick a stock that is less than $100. Found it? Write down its current price and the date and time. You just bought that stock. Now sell it for a profit. Ignore historical data. Just monitor the current price. Missed the uptick? Too bad. That's reality. Once you've sold it, pick another stock that you can afford. Don't forget to mark your price down for the trading commission. A quick search suggests that $7 a trade is a cheap price. Realize that you make two trades on each stock (buy and sell), so that's $14 that you need to make on every stock. Keep doing that until you've run out of money. Realize that that is what you are proposing to do. If you can make enough money doing that to replace a minimum wage job, then we're all wrong. Borrow a $100 from your mom and go to town. But as others have said, it is far more realistic to do this with a starting stake of $100,000 where you can invest in multiple stocks at once and spread your $7 trading fee over a hundred shares. Starting with $100, you are more likely to run out of money within ten stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81dc5a3ab1f76785932744c1f2a511a9", "text": "\"I get the sense that this is a \"\"the world is unfair; there's no way I can succeed\"\" question, so let's back up a few steps. Income is the starting point to all of this. That could be a job (or jobs), or running your own business. From there, you can do four things with your income: Obviously Spend and Give do not provide a monetary return - they give a return in other ways, such as quality of life, helping others, etc. Save gives you reserves for future expenses, but it does not provide growth. So that just leaves Invest. You seem to be focused on stock market investments, which you are right, take a very long time to grow, although you can get returns of up to 12% depending on how much volatility you're willing to absorb. But there are other ways to invest. You can invest in yourself by getting a degree or other training to improve your income. You can invest by starting a business, which can dramatically increase your income (in fact, this is the most common path to \"\"millionaire\"\" in the US, and probably in other free markets). You can invest by growing your own existing business. You can invest in someone else's business. You can invest in real estate, that can provide both value appreciation and rental income. So yes, \"\"investment\"\" is a key aspect of wealth building, but it is not limited to just stock market investment. You can also look at reducing expenses in order to have more money to invest. Also keep in mind that investment with higher returns come with higher risk (both in terms of volatility and risk of complete loss), and that borrowing money to invest is almost always unwise, since the interest paid directly reduces the return without reducing the risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af19554812ea5ad1f221e47cdb1600d1", "text": "For most people, investing in the stock market directly is one of the last things to do. That's not to say you shouldn't, but rather that there are other things to consider as well. Start with automatic monthly deposits to a liquid account such as savings or money market. The morale boost you get from seeing the balance grow is nearly impossible to beat. Following that, paying down any debts such as student loans or credit cards. Once you've done that, then you should look at company sponsored 401k plans or IRAs. Sharebuilder offers IRAs holding whichever stock or fund you pick. Again, automatic monthly deposits are the way to go here. Good luck, and happy investing :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e0a649f4daee3afb9ef5f74bc34ea44", "text": "\"For most, confidence comes with knowledge and experience. To understand more about how investing works, read articles about types of investments that you're interested in and browse the questions on this site. To gain experience, start with a \"\"paper money\"\" trading account. Most brokers will allow you to apply for a \"\"fake\"\" account so you can practice trading with simulated money. Once you've built up some confidence, you may wish to start investing a small amount of real money.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3ddbf8b04c58d465dd06fd1f2a6f0f57	Does the IRS give some help or leniency to first-time taxpayers?	[ { "docid": "2417064daad1eb4d22a25329fc0f75b1", "text": "\"There's no such thing as \"\"leniency\"\" when enforcing the law. Not knowing the law, as you have probably heard, is not a valid legal defence. Tax law is a law like any other. That said, some penalties and fines can be abated if the error was done in good faith and due to a reasonable cause. First time penalties can be abated in many cases assuming you're compliant otherwise (for example - first time late filing penalty can be abated if you're compliant in the last 5 years. Not many people know about that.). Examples for a reasonable cause (from the IRS IRM 20.1.1): Reliance on the advice of a tax advisor generally relates to the reasonable cause exception in IRC 6664(c) for the accuracy-related penalty under IRC 6662. See IRM 20.1.5, Return Related Penalties, and If the taxpayer does not meet the criteria for penalty relief under IRC 6404(f), the taxpayer may qualify for other penalty relief. For instance, taxpayers who fail to meet all of the IRC 6404(f) criteria may still qualify for relief under reasonable cause if the IRS determines that the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence in relying on the IRS’s written advice. IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2.5 - Erroneous Advice or Reliance. Treas. Reg. 1.6664–4(c). There are more. IRM is the \"\"Internal Revenue Manual\"\" - the book of policies for the IRS agents. Of course, you should seek a professional advice when you're non-compliant and want to ask for abatement and become compliant again. Talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ce3c0de5cd8ce04c8a1764c39e3c46d", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5500dfda716ea63d53a060a18e04c4d3", "text": "It might not be leniency for first time payers, but they do have programs, some federal some local, that help the poor and elderly complete their tax forms. There are also programs that allow the poor to file electronically for free. For most people the first time they file their taxes they are using the EZ form. Which is rather easy to do, even without the use of either web based or PC based software. The software tools all ask enough questions on the EZ forms to allow the user to know with confidence when their life choices have made it advantageous to use the more complex forms. The web versions of the software allow the taxpayer to start for free, thus reducing their initial investment for the software to zero. Because the first time filer is frequently a teenager the parents are generally responsible for proving that initial guidance. The biggest risk for a young taxpayer might be that the first year that itemizing deductions might be advantageous. They might never consider it, so they over pay. Or they discover in April that if they had only kept a receipt from a charity six months ago they could deduct the donation, so they are tempted to claim the donation without proof. Regarding leniency and assistance there is an interesting tax credit. The Earned Income Tax Credit. it gives a Tax credit to the working poor. They alert people that they need to Check Your Eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit They know that significant numbers of taxpayers fail to claim it. EITC can be a boost for workers who earned $50,270 or less in 2012. Yet the IRS estimates that one out of five eligible taxpayers fails to claim their EITC each year. The IRS wants everyone who is eligible for the credit to get the credit that they’ve earned. The rules for getting the credit are simple, all the information needed to claim it is already on the basic tax forms, but you have to know that you need a separate form to get the credit. But instead of making the credit automatic they say: If you use IRS e-file to prepare and file your tax return, the software will guide you and not let you forget this important step. E-file does the work and figures your EITC for you! and then : With IRS Free File, you can claim EITC by using brand name tax preparation software to prepare and e-file your tax return for free. It's available exclusively at IRS.gov/freefile. Free help preparing your return to claim your EITC is also available at one of thousands of Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites around the country. To find the volunteer site nearest to you, use the VITA locator tool on IRS.gov. But if you don't use free file you might never know about the form. Apparently it escapes 20% of the people who could claim it.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3d7833f48df0b9d829546e90aeb990ef", "text": "\"I have a related issue, since I have some income which is large enough to matter and hard to predict. Start with a best guess. Check what tax bracket you were in last year and withhold that percentage of the expected non-withheld income. Adjust upward a bit, if desired, to reflect the fact that you're getting paid more at the new job. Adjust again, either up or down, to reflect whether you were over-withheld or under-withheld last year (whether the IRS owed you a refund or you had to send a check with your return). Repeat that process next year after next tax season, when you see how well your guess worked out. (You could try pre-calculating the entire tax return based on your expected income and then divide any underpayment into per-paycheck additional withholding... but I don't think it's worth the effort.) I don't worry about trying to get this exactly correct. I don't stress about lost interest if I've over-withheld a bit, and as long as your withholding was reasonably close and you have the cash float available to send them a check for the rest when it comes due, the IRS generally doesn't grumble if your withholding was a bit low. (It would be really nice if the IRS paid us interest on over-withholding, to mirror the fact that they charge us interest if we're late in returning our forms. Oh well.) Despite all the stories, the IRS really is fairly reasonable; if you aren't deliberately trying to get away with something, the process is annoying but shouldn't be scary. The one time they mail-audited me, it was several thousand dollars in my favor; I'd forgotten to claim some investment losses, and their computers noticed the error. Though I still say the motto of the next revolution will be \"\"No taxation without proper instructions!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90d0f60baf23f68e50157d52c6ab539b", "text": "\"I would advise against \"\"pencil and paper\"\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \"\"Fillable Forms\"\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \"\"interview\"\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59cc89ee1a353a87d8b9b43ed83f0d75", "text": "I don't do this at all, but it's the internet, so hey, why not? According to the IRS, penalties and fines are only non-deductible when they are paid for actual violations of laws/regulations. So what crushedbyadwarf said is probably correct. The penalty/fine reduces their income, and they become entitled to a refund on the tax they paid on that income. It's still a questionable tax treatment of the penalty/fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9fd3b5f25bb9d6af63423130795181e", "text": "\"Do I have to explain the source of all income on my taxes? \"\"Yes, you do\"\", say the ghosts of Ermenegildo and Mary Cesarini. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-to-know-about-taxes-on-found-property/L9BfdKz7N The Cesarinis argued to the IRS that the money wasn’t income, and so it should not be taxed as such. The IRS wasn’t swayed by the couple’s argument. The case went to federal court, and the IRS won. “Found” property and money has been considered taxable income ever since. The IRS plainly states that taxpayers must report “all income from any source,\"\" even income earned in another country, unless it is explicitly exempt under the U.S. Tax Code. This covers a wide range of miscellaneous income, including gambling winnings. According to the Cesarini decision, money you find isn’t explicitly exempt. The tax impact won’t be significant if you find an item of property with a fair market value of only $500 and are in the 25% tax bracket. You’ll owe the IRS $125 ($500 x .25 = $125). However, if you are a finder and keeper of $10,000, your tax burden will be $2,500 ($10,000 x .25 = $2,500).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef0a5efb611d5ac6305005c10dcb6de1", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f665108e75778d4633b077a1254a892a", "text": "He should look into the Voluntary Disclosures Program. He will have to keep up to date with his taxes thereafter, but the outcome will likely be better than if they discover he hasn't been filing before he discloses it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7e811dc686db34ea83ccc6787d733ca", "text": "\"The short answer is that the IRS knows this is an issue, so they are prepared to deal with the \"\"discrepancies.\"\" The filer does not need to something special to call it to their attention. Keep good records and consistently report according to your accounting processes. Exactly how the IRS resolves / flags this, I don't know. Maybe someone else can answer, but you can imagine that if they track you for multiple years they should have some idea of how many dollars are rolling over and whether you might have \"\"forgotten\"\" to report something from a few years ago that happened at a year-end break.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a179b6735e2b581d1797b56142f6ba59", "text": "Years ago I mailed my personal tax return one day after the due date, and my check was deposited as normal, and I never heard anything about it. As an employer, I once sent in my employee's withheld federal taxes one day after the due date, and I later received a letter stating my penalty for being late worked out to be around $600. The letter stated that since this was my first time being late they would waive the fee. In both cases, they could have charged me a late fee if they wanted to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85794d485be3d23157e21a9378a3e00f", "text": "To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35c5605589b6b4dbdea21675a10af603", "text": "There might be a problem. Some reporting paperwork will have to be done for the IRS, obviously, but technically it will be business income zeroed out by business expense. Withholding requirements will shift to your friend, which is a mess. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA) about these. But the immigration may consider this arrangement as employment, which is in violation of the visa conditions. You need to talk to an immigration attorney.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4384bb6fc4e625759bd324cede2ceccf", "text": "I think you're making a mistake. If you still want to make this mistake (I'll explain later why I think its a mistake), the resources for you are: IRS.GOV - The IRS official web site, that has all the up-to-date forms and instructions for them, guiding publications and the relevant rules. You might get a bit overwhelmed through. Software programs - TurboTax (Home & Business for a sole propriator or single member LLC, Business for more complicated business), or H&R Block Business (only one version that should cover all) are for your guidance. They provide tips and interactive guidance in filling in all the raw data, and produce all the forms filled for you according to the raw data you entered. I personally prefer TurboTax, I think its interface is nicer and the workflow is more intuitive, but that's my personal preference. I wrote about it in my blog last year. Both also include plug-ins for the state taxes (If I remember correctly, for both the first state is included in the price, if you need more than 1 state - there's extra $30-$40 per state). Your state tax authority web site (Minnesota Department of Revenue in your case). Both Intuit and H&R Block have on-line forums where people answer each others questions while using the software to prepare the taxes, you might find useful information there. As always, Google is your friend. Now, why I think this is a mistake. Mistakes that you make - will be your responsibility. If you use the software - they'll cover the calculation mistakes. But if you write income in a wrong specification or take a wrong deduction that you shouldn't have taken - it will be on your head and you're the one to pay the fines and penalties for that. Missed deductions and credits - CPA's (should) know about all the latest deductions and credits that you or your business might be entitled to. They also (should) know which one got canceled and you shouldn't be continuing taking them if you had before. Expenses - there are plenty of rules of what can be written off as an expense and how. Some things should be written off this year, others over several years, for some depreciation formula should be used, etc etc. Tax programs might help you with that, but again - mistakes are your responsibility. Especially for the first time and for the newly formed business, I think you should use a (good!) CPA. The CPA should take responsibility over your filing. The CPA should provide guarantee that based on the documents you provided, he filled all the necessary forms correctly, and will absorb all the fees and penalties if there's an audit and mistakes were found not because you withheld information from your CPA, but because the CPA made a mistake. That costs money, and that's why the CPA's are more expensive than using a program or preparing yourself. But, the risk is much higher, especially for a new business. And after all - its a business expense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9dca32b8177f2bddd8208506c0d1b84", "text": "You proceed with a proper legal advice. You should not ignore IRS letters. You should have taken your chances in trying to reach a compromise with them, but that ship has likely sailed already. You might want to consider bankruptcy. Ask your parents for a couple of hundreds of dollars to pay for a legal consultation with a lawyer and a CPA and proceed from there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c8b81f8345d86c56215b7b3dd6e4a8c", "text": "Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4b404f2995ec98b70c55d6ce4413dc9", "text": "The difference is whether or not you have a contract that stipulates the payment plan, interest, and late payment penalties. If you have one then the IRS treats the transaction as a load/loan servicing. If not the IRS sees the money transfer as a gift.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cd9ddbb33a39b667b4b1e0f1df1a920", "text": "If you have complicated taxes (own a business, many houses, you are self employed, you are a contractor, etc etc) a person can make the most of your situation. If you are a w-2 single job, maybe with a family, the programs are going to be so close to spot on that the extra fees aren't worth it. I would never bother using HR Block or Liberty or those tax places that pop up. Use the software, or in my state sometimes municipalities put on tax help days at the library to assist in filling out the forms. If you have tough taxes, get a dedicated professional based on at least a few recommendations.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b2d6df4e8e09a8273974e0d7d5587c53	Under what circumstance will the IRS charge you a late-payment penalty for taxes?	[ { "docid": "798b7e6bc74d6616c7519f59123450e2", "text": "\"The IRS provides a little more information on the subject on this FAQ: Will I be charged interest and penalties for filing and paying my taxes late?: If you did not pay your tax on time, you will generally have to pay a late-payment penalty, which is also called a failure to pay penalty. Some guidance on what constitutes \"\"reasonable cause\"\" is found on the IRS page Penalty Relief Due to Reasonable Cause: The IRS will consider any sound reason for failing to file a tax return, make a deposit, or pay tax when due. Sound reasons, if established, include: Note: A lack of funds, in and of itself, is not reasonable cause for failure to file or pay on time. However, the reasons for the lack of funds may meet reasonable cause criteria for the failure-to-pay penalty. In this article from U.S. News and World Report, it is suggested that the IRS will generally waive the penalty one time, if you have a clean tax history and ask for the penalty to be waived. It is definitely worth asking them to waive the penalty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46c6a641f9ed0bbdd4fd83deed88d97c", "text": "I just got hit with the late payment penalty due to a bug in the H&R Block tax program. The underpayment was only $2 and the penalty was a whopping 1 cent. The letter that informed me of the error also said that they did not consider the $2.01 worth collecting, the amount owed had been zeroed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bfda63d25677223db5af3074fcd810d", "text": "In practice the IRS seems to apply the late payment penalty when they issue a written paper notice. Those notices typically have a pay-by date where no additional penalty applies. The IRS will often waive penalties, but not interest or tax due, if the taxpayer presses the issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77949aaa5c2f792d03459069b783724d", "text": "Assuming US/IRS: If you filed on time and paid what you believed was the correct amount, they might be kind and let it go. But don't assume they will. If you can't file on time, you are supposed to file estimated taxes before the deadline, and to make that payment large enough to cover what you are likely to owe them. If there is excess, you get it back when you file the actual forms. If there is a shortfall, you may be charged fees, essentially interest on the money you still owe them calculated from the submission due date. If you fail to file anything before the due date, then the fees/interest surcharge is calculated on the entire amount still due; effectively the same as if you had filled an estimated return erroneously claiming you owed nothing. Note that since the penalty scales with the amount still due, large errors do cost you more than small ones. And before anyone asks: no, the IRS doesn't pay interest if you submit the forms early and they owe you money. I've sometimes wondered whether they're missing a bet there, and if it would be worth rewarding people to file earlier in order to spread out the work a bit better, but until someone sells them on that idea...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a179b6735e2b581d1797b56142f6ba59", "text": "Years ago I mailed my personal tax return one day after the due date, and my check was deposited as normal, and I never heard anything about it. As an employer, I once sent in my employee's withheld federal taxes one day after the due date, and I later received a letter stating my penalty for being late worked out to be around $600. The letter stated that since this was my first time being late they would waive the fee. In both cases, they could have charged me a late fee if they wanted to.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "80ed7ff7872aad98ec7049c29856c5f0", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eff9b179c492193e2b8154743ccd5361", "text": "Simply file an amended return to correct the mistake. This happens all the time and is a standard procedure that every legitimate tax pro can handle. You can work it out with the tax pro about whose mistake it was and who should pay for the additional service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ce3c0de5cd8ce04c8a1764c39e3c46d", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83b0ba3e5841488f99a591f1984b9dc7", "text": "\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73c009c7bf9683f89cbf299e3b45b5ee", "text": "I'm also self employed. Your circumstances may be different, but my accountant told me there was no reason to pay more than 100% of last years' taxes. (Even if this years' earnings are higher.) So I divide last year by 4 and make the quarterlies. As an aside, I accidentally underpaid last year (mis-estimated), and the penalty was much smaller than I expected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7e811dc686db34ea83ccc6787d733ca", "text": "\"The short answer is that the IRS knows this is an issue, so they are prepared to deal with the \"\"discrepancies.\"\" The filer does not need to something special to call it to their attention. Keep good records and consistently report according to your accounting processes. Exactly how the IRS resolves / flags this, I don't know. Maybe someone else can answer, but you can imagine that if they track you for multiple years they should have some idea of how many dollars are rolling over and whether you might have \"\"forgotten\"\" to report something from a few years ago that happened at a year-end break.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e875c245ee0e24b07668aa19bdc9754", "text": "\"The money gets sent to the IRS through the EFTPS system. Depending on the amounts, the employers are required to deposit it on a monthly/semi-weekly basis, so they don't get to keep the tax money for long. Failure to deposit the payroll taxes on time is one of the most heavily penalized IRS offenses. This area of violations is called \"\"trust fund violations\"\". It is one of the very few areas in which employees may be liable for corporate misdoings (i.e.: an HR or accounting manager responsible for payroll may be personally liable for trust fund violations).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef0a5efb611d5ac6305005c10dcb6de1", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0df54c4fd766fcffc01e0aaeb445237d", "text": "The IRS allows filers to attach a statement explaining the reason for late filing. I have had clients do this in the past, and there has never been an issue (not that that guarantees anything, but is still good to know). Generally, the IRS is much more lenient when a taxpayer voluntarily complies with a filing requirement, even if it's late, than if they figure it out themselves and send a notice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6936be415fe93cd7e0a9c018dfd788e4", "text": "The difference is that if you end up owing more than $1k in taxes come April, you will be mandated for withholding next year (that's at the federal level, I don't know CA law in particular); and if this isn't the first time you've done it, you may owe additional penalties as well. Your actual tax liability comes out the same either way; you're probably better off just letting Uncle Sam have an interest-free loan for a few months and getting the difference back in April, than risking it; but if you've done the math and know you'll only owe exactly $999.99, you can do what you want. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21eab6a9b9de9eb93d1808da1b921371", "text": "You are only responsible for IRS debt that you owe from returns that you have filed for yourself. The back taxes that your dependent owes are between him and the IRS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34fe1827bcc69fdc3fcd8379b228bad4", "text": "As others have said, make sure you can and do file your taxes on a cash basis (not accrual). It sounds like it's very unlikely the company is going to issue you a 1099 for invoices they never paid you. So you just file last year's taxes based on your income, which is the money you actually received. If they do pay you later, in the new year, you'll include that income on next year's tax return, and you would expect a 1099 at that time. Side note: not getting paid is unfortunately common for consultants and contractors. Take the first unpaid invoice and sue them in small claims court. After you win (and collect!), tell them you'll sue them for each unpaid invoice in turn until they pay you in full. (You might need to break up the lawsuits like that to remain under the small claims limit.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dae50b5d6c8199652419e5dd726b2aa", "text": "I will answer this question broadly for various jurisdictions, and also specifically for the US, given the OP's tax home: Generally, for any tax jurisdiction If your tax system relies on periodic prepayments through the year, and a final top-up/refund at the end of the year (ie: basically every country), you have 3 theoretical goals with how much you pre-pay: Specifically, for the U.S. All information gathered from here: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes. In short, depending on your circumstance, you may need to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to avoid penalties on April 15th. Even if you won't be penalized, you, may benefit from doing so anyway (to force yourself to save the money necessary by April 15th). I have translated the general goals above, into US-specific advice:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa534b85bc1b330283961134171101c9", "text": "In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a94a1e65b2db8127bd4c8dec7cc095b6", "text": "The reason to do a stock split is to get the price of the stock down to an affordable range. If your stock costs $100,000 per share, you are seriously cutting in to the number of people who can afford to buy it. I can think of two reasons NOT to do a stock split. The biggest is, Why bother? If your stock is trading at a reasonable price, why change anything? It takes time and effort, which equals money, to do a stock split. If this serves no purpose, you're just wasting that effort. The other reason is that you don't want to drive your stock price down too low. Low prices are normally associated with highly speculative start-up companies, and so can give a wrong impression of your company. Also, low prices make it difficult for the price to reflect small changes. If your stock is trading at $10.00, a 1/2 of 1% change is 5 cents. But if it's trading at $1.50, a 1/2 of 1% change is a fraction of a penny. Does it go up by that penny or not? You've turned a smooth scale into a series of hurdles.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
45b50eb7f2219f81908feee6303a4b56	Double-entry bookkeeping: When selling an asset, does the money come from, Equity or Income?	[ { "docid": "531b1aba2b2c8be716305089b22240a9", "text": "\"There are basically two approaches, based on how detailed you want to be in your own personal accounting: Obviously the more like a business or like \"\"real\"\" accounting you want to be, the more complex you can make it, but in general I find that the purpose of personal accounting is (1) to track what I own, and (2) to ensure I have documented anything I need to for tax purposes, and as long as you're meeting those goals any reasonable approach is workable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36933c8b079e518d1fe172462a6c9355", "text": "It's better to use the accounting equation concept: Asset + Expenses = Capital + Liabilities + Income If you purchase an asset: Suppose you purchased a laptop of $ 500, then its journal will be: If you sell the same Laptop for $ 500, then its entry will be:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1de1971a83164f2f91c1ca34eb3d445", "text": "\"Selling an asset is not earning income. You are basically moving value from one asset (the laptop) to another (your bank account.) So you reduce the equity that is \"\"value of all my electronics\"\" and you increase the asset that is your bank account. In your case, you never entered the laptop in some category called \"\"value of all my electronics\"\" so you don't have that to make a double-entry against. The temptation is high to call it income as a result. Depending on the reason for all this double-entry book-keeping for personal finances, that may be fine. Or, you can create a category for balancing and use that, and realize the (negative) value of that account doesn't mean much.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "afafec3ae79fa797fcb2e00de3988080", "text": "For reporting purposes, I would treat the purchase and sale of gold like a purchase and sale of a stock. The place to do so is Schedule D. (And if it's the wrong form, but you reported it, there is might not be a penalty, whereas there is a penalty for NOT reporting.) The long term gain would be at capital gains rates. The short term gain would be at ordinary income rates. And if you have two coins bought at two different times, you get to choose which one to report (as long as you report the OTHER one when you sell the second coin).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b92b6e2f3a8d740509e76d0c66896bf", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcb6523e22504bb769d3d28f4eef746a", "text": "It took me a while to understand the concept, so I'll break it down as best as I can. There are three parts to the accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity We'll look at this in two ways 1. As a business owner you invest (say) 10,000 USD into your bank. The entry would be: Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Contributions for 10,000 In this case, you have assets of 10,000 from your deposit, but it is due to owner contributions and not business transactions. Another example (say a sale): Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Sales for 10,000 Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Liabilities: Deposits for 10,000 Deposits are a banking term to reflect a bank's obligation to return the amount on demand (though the bank has free reign with it, see fractional banking) You will NEVER debit or credit your bank as it is assumed you will be storing your money there, note bank reconciliation. Hope this helps, comment with any more questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fcd12b68dda2f645cb239640c5a2a3b", "text": "\"From your question, I believe that you are looking for what these mean in accounting terms and not the difference between a debit and a credit card. I'll deal with purchase and sale first as this is easier. They are the same thing seen from different points of view. If I sell something to you then I have made a sale and you have made a purchase. Every sale is a purchase and every purchase is a sale. Debits and Credits are accounting terms and refer to double column accounting (the most common accounting system used). The way a set of accounts works is, accounts are set up under the following broad headings: The first 3 appear on the Balance Sheet, so called because the accounts balance (Assets = Liabilities + Equity). This is always a \"\"point-in-time\"\" snapshot of the accounts (1 June 2015). That last 3 appear on the Profit and Loss sheet, Profit (or loss) = Income - Cost of Goods Sold - Expenses. This is always an interval measure (1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015). Changes in these accounts flow through to the Equity part of the Balance Sheet. When you enter a transaction the Debits always equal the Credits, they are simply applied to different accounts. Debits increase Assets, Cost of Goods Sold and Expenses and decrease Liabilities, Equity and Income. Credits do the reverse For your examples: 1. a customer buy something from me, what is the debit and credit? I will assume they pay $1,000 and the thing cost you $500 Your cash (asset) goes up by $1,000 (Debit), your inventory (asset) goes down by $500 (Credit), your Sales revenue (income) goes up by $500 (credit). This gives you a profit of $500. 2. a customer buy something of worth 1000 but gives me 500 what is debit and credit Your cash (asset) goes up by $500 (Debit), your debtors (asset) goes up by $500, your inventory (asset) goes down by $500 (Credit), your Sales revenue (income) goes up by $500 (credit). This also gives you a profit of $500. 3. if I buy a product from supplier worth 1000 and pay equally what is credit and debit I assume you mean pay cash: Your cash (asset) goes down by $1000 (Credit), your inventory (asset) goes up by $1000 (Debit). There is no profit or loss here - you have swapped one asset (cash) for another (inventory). 4. if I buy a product from supplier worth 1000 and don't pay what is credit and debit Your creditors (liability) goes up by $1000 (Credit), your inventory (asset) goes up by $1000 (Debit). There is no profit or loss here - you have gained an asset (inventory) but incurred a liability (creditors). The reason for confusion is that most people only see Debits and Credits in one place - their bank statement. Your bank statement is a journal of one of the banks liability accounts - its their liability because they owe the money to you (even loan accounts adopt this convention). Credits happen when you give money to the bank, they credit your account (increase a liability) and debit their cash balance (increase an asset). Debits are when they give money to you, they debit your account (decrease a liability) and credit their cash balance (decrease an asset) . If at the end of the period, you have a credit balance then they owe money to you, a debit balance means you owe money to them. If you were keeping a book of accounts then your record of the transactions would be a mirror image of the bank's because you would be looking at it from your point of view.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8422693db687a36bf9cb06ee289c6cec", "text": "I don't think you need double-entry bookkeeping. To quote Robert Kiyosaki (roughly): Income is when money enters you pocket, and expenses are when money leaves your pocket. Income is an addition; expenses are subtractions. But if you want double-entry accounting, I'm not qualified to answer that. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41372fce8481716fd887860e6d3e94db", "text": "The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a25b57209b7b65d9120b4099816dbf27", "text": "Generally, the answer is as follows: If there is a legal obligation to pay cash flow (including the possibility of court determined restructuring), then it is debt. If the asset owner is not guaranteed any cash flow, but instead owns the residual cash flow from the operations of the business (I.e. the cash flow left-over), then it is equity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b987480a00109e250c5865bd585c4a7f", "text": "\"If you are considering this to be an entry for your business this is how you would handle it.... You said you were making a balance sheet for monthly expenses. So on the Balance Sheet, you would be debiting cash. For the Income Statement side you would be crediting Owner's Equity to balance the equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity So if you deposited $100 to your account the equation would be affected thus: $ 100 in Assets (Debit to Cash Account) = 0 Liabilities - $100 (Credit to Owner's Equity) It is correctly stated above from the bank's perspective that they would be \"\"Crediting\"\" you account with $100, and any outflow from the bank account would be debiting your account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2feb74b8173e7cfcdc17af615e980e0", "text": "The HMRC website would explain it better to you. There is a lot of factors and conditions involved, so refer to the HMRC website for clarification. If your question had more details, it could have been easy to pinpoint the exact answer. Do I declare the value of shares as income Why would you do that ? You haven't generated income from that yet(sold it to make a profit/loss), so how can that be declared as income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dce0b157b2a2d90afcda05c20b8bd8a", "text": "I mean isn't it implied that cash flows increase by the amount of the benefit of the investment each year? I'm a little shaky on cash flows tbh. My scope may be limited compared to yours I've never taken a financial management class but just from financial accounting knowledge since I recently finished that, it seems like cash flows would be increased if revenues are increased. Unless the revenue increase is for some reason solely in the form of accounts receivable or some asset other than cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7a0db3a6ebee00e142ce84292f72158", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b66aecaca3cfc6d1bf0b48153f487a92", "text": "Yes, at that stage income is income regardless of source. Assuming you're talking about overall profit, not just the individual wins when gambling.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b15c9fd643cb2c2f0c419a99905e9ad", "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)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0096dd384006c1554bf01aae183b360c", "text": "I debited the principal and interest accruals to an asset account and credited an equity account Why equity? This is clearly income. Generally, except for open balances and additional owner's investment - you wouldn't credit the equity accounts, ever.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a48d26db49b7cce01b23f85ca9c3f47", "text": "\"This is a technical term referring to the \"\"double entry\"\"-styled book keeping of trades by brokers. Suppose a client executes a buy order with their broker. The broker's accounting for this \"\"trade\"\" will be recorded as two different \"\"deals\"\" : One \"\"deal\"\" showing the client as buyer and the broker as seller, and a second \"\"deal\"\" showing the broker as buyer and the clearing house as seller. The net result of these two deals is that the broker has no net position while the client has a net buy and the clearing house has a net sell with respect to this broker's account as accounted for internally by the broker. (And the same methods apply for a client sell order.) The client/broker \"\"deal\"\" record - i.e., the client side of the trade - is called the \"\"client side booking\"\", while the broker/clearing house \"\"deal\"\" record is called the \"\"street side booking\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a7031dbac7278519e2434d9f310e0f52	What do I do with a P11D Expenses & Benefits form?	[ { "docid": "d3381ce2d3d30afc976df6a0006e9a85", "text": "\"The P11D is a record of the total benefits you've received in a tax year that haven't been taxed in another way, a bit like the P60 is a record of the total pay and tax you've paid in a tax year. Note that travel for business purposes shouldn't be taxable, and if that's what's being reported on the P11D you may need to make a claim for tax relief to HMRC to avoid having to pay the tax. I'm not sure whether it's normal for such expenses to be reported there. HMRC will normally collect that tax by adjusting your tax code after the P11D is issued, so that more tax is taken off your future income. So you don't need to do anything, as it'll be handled automatically. As to how you know it's accurate, if you have any doubts you'd need to contact your former employer and ask them to confirm the details. In general you ought to know what benefits you actually received so should at least be able to figure out if the number is plausible. If your \"\"travel\"\" was a flight to the USA, then probably it was. If it was a bus ticket, less so :-) If you fill in a tax return, you'll also have to report the amount there which will increase the tax you owe/reduce your refund. You won't be charged twice even if your tax code also changes, as the tax return accounts for the total amount of tax you've already paid. For travel benefits, the exact treatment in relation to tax/P11Ds is summarised here.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d3aa0e53873e068ee63eb8e1179eae2b", "text": "\"I would suggest to get an authoritative response from a CPA. In any case it would be for your own benefit to have at least the first couple of years of tax returns prepared by a professional. However, from my own personal experience, in your situation the income should not be regarded as \"\"US income\"\" but rather income in your home country. Thus it should not appear on the US tax forms because you were not resident when you had it, it was given to you by your employer (which is X(Europe), not X(USA)), and you should have paid local taxes in your home country on it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c93f3024d8d4bde48399c1dabe42032b", "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!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e24013fc2d8a69a7b3cba05a99e5eb8f", "text": "When you enter your expected gross income into the worksheet - just enter $360000 and leave everything else as is. That should give you the right numbers. Same for State (form DE-4).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57cb61fd296cae857e0413a84e463426", "text": "is it possible to file that single form aside from the rest of my return? Turbotax will generate all the forms necessary to file your return. I recommend you access these forms and file them manually. According to the IRS in order to report capital gains and losses you need to fill out Form 8949 and summarize them on Form 1040 D. Add these two forms to the stack that turbotax generates. Add the total capital gains to line 13 of the Form 1040 which turbotax generated, and adjust the totals on the form accordingly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7e3d7a58663bf7892905e74ddb6346a", "text": "\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39ac168cb11ea51d8e30d4aa282269e0", "text": "Well you've got to think about the process, but first make sure the thing you want to pay for is actually a qualified dependent care expense. Here is a list of eligible expenses from a national FSA administrator. This process will tie up your money for some amount of time. Your deduction will come out like clockwork. But there is a time-delay of potentially months between your deduction and receipt of a reimbursement. Dependent care plans are money-in money-out. You can only file a reimbursement on funds that have actually been contributed, which is different than a medical FSA. Additionally, you can only file a claim on expenses that have actually been incurred. Dependent care FSA elections can be changed through the year on an as needed basis. This would add an administrivia burden to the person running your payroll, and if there is a payroll vendor in place, likely an actual cost. The administrator in this situation would likely be the company. In the formalities of employee benefits there must always be a named administrator. If your employer currently offers no benefits you should press healthcare first. Paying healthcare premiums pretax would likely save you more money and be less administration than this. Additionally, if your employer is paying for or reimbursing you for your individual health insurance that's currently illegal under the ACA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a00d5959b32ca0bc12b319ae14ed2da", "text": "IRS pub 521 has all the information you need. Expenses reimbursed. If you are reimbursed for your expenses and you use the cash method of accounting, you can deduct your expenses either in the year you paid them or in the year you received the reimbursement. If you use the cash method of accounting, you can choose to deduct the expenses in the year you are reimbursed even though you paid the expenses in a different year. See Choosing when to deduct, next. If you deduct your expenses and you receive the reimbursement in a later year, you must include the reimbursement in your income on Form 1040, line 21 This is not unusual. Anybody who moves near the end of the year can have this problem. The 39 week time test also can be an issue that span over 2 tax years. I would take the deduction for the expenses as soon a I could, and then count the income in the later year if they pay me back. IF they do so before April 15th, then I would put them on the same tax form to make things easier.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f20fdd823286eba26d5f938c45710cd2", "text": "Talk to a tax professional. The IRS really doesn't like the deduction, and it's a concept (like independent contractors) that is often not done properly. You need to, at a minimum, have records, including timestamped photographs, proving that: Remember, documentation is key, and must be filed and accessible for a number of years. Poor record keeping will cost you dearly, and the cost of keeping those records is something that you need to weigh against the benefit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bdd2e14dc990aa712c3092fbe817087", "text": "I received a $2,000 bonus... Gross Income is income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) “compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.” Adjusted Gross Income is defined as gross income minus adjustments to income. My question is, must I still report this money on my tax return and if so, how? Yes, and it would be on line 21 of your 1040 with supporting documentation. Are these legal fees deductible as an expense, and where would I list them? Yes, you would aggregate your deductible expenses and place these on your Schedule A. Instructions here. Good Luck. Edit: As Ben Miller pointed out in the comments, the deduction would be placed in either line 23 or 28 depending on the nature of the attorney (investment related or not).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91ffa5ed8478fc188d5928f275b34075", "text": "What happened is that they do not track (and report) your original cost basis for 1099-B purposes. That is because it is an RSU. Instead, they just reported gross proceeds ($5200) and $0 for everything else. On your Schedule D you adjust the basis to the correct one, and as a comment you add that it was reported on W2 of the previous year. You then report the correct $1200 gain. You keep the documentation you have to back this up in case of questions (which shouldn't happen, since it will match what was indeed reported on your W2).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e316d41336ca3bda6eb126bcc4115790", "text": "\"Can I use the foreign earned income exclusion in my situation? Only partially, since the days you spent in the US should be excluded. You'll have to prorate your exclusion limit, and only apply it to the income earned while not in the US. If not, how should I go about this to avoid being doubly taxed for 2014? The amounts you cannot exclude are taxable in the US, and you can use a portion of your Norwegian tax to offset the US tax liability. Use form 1116 for that. Form 1116 with form 2555 on the same return will require some arithmetic exercises, but there are worksheets for that in the instructions. In addition, US-Norwegian treaty may come into play, so check that out. It may help you reduce the tax liability in the US or claim credit on the US taxes in Norway. It seems that Norway has a bilateral tax treaty with the US, that, if I'm reading it correctly, seems to indicate that \"\"visiting researchers to universities\"\" (which really seems like I would qualify as) should not be taxed by either country for the duration of their stay. The relevant portion of the treaty is Article 16. Article 16(2)(b) allows you $5000 exemption for up to a year stay in the US for your salary from the Norwegian school. You will still be taxed in Norway. To claim the treaty benefit you need to attach form 8833 to your tax return, and deduct the appropriate amount on line 21 of your form 1040. However, since you're a US citizen, that article doesn't apply to you (See the \"\"savings clause\"\" in the Article 22). I didn't even give a thought to state taxes; those should only apply to income sourced from the state I lived in, right (AKA $0)? I don't know what State you were in, so hard to say, but yes - the State you were in is the one to tax you. Note that the tax treaty between Norway and the US is between Norway and the Federal government, and doesn't apply to States. So the income you earned while in the US will be taxable by the State you were at, and you'll need to file a \"\"non-resident\"\" return there (if that State has income taxes - not all do).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd10d90ffdb55b8ff054948c6a6d2926", "text": "\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac8916af592d24f229674bf1f89c93c2", "text": "If this is something you plan to continue doing it would make sense to create it as it's own business entity and then to get non-profit status eg: 501c3. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you have to think of it as YOU receiving the money as a sole proprietor - and file a couple more tax forms at the end of the year. I think it's a Schedule C. So essentially if you bring in $10,000, then you spend that $10,000 as legit business expenses for your venture your schedule C would show no profit and wouldn't pay taxes on it. BUT, you do have to file that form. Operating this way could have legal implications should something happen and you get sued. Having the proper business entity setup could help in that situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e01fae496d2dff9ca15ea734ad1f05d", "text": "There is a tax advantage only for medical expenses exceeding 10% of your adjusted gross income (7.5% if over age 65). This limit means only a very few people can take advantage of the deduction. The expenses would be entered on Schedule A (itemized deductions) of form 1040. You don't have to send in the supporting documentation, but you have to keep it in your records to present if audited. Yes, a copay qualifies as an expense, but needs supporting documentation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3eb73a2ca9245aa95108c276f11d1f16", "text": "In a nutshell, throwing your taxable income in the trash does not remove it from your taxable income; you still have to report in your tax filing, and pay taxes as needed. Especially as you could at any time request your employer to write you a replacement check. I would expect them to start charging a fee for reprinting if you really annoy them by doing it dozens of times. If you want to avoid taxes on it, donate it to a deductible 501(c)3 organization; then it becomes neutral to your taxes.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
25b72dab0cf0ace35ffe38e1c2031880	Wife sent to collections for ticket she paid ten years ago	[ { "docid": "9b6e498c8dba48fc427faf5f1009f65f", "text": "\"The first thing you should do is write a letter to the collection company telling them that you dispute all charges and demand, per section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that they immediately validate and confirm any and all debts they allege you owe. You should further request that that they only communicate with you by mail. Section 809 requires them to examine the legal documents showing you allegedly owe a debt and they are required to send this to you. This all creates a useful paper trail. When you send the letter, be sure to send it as certified mail with a return receipt. From your description, it doesn't sound like this will do anything, but it's important you do it within 30 days of them contacting you. This is because the law allows them to assume the debt is valid if you don't do it within 30 days of their initial contact. I recommend you speak with an attorney. Most states have a statute of limitation on debt of about 4 or 5 years. I don't know if that applies to courts though. Whatever you do, be very careful of the language you use when speaking with them. Always refer to it as \"\"the alleged debt,\"\" or \"\"the debt you allege I owe.\"\" You don't want them misconstruing your words later on. As far as proving you paid it, I would look through every scrap of paper I'd ever touched looking for it. If that proves fruitless, try going to the courthouse and looking through their records. If they're saying you didn't pay, that's a long shot, but still worth a try. You could also try bank records from that time, like if you have a Visa statement showing $276.17 paid to the Nevada Court or something like that. If all else fails, the law allows you to send the collector a letter saying that you refuse to pay the debt. The collection company then legally must stop contacting you unless it's to tell you they are suing you or to tell you they won't contact you again. I strongly advise against this though. Your best bet is going to be speaking with a qualified attorney. Edit: You should also pull your credit reports to make sure this isn't being reported there. Federal law gives you the right to have a free copy of each of your credit reports once every year. If it is being reported, send a certified letter with return receipt to each bureau which is reporting it telling them you dispute the information. They then are required to confirm the information. If they can't confirm it, they must remove it. If they do confirm it, you are legally entitled to put a statement disputing the information next to it on your credit report. I am not an attorney. This is not legal advise. You should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "664e7acb6d0cc33e2fa85898f0517868", "text": "I had this happen to me with parking ticket when I was still in school. The tickets were issued by the school police and later dismissed (because I had purchased a year-long parking pass). 3 years later I got a letter alleging that I had unpaid parking ticket. So they lost the record of dismissal. But they did not lose the record of having issued the ticket. I am fairly certain this happens because legal entities either lose electronic records and restore data from backups without realizing that some corrupted data remains lost or because they transition to a new system and certain real-world events don't get transferred properly to the new system. Of course, the people with whom you end up interacting at that point have no idea of any potential technical problems (because they may occur only in some technical one-off cases). In my case, I was able to show that I had received a judgement of dismissal. I actually kept the paperwork. The question is what do you do if you lost the records and the state had lost all electronic records of your payments. Let's assume the collections agency has a record (produced by the state) that you owed the ticket amount, but the state claims that no record exists of you having paid the tickets. What do you do, then? Carefully compile the list of all possible banks which you could have possibly used. Then request duplicate statements from all the banks which you have on that list. Assuming you were a regular consumer and not running a business, this should not amount to more than 100 pages or so. If you do manage to find the transactions in those bank records, you are in luck. States, unlike the federal government, are not immune from law suits. So you can consult a lawyer. By fraudulently claiming that you defaulted on payments, the state caused you material harm (by lowering your credit rating and increasing your cost of borrowing). Once you have all the paperwork in hand, you still will have difficult time finding anyone in the state to listen to you. And even if you do, you will not be compensated for the time and expenses you expanded to obtain these records. If you indeed paid the tickets, then you are being asked to prove your innocence and you are assumed guilty until you do. Again, a good lawyer should be able to do something with that to get you a proper compensation for this.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8c860ddc8f02abafffb7d625bb5c4d3e", "text": "You could talk to them, but (assuming you're in the U.S.), it's highly doubtful any bank would honor a check from 26 years ago. Most checks in the U.S. are only valid for 180 days, mainly to help companies and banks keep accounting simple. I would suggest talking to your late husband's former employer. Explain the situation and ask if they'd be willing to research it and perhaps honor his memory and contribution to their company by issuing a new check. They might do it as a gesture of good will. Are they legally bound to do this? To my knowledge, the answer is no. The check was issued and never cashed, which is not all that unusual for companies in business for a long time. A good example of this would be rebate checks, which (you'd be surprised) quite frequently end up in a drawer and forgotten about. There has to be some closure for the issuing company in its accounting, else they'd have money in their bank accounts that doesn't properly show in their ledgers. This is an interesting question, though. I hope others will reply, and perhaps they have a more informed take than me. I'm going to upvote it simply because I'd like to see this discussion continue. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fc58fa4e0d30d7f72608146c8999a38", "text": "Generally this gets corrected when you file returns for both States -- one owes you some refund, and younowe some money to the other. Multistate tax returns are their own special kettle of worms, so you might want to consider hiring a pro to straighten this out -- their software has some tools personal packages don't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df3445c4c5220e2ca5bb66345da094b1", "text": "This does sound a bit implausible, even if it is true it is pretty grossly irresponsible and you probably shouldn't just let it slide... However there is no real benefit in wading in with accusations, I suspect that the most likely scenario is that your tenet simply didn't have the money and was looking for a way to delay payment. This may well not be particularly malicious towards you, they may just be unable to pay and need a bit of room to maneuver. In this case the wise thing is to challenge them but without forcing them to admit that they might have lied, perhaps by suggesting that they might have been mistaken about dropping off the money but it's no big deal and negotiate a resolution. In these situations where it is one persons word against another giving them the opportunity to save face often pays off. Equally you want to make it absolutely clear that putting a wad of cash in your mailbox is not an acceptable way to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57ecc3cc87544cb382c000d2dd1e6e58", "text": "One piece of documentation that might help here is a confirmation of your benefit selections through your employer for each year since the expenses in question were incurred, assuming you have a job with eligibility for benefits. If you can prove which accounts you maintained through your/your spouse's (if applicable) employer(s), then it is relatively simple to go back through the records for those specific accounts and see if a specific expense was ever reimbursed. Obviously, you can't prove through documentation that you didn't have accounts that don't exist. This seems like it would be more important for the accounts elected by a significant other, since I believe reimbursements from an account in your name would typically be reported to the IRS on your behalf anyway. Also, keep in mind that the IRS won't care about each line item individually. Their focus will be on whether, for any given snapshot in time, your total reimbursed amount exceeded your total eligible expenses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29a347402ca5887b88750d5d390c444d", "text": "You might want to head on over to https://law.stackexchange.com/ and ask the same question. However from a personal finance perspective this kind of drama is somewhat common when someone is deceased and financial expectations are not met by the heirs. It sounds like the daughter was expecting a lot more in inheritance than was actually received. There was probably an overestimation of dad's net worth and an underestimation of the cost of his care toward the end of his life. Its best not to participate in this drama, and I feel that you are correct that the daughter does not have a right to see the bank account statements prior to dad's passage. The question is also if she has a right to see it now. Here in the US a joint account can be setup so the ownership transfers to other account holder(s) up death of an owner. So in this case your mother would own the account. If the account is setup as such, then the estate has no right to that money. You may want to check with the bank for some free advice. What is the classification of the account now that dad has passed? When a person grants someone else the power of attorney they have the ability to act as if they were that person. Most of the time POAs are limited in scope so If I give a person the POA to register a car in my name, they cannot apply for a credit card in my name (legally). In this case, however, the POA was probably general so pretty much your mom could do whatever she pleased. So if your mom took good care of the dad and bought herself some nice jewelry that is perfectly allowable with a general POA. I strongly doubt this daughter has any rights to the past records and may not even have the rights to the joint bank account currently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f0865c5aa030971e55a0866fcbedf71", "text": "You should start by making a written complaint to the insurance company itself. You have two angles of attack: What was discussed when she was sold the policy. Make sure you set out exactly what you believe you were told and highlight that they didn't ask about commuting (assuming that's the case). Ask them to preserve any recordings they have of the call and to send you a copy. The nature of the journey where the accident happened. From the description - unless it was part of a journey to and from work - there's no good reason for them to classify it as commuting. Make sure you make good written notes now of anything that happened verbally - phone calls etc, and keep doing this as the process goes along. If that written complaint doesn't work, your next step is to go to the Financial Ombudsman, who are a neutral adjudication service. If the Ombudsman doesn't support your case, you could go to court directly, but it'll be expensive and a lot of effort, and by this stage it'd be unlikely you would win. The Ombudsman's rejection wouldn't count against you directly, but it'd be a strong indication that your case is weak. See https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/making-a-complaint-about-an-insurance-company for a more detailed walk-through.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f1831a82af5d517f86b946c720d2d22", "text": "One issue is whether it is a scam or the collector has a right to collect. Another issue is the statute of limitations period on the debt. If it has expired, the creditor cannot get a court judgement against the borrower (if the borrower contests it). However, if the borrower makes a payment, or promises to pay, the time resets to zero, starting a new period subject to valid court action. In the U.S. the length of this period varies by state. (This period is different from the amount of time a debt can be listed on a credit report.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c45066b63198035b22930c8c25a63c2", "text": "Sit down with professional with knowledge about eldercare issues. Know how your options regarding the property ownership can impact the services they qualify for. Even making a change in ownership can impact their eligibility for certain programs. Some of which can reach back to events in the recent past. Also if you own it but she will get some of the profits when you sell, she could still be considered an owner, which can impact eligibility for programs. This is in addition to the issues with the lender, the IRS, and your estate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6b09a1c18842ba3d64088cabe20f311", "text": "Personal story here: I ended up at the Santa Monica hospital without insurance and left with a bill of $30k-$35k. They really helped me, so I felt like I had a duty to pay them. However, close inspection revealed ridiculous markups on some items which I would have disputed, but I noticed that I had been billed for a few thousands of services not rendered. I got very mad at them for this, they apologized, told me they'd fix it. I never heard back from them and they never put it in collection either. I'm assuming they (rightfully) got scared that I'd go to court and this would be bad publicity. Sometimes I feel guilty I didn't pay them anything, sometimes I feel like they tried to screw me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df414047a4aeb337a3f7f42e8a3c734d", "text": "I think the statute of limitations is 2 years so I suspect that she may not qualify, also BOA was not the last bank to hold her mortgage. I doubt she'll receive anything. She's just glad the whole mess is behind her.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "add38ca7424072cd6aa0226650874a23", "text": "\"I had about $16k in student loans. I defaulted on the loans, and they got > passed to a collection type agency (OSCEOLA). These guys are as legitimate as a collection agency can be. One thing that I feel is very sketchy is when they were verifying my identity they said \"\"Does your Social Security Number end in ####. Is your Birthday Month/Day/Year.\"\" That is not sketchy. It would be sketchy for a caller to ask you to give that information; that's a common scheme for identity theft. OSCEOLA are following the rules on this one. My mom suggested I should consider applying for bankruptcy Won't help. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. You have the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act passed during the Bush 43 regime for that. The loan itself is from school. What school? Contact them and ask for help. They may have washed their hands of your case when they turned over your file to OSCEOLA. Then again, they may not. It's worth finding out. Also, name and shame the school. Future applicants should be warned that they will do this. What can I do to aid in my negotiations with this company? Don't negotiate on the phone. You've discovered that they won't honor such negotiations. Ask for written communications sent by postal mail. Keep copies of everything, including both sides of the canceled checks you use to make payments (during the six months and in the future). Keep making the payments you agreed to in the conversation six months ago. Do not, EVER, ignore a letter from them. Do not, EVER, skip going to court if they send you a summons to appear. They count on people doing this. They can get a default judgement if you don't show up. Then you're well and truly screwed. What do you want? You want the $4K fee removed. If you want something else, figure out what it is. Here's what to do: Write them a polite letter explaining what you said here. Recount the conversation you had with their telephone agent where they said they would remove the $4K fee if you made payments. Recount the later conversation. If possible give the dates of both conversations and the names of the both agents. Explain the situation completely. Don't assume the recipient of your letter knows anything about your case. Include evidence that you made payments as agreed during the six months. If you were late or something, don't withhold that. Ask them to remove the extra $4K from your account, and ask for whatever else you want. Send the letter to them with a return receipt requested, or even registered mail. That will prevent them from claiming they didn't get it. And it will show them you're serious. Write a cover letter admitting your default, saying you relied on their negotiation to set things straight, and saying you're dismayed they aren't sticking to their word. The cover letter should ask for help sorting this out. Send copies of the letter with the cover letter to: Be sure to mark your letter to OSCEOLA \"\"cc\"\" all these folks, so they know you are asking for help. It can't hurt to call your congressional representative's office and ask to whom you should send the letter, and then address it by name. This is called Constituent Service, and they take pride in it. If you send this letter with copies you're letting them know you intend to fight. The collection agency may decide it's not worth the fight to get the $4K and decide to let it go. Again, if they call to pressure you, say you'd rather communicate in writing, and that they are not to call you by telephone. Then hang up. Should I hire a lawyer? Yes, but only if you get a court summons or if you don't get anywhere with this. You can give the lawyer all this paperwork I've suggested here, and it will help her come up to speed on your case. This is the kind of stuff the lawyer would do for you at well over $100 per hour. Is bankruptcy really an option Certainly not, unfortunately. Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators. You are their lawful prey. They look at you, lick their chops, and think, \"\"food.\"\" Watch John Oliver's takedown of that industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxUAntt1z2c Good luck and stay safe.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a40013b8d9d2d1ecb3b3697c7e5366a2", "text": "The original note should have had a a clear start and expiration date included with in it (the term). If it did then the term has likely expired by now (since you said it had been years) and you should issue an amendment to the note that clarifies the new term and also clarifies the interest rate terms. If the original note did not have an expiration date then that would be unusual and your mom should work with her friend to execute a new note with clear start and expiration dates and that also clarifies the payment and interest terms. From my experience it is best to include a specific payment schedule within the note as well as very specific and clear terms around how interest will be handled in the event of a missed payment, late payment, or inability to pay the note off in full at expiration. There are many good examples available online to help you craft the appropriate verbiage for your specific needs: http://tinyurl.com/note-examples", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12d897b31bb6c93c879a2de36343bbe5", "text": "If you and your wife are owners, your tickets might be a business expense against the rental income. 'Might' as in the IRS will be happy to audit you, seeing the kids went as well and prorating the expense as say 25% was really business, the rest, family vacation. If this $4000 write off is the make or break for this deal, don't do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "166eccbbadd622bc91c8da320ac53105", "text": "\"In California at least a little known secret is you don't have to pay traffic fines older than three years. I had my DL suspended for three years from 3thousand in bad tickets. I went to pay after I saved enough, and the nice lady said \"\"the law says you don't have to pay the fines over three years old and we can't legally hold your license and we legally can't report it to credit agencies or the DMV\"\" She got her gold star that day!! She said no one will tell you, but being nice sometimes gets you a long way. I'm sure most people take out their frustrations on her. So I paid about 1300$ and walked out a happy licenced man. Thanks to that lady!!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a5895bc8c4b6bd307eaeb467bf56f4e", "text": "You're not missing anything. Consumer protection in the US is very basic and limited, if at all. So if someone claims you owe them something, it would be really hard for you to prove otherwise unless you actually drag them to court. Especially if there actually was a relationship, and there probably is some paperwork to substantiate the claim. I suggest talking to a consumer issues attorney.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
69e4d82fc9fb957162ec5c6b4a6ce305	Dividend vs Growth Stocks for young investors	[ { "docid": "8a034f1611cd316cbe7ee2c792c80699", "text": "\"The key is to look at total return, that is dividend yields plus capital growth. Some stocks have yields of 5%-7%, and no growth. In that case, you get the dividends, and not a whole lot more. These are called dividend stocks. Other stocks pay no dividends. But if they can grow at 15%-20% a year or more, you're fine.These are called growth stocks. The safest way is to get a \"\"balanced\"\" combination of dividends and growth, say a yield of 3% growing at 8%-10% a year, for a total return of 11%-13%. meaning that you get the best of both worlds.These are called dividend growth stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "180e6d94451418039726e6417a0faa49", "text": "First, what Daniel Carson said. Second, if you're getting started, just make sure you are well diversified. Lots of growth stocks turn into dividend stocks over time-- Microsoft and Apple are the classic examples in this era. Someday, Google will pay a dividend too. If you're investing for the long haul, diversify and watch your taxes, and you'll make out better than nearly everyone else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "283abe2bf7ba643264d43d27a0f39044", "text": "A lot of people use dividend stocks as a regular income, which is why dividend stocks are often associated with retirement. If your goal is growth and you're reinvesting capital gains and dividends then investing growth stocks or dividend stocks should have the same effect. The only difference would be if you are manually reinvesting dividends, which could incur extra trading fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a441a35f5ea8b2a32692d8b7d32d6a20", "text": "\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7634073cc528cda9424fbd7a8253d95e", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12ba592d2f049943973920988ce2b57c", "text": "The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d65e2d5329fa3d2f3b1c4b2a853847b7", "text": "\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0a96be69a097f0ddb3916ff126d5baa", "text": "The reason that you are advised to take more risk while you are young is because the risk is often correlated to a short investment horizon. Young people have 40-50 years to let their savings grow if they get started early enough. If you need the money in 5-15 years (near the end of your earning years), there is much more risk of a dip that will not correct itself before you need the money than if you don't need the money for 25-40 years (someone whose career is on the rise). The main focus for the young should be growth. Hedging your investments with gold might be a good strategy for someone who is worried about the volatility of other investments, but I would imagine that gold will only reduce your returns compared to small-cap stocks, for example. If you are looking for more risk, you can leverage some of your money and buy call options to increase the gains with upward market moves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e05a30c4c2dd0cf27738493f5d1a2b47", "text": "This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a60299283d4304455f80044b59c59161", "text": "Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more. If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31ddc4ebffed415c057593a0a676c33a", "text": "Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks'). Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different. They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks. (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets. Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2", "text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dcda72e44ad0126ba5ec11ec96b37e3", "text": "Check out the questions about why stock prices are what they are. In a nutshell, a stock's value is based on the future prospects of the company. Generally speaking, if a growth company is paying a dividend, that payment is going to negatively affect the growth of the business. The smart move is to re-invest that capital and make more money. As a shareholder, you are compensated by a rising stock price. When a stock isn't growing quickly, a dividend is a better way for a stockholder to realize value. If a gas and electric company makes a billion dollars, investing that money back into the company is not going to yield a large return. And since those types of companies don't really grow too much, the stocks typically trade in a range and don't see the type of appreciation that a growth stock will. So it makes sense to pay out the dividend to the shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df51baa716fa4162186729d8475b8167", "text": "\"The Dividend Discount Model is based on the concept that the present value of a stock is the sum of all future dividends, discounted back to the present. Since you said: dividends are expected to grow at a constant rate in perpetuity ... the Gordon Growth Model is a simple variant of the DDM, tailored for a firm in \"\"steady state\"\" mode, with dividends growing at a rate that can be sustained forever. Consider McCormick (MKC), who's last dividend was 31 cents, or $1.24 annualized. The dividend has been growing just a little over 7% annually. Let's use a discount, or hurdle rate of 10%. MKC closed today at $50.32, for what it's worth. The model is extremely sensitive to inputs. As g approaches r, the stock price rises to infinity. If g > r, stock goes negative. Be conservative with 'g' -- it must be sustainable forever. The next step up in complexity is the two-stage DDM, where the company is expected to grow at a higher, unsustainable rate in the early years (stage 1), and then settling down to the terminal rate for stage 2. Stage 1 is the present value of dividends during the high growth period. Stage 2 is the Gordon Model, starting at the end of stage 1, and discounting back to the present. Consider Abbott Labs (ABT). The current annual dividend is $1.92, the current dividend growth rate is 12%, and let's say that continues for ten years (n), after which point the growth rate is 5% in perpetuity. Again, the discount rate is 10%. Stage 1 is calculated as follows: Stage 2 is GGM, using not today's dividend, but the 11th year's dividend, since stage 1 covered the first ten years. 'gn' is the terminal growth, 5% in our case. then... The value of the stock today is 21.22 + 51.50 = 72.72 ABT closed today at $56.72, for what it's worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d508d155637deec50c60a2ca1ee444b", "text": "\"Dividend paying stocks are not \"\"better\"\" In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations. The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares. Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field. IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edda35fcb15185c95e9989ac80f206f2", "text": "25% isnt high growth for tech. Amazon does not fund itself from earnings and any improvement in its inventory turns will accelerate its growth capacity. On the other hand, I would love to hear your choice of valuation method for high-growth companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ddaeefedd377e0765564f49d50c76b3", "text": "\"It has little to do with money or finance. It's basic neuroscience. When we get money, our brains release dopamine (read Your Money and Your Brain), and receiving dividends is \"\"getting money.\"\" It feels good, so we're more likely to do it again. What you often see are rationalizations because the above explanation sounds ... irrational, so many people want to make their behavior look more rational. Ceteris paribus a solid growth stock is as good as a solid company that pays dividends. In value-investing terms, dividend paying stocks may appear to give you an advantage in that you can keep the dividends in cash and buy when the price of the security is low (\"\"underpriced\"\"). However, as you realize, you could just sell the growth stock at certain prices and the effect would be the same, assuming you're using a free brokerage like Robin Hood. You can easily sell just a portion of the shares periodically to get a \"\"stream of cash\"\" like dividends. That presents no problem whatsoever, so this cannot be the explanation to why some people think it is \"\"smart\"\" to be a dividend investor. Yes, if you're using a brokerage like Robin Hood (there may be others, but I think this is the only one right now), then you are right on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54284d2a3c8a95d3298247d368e50224", "text": "\"The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) has this bit to note: The returns of small growth stocks are ridiculously low—just 2.18 percent per year since 1927 (versus 17.47 percent for small value, 10.06 percent for large growth, and 13.99 percent for large value). Where the S & P 500 would be a blend of large-cap growth and value so does that meet your \"\"beat the market over the long term\"\" as 1927-1999 would be long for most people.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3149270826356975b301bd95c0ebabf6", "text": "\"This question is predicated on the assumption that investors prefer dividends, as this depends on who you're speaking to. Some investors prefer growth stocks (some which don't pay dividends), so in this case, we're covering the percent of investors who like dividend paying stocks. It depends on who you ask and it also depends on how self-aware they are because some people may give reasons that make little financial sense. The two major benefits that I hear are fundamentally psychological: Dividends are like mini-paychecks. Since people get a dopamine jolt from receiving a paycheck, I would predict the same holds true for receiving dividends. More than likely, the brain feels a reward when getting dividends; even if the dividend stock performs lower than a growth stock for a decade, the experience of receiving dividends may feel more rewarding (plus, depending on the institution, they may get a report or see the tax information for the year, and that also feels good). Some value investors don't reinvest dividends, as they believe the price of the stock matters (stocks are either cheap or expensive and automatic reinvestment to these investors implies that the price of a stock doesn't matter), so dividends allow them to rebuild their cash after a buy. They can either buy more shares, if the stock is cheap, or keep the cash if the stock is expensive. Think about Warren Buffett here: he purchased $3 billion worth of shares of Wells Fargo at approximately $8-12 a share in 2009 (from my memory, as people were shocked that be bought into a bank when no one liked banks). Consider how much money he makes from dividends off that purchase alone and if he were to currently believe Wells Fargo was overpriced, he could keep the cash and buy something else he believes is cheaper. In these cases, dividends automatically build cash cushions post buying and many value investors believe that one should always have cash on hand. This second point is a little tricky because it can involve risk assessment: some investors believe that high dividend paying stocks, like MO, won't experience the huge declines of indexes like the SPY. MO routed the SPY in 2009 (29% vs. 19%) and these investors believe that's because it's yield was too desired (it feels safer to them - the index side would argue \"\"but what happens in the long run?\"\"). The problem I have with this argument (which is frequent) is that it doesn't hold true for every high yield stock, though some high yield stocks do show strong resistance levels during bear markets.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a087468cdab42d44a74f7d262a0fbdee	What is a typical investment portfolio made up of?	[ { "docid": "f5fb93b7a5cd0209d2b227983b37eb21", "text": "Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2106c31d84b4c18a5fd0a1c91430e2b5", "text": "Paying off the high-interest debt is a good first start. Paying interest, or compound interest on debt is like paying somebody to make you poor. As for your 401k, you want to contribute enough to get the full match from your employer. You might also consider checking out the fees associated with your 401k with an online fee analyzer. If it turns out you're getting reamed with fees, you can reduce them by fiddling with your investments. Checking your investment options is always a good idea since jobs frequently change them. Opening an IRA is a good call. If you're eligible for both Roth and Traditional IRAs, consider the following: Most financial institutions (brokers or banks) can help you open an IRA in a matter of minutes. If you shop around, you will find very cheap or even no fee options. Many brokers might try to get your business by giving away something for ‘free.' Just make sure you read the fine print so you understand the conditions of their promotional offer. Whichever IRA you choose, you want to make sure that it's managed properly. Some people might say, ‘go for it, do it yourself’ but I strongly disagree with that approach. Stock picking is a waste of time and market timing rarely works. I'd look into flat fee financial advisors. You have lots of options. Just make sure they hear you out, and can design/execute an investment plan specific to your needs At a minimum, they should: Hope this is helpful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fec87ba98c65968d2530af5cf61d076", "text": "\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ea3fa55dc99d74165a2688fa631cbe1", "text": "Don't over think about your choices. The most important thing to start now and keep adjusting and tuning your portfolio as you move along in your life. Each individual's situation is unique. Start with something simple and straight forward, like 100 - your age, in Total Stock market Index fund and the remaining total bond market index fund. For your 401k, at least contribute so much as to get the maximum employer match. Its always good if you can contribute the yearly maximum in your 401k or IRA. Once you have built up a substantial amount of assets (~ $50k+) then its time to think more about asset allocation and start buying into more specific investments as needed. Remember to keep your investment expenses low by using index funds. Also remember to factor in tax implications on your investment decisions. eg. buying an REIT fund in a tax advantaged account like 40k is more tax efficient than buying it in a normal brokerage account.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e4cbddfaee0024ce7a0ec84c4ca73a32", "text": "You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78324133f5ee24f7ae0dc6de65f65c25", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cde469018b3cfb591796938d77a8ff2d", "text": "I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c6894948ead5872e579b7d433107eba", "text": "At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2s and m+2s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2SD(R) and E(R)+2SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edc663e7d0c90c031d359caf3f23ca44", "text": "\"The standard measure of risk is the variance of the asset. The return on investment of the asset is understood as a random variable with a particular distribution. One can make inferences about the underlying distribution using historical data. As you say, this is what the quants do. There are other, more sophisticated measures of risk that allow for such things as skewed distributions and Markov switching. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest starting with the foundations of Modern Portfolio Theory: \"\"Portfolio Selection\"\" by Harry Markowitz and \"\"Capital Asset Prices\"\" by William Sharpe.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "883e13003661c691b6adae423ffef8b1", "text": "\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36006f966011491e35cf6577dfab4990", "text": "\"DJIA is a price weighted index (as in the amount of each component company is weighted by its price) and the constituents change occasionally (51 times so far). With these two effects you would not get anything like the same return by equally weighting your holdings and would have to rebalance every so often. Note that your premise was most obviously flawed thinking the number of near bankruptcies there have been in that time. More details of the differing make-ups of the index are available on Wikipedia. When you ask about the \"\"average investment\"\" you would have to be a lot more specific; is it limited just to US shares, to shares, to shares and fixed income securities, should I include all commodities, etc. see also What's the justification for the DJIA being share-price weighted?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "958bc50fb642ea1196eccc7d99737758", "text": "Given that hedge funds and trading firms employ scores of highly intelligent analysts, programmers, and managers to game the market, what shot does the average person have at successful investing in the stock market? Good question and the existing answers provide valuable insight. I will add one major ingredient to successful investing: emotion. The analysts and experts that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or the best hedge funds employ may have some of the most advanced analytical skills in the world, but knowing and doing still greatly differ. Consider how many of these same companies and funds thought real estate was a great buy before the housing bubble. Why? FOMO (fear of missing out; what some people call greed). One of my friends purchased Macy's and Las Vegas Sands in 2009 at around $5 for M and $2 for LVS. He never graduated high school, so we might (foolishly) refer to him as below average because he's not as educated as those individuals at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. Today M sits around $40 a share and LVS at around $70. Those returns in five years. The difference? Emotion. He holds little attachment to money (lives on very little) and thus had the freedom to take a chance, which to him didn't feel like a chance. In a nutshell, his emotions were in the right place and he studied a little bit about investing (read two article) and took action. Most of the people who I know, which easily had quintuple his wealth and made significantly more than he did, didn't take a chance (even on an index fund) because of their fear of loss. I mean everyone knows to buy low, right? But how many actually do? So knowing what to do is great; just be sure you have the courage to act on what you know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20f359098fd69ea33661b6f8f5533514", "text": "Google Portfolio does the job: https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio You can add transaction data, view fundamentals and much more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1015ffe029820bd6079017d96a071be", "text": "Like an S&P 500 ETF? So you're getting in some cash inflow each day, cash outflows each day. And you have to buy and sell 500 different stocks, at the same time, in order for your total fund assets to match the S&P 500 index proportions, as much as possible. At any given time, the prices you get from the purchase/sale of stock is probably going to be somewhat different than the theoretical amounts you are supposed to get to match, so it's quite a tangle. This is my understanding of things. Some funds are simpler - a Dow 30 fund only has 30 stocks to balance out. Maybe that's easier, or maybe it's harder because one wonky trade makes a bigger difference? I'm not sure this is how it really operates. The closest I've gotten is a team that has submitted products for indexing, and attempted to develop funds from those indexes. Turns out finding the $25-50 million of initial investments isn't as easy as anyone would think.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b", "text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f22e794d25699e76013708b1fc5884b6", "text": "Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments. The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser. Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates. And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619", "text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "198ed04523c8fccd9e40079232c52c8f", "text": "There is no typical return for an IRA. Understand that an IRA is not an investment type, it is just an account that gets special tax treatment by the Federal Government. The money in the IRA could be invested in almost anything including Gold, Stocks, Bonds, Cash, CDs, etc. So the question as phrased isn't exactly meaningful. It is kind of like asking what is the typical price of things if I use $10 bills. As for a 10.6% annualized return on your portfolio. That's not a bad return. At that rate you will double your investment (with compounding) every 7.2 years. Again, however, some context is needed. You can really only evaluate investment returns with your risk profile in mind. If you are invested in super safe investments like CDs, that is an absolutely incredible return. You compare it to several indexes, which is a good way to do it if you are investing in the types of investments tracked by those indexes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef25a6623be4b8f0fea3b10714130202", "text": "Have a look at: Diversify Portfolio. The site provides various tools all focused on correlation, diversification and portfolio construction. You can scan through every stock and ETF listed on the NASDAQ and NYSE to find any kind of correlation you're looking for. You can also create a portfolio and then analyze all the correlations within it, or search for specific stocks that can be added to the portfolio based on correlation and various other factors.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
63fe146ae80edcb3c7c9b72f643ea78e	Should I Use an Investment Professional?	[ { "docid": "e480dd601db84fd15ba11dc4b9f24b1e", "text": "People ... are nearly twice as likely to ... feel confident Great, confidence is amazing. That and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee. 44% [who hired a pro] have $100K or more [vs.] 9% of DIYers There's no way to examine these numbers without a link to the source, but it stands to reason that if you have a plan that you're sticking to you'll save more money than if you are just investing haphazardly. It's too bad that we can't see what the returns are for those using a pro vs. DIYers. That would be much more valuable than an arbitrary dollar level. Unfortunately $100K isn't really that much money if you live in the US, so it's an irrelevant talking point. The real question is whether investment knowledge is readily available to the masses or if having a person who specializes in finance is required to make good decisions about investment. I think the fact that the conventional wisdom prefers index funds to actively managed funds demonstrates that investment professionals are less useful than they might have been even a decade or two ago. If money should be spent on professional advice, it's probably better spent on CPAs or other tax professionals who can help optimize your investments for tax efficiency, though even that is now available as more common knowledge.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87257c9e7676b1f5e305e8799e0c1dba", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91fb261fb43c7a6e952181591f1f09fb", "text": "\"Ask yourself the same question for furniture making. Would you feel more comfortable sitting in a chair that you made yourself versus one that you bought from a furniture store? How about one that you bought from IKEA and assembled? For an experienced, competent furniture maker, you might be able to make an equivalent chair for less money and be highly confident. For a \"\"DIY\"\" builder, you might be less confident but be willing to take more of a risk with the possibility of making a good chair for less money (and gain experience on what not to do next time). The same applies to investing - if you are highly confident in your own abilities, DIY investing may work better for you. For the \"\"general population\"\", however, relying on experts to do the hard work (and paying a little more for their services) is probably a better option and gives you more confidence. As for the second quote, I'm note sure there's a causality there. If anything, I think it's the other way around - people who have more money saved for retirement are more likely to use investment advisors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6887793c18bd7e32a144e27a4c402c77", "text": "I am sure there would be many views on the above topic, my take is that DIY takes the following: Now, for many, one or more of the other factors are missing. In this case, it is probably best to go for a financial adviser. There are others who have some of the above in place and are interested but probably cannot spend enough time. For them a middle ground of Mutual Funds probably is a good choice. Here they get to choose the fund they invest in and the fund manager manages the fund. For the people who have the above more or less in place and also are willing to take risk and learn, they probably can do a DIY for a while and find out the actual result. Just my views and opinion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f3d40924805aae62ffe3085c2320a24", "text": "\"Even if we accept these claims as being true, neither the fact that their clients are more confident, nor the fact that people who use an investment professional have a higher net worth tells you anything about the value of the service that such professionals provide. Judging a service provider is a complex matter where you take into account multiple variables but the main ones are the cost and quality of the service, the cost and quality of doing it yourself and the value you assign to your time and effort. I think it's highly likely that professional gardeners will on average maintain larger gardens than those who do their own garden work. And any professional will have more experience at his profession than an average member of the public. But to determine if hiring a professional is objectively \"\"better\"\" requires defining what that word means. Finance is a bit weird in that respect since we actually do have objective ways of measuring results by looking at performance over time. But since the quotes you give here don't address that at all, we can simply conclude that they do not make the case for anything related to financial performance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3e79a97b30ad341e174195a9a08cc48", "text": "Agree with the above poster regarding causation vs. correlation. Unless you can separate out the variables questions like this are somewhat impossible to answer. Additionally, one of the fundamental issues is the Agency Problem. Depending on the fee structure the advisor might be more interested in their own self benefit then yours.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fed007efb508a5594f917b352526261e", "text": "Yes. The investment world is extremely fast-paced and competitive. There are loads of professional traders with supercomputers working day in and day out to make smarter, faster trade decisions than you. If you try to compete with them, there’s a better than fair chance you’ll lose precious time and money, which kind of defeats the purpose. A good wealth manager: In short, they can save you time and money and help you take the most advantage of your current savings. Or, you can think about it in terms of cost. Most wealth managers charge an annual fee (as a % of the amount invested) for their services. This fee can range anywhere from close to zero, to 0.75% depending upon how sophisticated the strategy is that the money will be invested in, and what kind of additional services they have to offer. Investing in the S&P500 on the behalf of the investor shouldn’t need a fee, but investing in a smart beta or an alpha strategy, that generates returns independent of the market’s movement and certainly commands a fee. But how does one figure if that fee is justified? It is really simple. What is the risk-adjusted performance of the strategy? What is the Sharpe ratio? Large successful funds like Renaissance Technologies and Citadel can charge 3% in addition to 30% of profits because even after that their returns are much better than the market. I have this rule of thumb for money-management fees that I am willing to pay:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0da5a63664d01ab153188b5ba37b058e", "text": "\"If by \"\"can we trust the analyst recommendations\"\" you mean \"\"are they right 100% of the time\"\" the answer is absolutely no. Analysts are human and make mistakes, some more than others. There are many stories of \"\"superstar managers\"\" that make killings for several straight years, then have a few bad years and lose it all back. However, don't take \"\"you can't trust them\"\" to mean that they are nefarious in some way. While there may be some that recommend stocks for selfish purposes, I suspect that the vast majority are just going off what information they have, and can't predict market behavior or future performance with perfect accuracy. Look at many analysts' recommendations. Do your own analysis. If you're still not comfortable buying individual stocks, then don't buy them. Buy index funds if you are satisfied with market returns, or other mutual funds if you want to invest in specific sectors. Or at the very least make sure you are sufficiently diversified so that you don't lose your entire investment by one bad decision. One rule of thumb is to not have more than 10% of your entire portfolio in any one company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "491a99aedc99af76a8cbdc0058b69d22", "text": "Investing is good. Insurance when you have something to insure is good. But using a single account for investing and insurance is not so good. You need to determine how much you need to invest for retirement. You also need to determine if you need life insurance. As a single person you might determine that you don't have a great need for life insurance. If you get married, or have kids, your needs may grow. So you will want to revisit your decisions every so often. You may need to save for retirement, or setup a college fund. You may need to protect your spouse or children in case you die. It doesn't seem to make sense to invest and insure in a plan with complicated rules, fees and schedules. What happens if in 3 years you need to blow it up and start over? What surrender charges will they hit you with?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd64e0364d2155994fb14edafa14b040", "text": "You should ensure that your broker is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). SIPC protects the cash and securities in your brokerage account much like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects bank deposits. Securities are protected with a limit of $500,000 USD. Cash is protected with a limit of $250,000 USD. It should be noted that SIPC does not protect investors against loss of value or bad advice. As far as having multiple brokerage accounts for security, I personally don’t think it’s necessary to have multiple accounts for that reason. Depending on account or transaction fees, it might not hurt to have multiple accounts. It can actually be beneficial to have multiple accounts so long as each account serves a purpose in your overall financial plan. For example, I have three brokerage accounts, each of which serves a specific purpose. One provides low cost stock and bond transactions, another provides superior market data, and the third provides low cost mutual fund transactions. If you’re worried about asset security, there are a few things you can do to protect yourself. I would recommend you begin by consulting a qualified financial advisor about your risk profile. You stated that a considerable portion of your total assets are in securities. Depending on your risk profile and the amount of your net worth held in securities, you might be better served by moving your money into lower risk asset classes. I’m not an attorney or a financial advisor. This is not legal advice or financial advice. You can and should consult your own attorney and financial advisor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f43694d6b791a3c2cd5acf2302cdeffa", "text": "Investopedia does have tutorials about investments in different asset classes. Have you read them ? If you had heard of CFA, you can read their material if you can get hold of it or register for CFA. Their material is quite extensive and primarily designed for newbies. This is one helluva book and advice coming from persons who have showed and proved their tricks. And the good part is loads of advice in one single volume. And what they would suggest is probably opposite of what you would be doing in a hedge fund. And you can always trust google to fish out resources at the click of a button.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ae55bf06b5b29598b4932492d995608", "text": "\"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60935e537431524f993dfcf5f2c5a13a", "text": "Go with a Vanguard ETF. I had a lengthy discussion with a successful broker who runs a firm in Chicago. He boiled all of finance down to Vanguard ETF and start saving with a roth IRA. 20 years of psychology research shows that there's a .01 correlation (that's 1/100 of 1%) of stock/mutual fund performance to prediction. That's effectively zero. You can read more about it in the book Thinking Fast and Slow. Investors have ignored this research for years. The truth is you'd be just as successful if you picked your mutual funds out of a hat. But I'll recommend you go with a broker's advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ca39ebe5195ff60e6057e66b8c62a6", "text": "Since you seem to be interested in investing in individual stocks, this answer will address that. As for the general question of investing, the answer that @johnfx gave is just about as good as it gets. Investing in individual stocks is extremely risky and takes a LOT of work to do right. On top of the fairly obvious need to research a stock before you buy, there is the matter of keeping up with the stocks to know when you need to sell as well as myriad other facets of investing. Paid professionals spend all day, every day, doing this and they have a hard time beating an index fund. Unless you take the time to educate yourself and are willing to continually put in a good bit of effort, I would advise you to stay away from individual stocks and rely on mutual funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cd9c2b35628903a560ac635280aedbe", "text": "It depends on whether you want a career as a fund manager/ analyst or if you want to be an investor/ trader. A fund manager will have many constraints that a private investor doesn’t have, as they are managing other people’s money. If they do invest their own money as well they usually would invest it differently from how they invest the fund's money. Many would just get someone else to invest their money for them, just as a surgeon would get another surgeon to operate on a family member. My suggestion to you is to find a job you like doing and build up your savings. Whilst you are building up your savings read some books. You said you don’t know much about the financial markets, then learn about them. Get yourself a working knowledge about both fundamental and technical analysis. Work out which method of analysis (if not both) suits you best and you would like to know more about. As you read you will get a better idea if you prefer to be a long term investor or a short term trader or somewhere in-between or a combination of various methods. Now you will start to get an idea of what type of books and areas of analysis you would like to concentrate on. Once you have a better idea of what you would like to do and have gained some knowledge, then you can develop your investment/trading plan and start paper trading. Once you are happy with you plan and your paper trading you can start trading with a small account balance (not more than $10,000 and preferably under $5,000). No matter how well you did with paper trading you will always do worse with real money at first due to your emotions being in it now. So always start off small. If you want to become good at something it takes time and a lot of hard work. You can’t go from knowing nothing to making a million dollars per year without putting in the hard yards first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aac3d7275a71c19714675cdce0db0350", "text": "Most individuals do not need a personal financial advisor. If you are soon entering the world of work, your discretionary investments should be focused on index funds that you commit to over the long run. Indeed, the best advice I would give to anyone just starting out would be: For most average young workers, a financial advisor will just give you some version of the information above, but will change you for it. I would not recommend a financial advisor as a necessity until you have seriously complicated taxes. Your taxes will not be complicated. Save your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "542c6fa0b2b840983295e6ed8c709c4e", "text": "It doesn't matter which way you use. As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters. (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "beed71391be81e99b6336575872a510f", "text": "Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "516c2d122e4ea621f52e35fbf8647cce", "text": "My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage. So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily. Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future. On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A. Let's say you lose your job a year from now. Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed. But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it. People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a452388558c5efe9cfa6b7e1088836e9", "text": "\"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. Think about incentives. If you wanted an investment where your losses were only half as bad, but your gains were only half as good, then you could just invest half your assets in a risk-free investment. So if you want this hypothetical instrument because you want a different risk profile, you don't actually need anything new to get it. And what does the fund manager get out of this arrangement? She doesn't get anything you don't: she just gets half your gains, most of which she needs to set aside to be able to pay half your losses. The discrepancy between the gains and losses she gets to keep, which is exactly equal to your gain or loss. She could just invest her own money to get the same thing. But wait -- the fund manager didn't need to provide any capital. She got to play with your money (for free!) and keep half the profits. Not a bad deal, for her, perhaps... Here's the problem: No one cares about your thousands of dollars. The costs of dealing with you: accounting for your share, talking to you on the phone, legal expenses when you get angry, the paperwork when you need to make a withdrawal for some dental work, mailing statements and so on will exceed the returns that could be earned with your thousands of dollars. And then the SEC would probably get involved with all kinds of regulations so you, with your humble means and limited experience, isn't constantly getting screwed over by the big fund. Complying with the SEC is going to cost the fund manager something. The fund manager would have to charge a small \"\"administrative fee\"\" to make it worthwhile. And that's called a mutual fund. But if you have millions of free capital willing to give out, people take notice. Is there an instrument where a bunch of people give a manager capital for free, and then the investors and the manager share in the gains and losses? Yes, hedge funds! And this is why only the rich and powerful can participate in them: only they have enough capital to make this arrangement beneficial for the fund manager.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "901f587ef6b4da5a2caa0612bf66b160", "text": "I think following the professional money managers is a strategy worth considering. The buys from your favorite investors can be taken as strong signals. But you should never buy any stock blindly just because someone else bought it. Be sure do your due diligence before the purchase. The most important question is not what they bought, but why they bought it and how much. To add/comment on Freiheit's points:", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e308340c8064ce94411c52c55d1e89bf	I am trying to start a “hedge fund,” and by that, I really just mean I have a very specific and somewhat simple investment thesis that I want to	[ { "docid": "94df20a3803d4faadf3eb4d71a9339f1", "text": "\"Kudos for wanting to start your own business. Now let's talk reality. Unless you already have some kind of substantial track record of successful investing to show potential investors, what you want to do will never happen, and that's just giving you the honest truth. There are extensive regulatory requirements for starting any kind of public investment vehicle, and meeting them costs money. You can be your own hedge fund with your own money and avoid all of this if you like. Keep in mind that a \"\"hedge fund\"\" is little more than someone who is contrarian to the market and puts their money where their mouth is. (I know, some of you will argue this is simplistic, and you'd be right, but I'm deliberately avoiding complexity for the moment) The simple truth is that nobody is going to just give you their money to invest unless, for starters, you can show that you're any good at it (and for the sake of it we'll assume you've had success in the markets), and (perhaps most importantly) you have \"\"skin in the game\"\", meaning you have a substantial investment of your own in the fund too. You might have a chance at creating something if you can show that whatever your hedge fund proposes to invest in isn't already overrun by other hedge funds. At the moment, there are more mutual and hedge funds out there than there are securities for them to invest in, so they're basically all fighting over the same pie. You must have some fairly unique opportunity or approach that nobody else has or has even considered in order to begin attracting money to a new fund these days. And that's not easy, trust me. There is no short or easy path to what you want to do, and perhaps if you want to toy around with it a bit, find some friends who are willing to invest based on your advice and/or picks. If you develop a track record of success then perhaps you could more seriously consider doing what you propose, and in the meanwhile you can look into the requirements for laying the foundations toward your goal. I hope you don't find my answer cruel, because it isn't meant to be. I am all about encouraging people to succeed, but it has to start with a realistic expectation. You have a great thought, but there's a wide gulf from concept to market and no quick or simple way to bridge it. Here's a link to a web video on how to start your own hedge fund, if you want to look into it more deeply: How To Legally Start A Hedge Fund (From the Investopedia website) Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a", "text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d356e065a65de9c35e9d108e23d322f2", "text": "2 + 20 isn't really a investment style, more of a management style. As CTA I don't have specific experience in the Hedge Fund industry but they are similar. For tech stuff, you may want to check out Interactive Brokers. As for legal stuff, with a CTA you need to have power of attorney form, disclosure documents, risk documents, fees, performance, etc. You basically want to cover your butt and make sure clients understand everything. For regulatory compliance and rules, you would have to consult your apporiate regulatory body. For a CTA its the NFA/CFTC. You should look at getting licensed to provide crediabilty. For a CTA it would be the series 3 license at the very least and I can provide you with a resource for study guides and practice test taking for ALL licenses. I can provide a brief step by step guide later on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d90eee831074d1ae1186eafdfeef3179", "text": "\"One topic that I've been trying to learn more about is the affects of the low interest rates on businesses and the economy from quantitative easing. Due to the amount of \"\"free money\"\" corporations have received over the last 5 years there has been a few interesting consequences. There are several corporations that have borrowed money at little to no interest with the feds intentions of seeing it go back into the economy however instead corporations have used it to buy back stock which was not necessarily the plan in the first place. You could definitely have a unique thesis written about something within that flow of funds. If that makes no sense apologies stupid undergrad here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b", "text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bc74e62ca904c2fa211d9e6970e0eab", "text": "Technically a hedge fund is nothing more than a private investment partnership. I was my own full time employee, with investment partners. I traded for years, and own(ed) another business which was already more than paying all my bills, so why not start a hedge fund, doing something else I loved to generate additional income, and hopefully, someday, make it to the big leagues?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45b1a38690b63fd53c9704a2b7767d55", "text": "\"Assuming this is real, the Q's (QQQ) is an ETF that tracks the Nasdaq-100. It would be the approximate equivalent of saying \"\"Just put your money in SPY\"\" or any other ETF. I didn't see the thread in question (looks like it was in /r/personalfinance not /r/finance; so, not the \"\"rules\"\" here), but my guess is people down voted you (and you were eventually removed by the mod) for \"\"low effort\"\", which simply stating \"\"Put your money in an ETF\"\" could possibly be construed as. That said, the top rated comment in that thread did suggest putting some portion of the funds in an ETF, it's just rarely an appropriate answer for all of someone's investment capital.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a40781c6cc6216df49c39206af5610c", "text": "\"Thanks for the info, things are starting to make more sense now. For some reason I've always neglected learning about investments, now that Im in a position to invest (and am still fairly young) I'm motivated to start learning. As for help with TD Ameritrade, I was looking into Index Funds (as another commenter mentioned that I should) on their site and am a little overwhelmed with the options. First, I'm looking at Mutual Funds, going to symbol lookup and using type = \"\"indeces\"\". I'm assuming that's the same thing as an \"\"Index Fund\"\" but since the language is slightly different I'm not 100% sure. However, at that point I need some kind of search for a symbol in order to see any results (makes sense, but I dont know where to start looking for \"\"good\"\" index funds). So my first question is: If I FIND a good mutual fund, is it correct to simply go to \"\"Buy Mutual Funds\"\" and find it from there? and if so, my second question is: How do I find a good mutual fund? My goal is to have my money in something that will likely grow faster than a savings account. I don't mind a little volatility, I can afford to lose my investment, I'd plan on leaving my money in the fund for a several years at least. My last question is: When investing in these types of funds (or please point me in another direction if you think Index Funds aren't the place for me to start) should I be reinvesting in the funds, or having them pay out dividends? I would assume that reinvesting is the smart choice, but I can imagine situations that might change that in order to mitigate risk...and as I've said a few times in this thread including the title, I'm a complete amateur so my assumptions aren't necessarily worth that much. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate all the info so far.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d6f870f48d0f4bf8e0c576af96e9095", "text": "\"I'd argue the two words ought to (in that I see this as a helpful distinction) describe different activities: \"\"Investing\"\": spending one's money in order to own something of value. This could be equipment (widgets, as you wrote), shares in a company, antiques, land, etc. It is fundamentally an act of buying. \"\"Speculating\"\": a mental process in which one attempts to ascertain the future value of some good. Speculation is fundamentally an act of attempted predicting. Under this set of definitions, one can invest without speculating (CDs...no need for prediction) and speculate without investing (virtual investing). In reality, though, the two often go together. The sorts of investments you describe are speculative, that is, they are done with some prediction in mind of future value. The degree of \"\"speculativeness\"\", then, has to be related to the nature of the attempted predictions. I've often seen that people say that the \"\"most speculative\"\" investments (in my use above, those in which the attempted prediction is most chaotic) have these sorts of properties: And there are probably other ideas that can be included. Corrections/clarifications welcome! P.S. It occurs to me that, actually, maybe High Frequency Trading isn't speculative at all, in that those with the fastest computers and closest to Wall Street can actually guarantee many small returns per hour due to the nature of how it works. I don't know enough about the mechanics of it to be sure, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43365c974a9498c87b911d593b9ced47", "text": "Mutual Funds are relatively evaluated and this is likely what you want. Your answer is likely the information ratio. If your interested, Active Portfolio Management by Grinold, Kahn is probably a good book to read. That being said, hedge funds will generally have absolute mandates and will be more likely to use a sharpe ratio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a146fdf08da2e1eb362314864ea79faf", "text": "All of this makes perfect sense and I can definitely see the logic behind it. But I don't think Hedge Funds are the way to go. The real money lies in real estate, more specifically land-banking. The problem, though, is that a lot of land-banking investments are really just scams and it's really hard to tell which ones are real and which ones are fake.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b683b5c56dadebd966fea31964fadf1", "text": "\"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost). It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either. One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what \"\"traditionally\"\" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates? Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40. As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely. I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed8ac5cafaa4a0d9cf5ad7b74ff04938", "text": "\"As other people have posted starting with \"\"fictional money\"\" is the best way to test a strategy, learn about the platform you are using, etc. That being said I would about how Fundamental Analysis works . Fundamental Analysis is the very basis of learning about an assets true value is priced. However in my humble opinion, I personally just stick with Index funds. In layman's terms Index Funds are essentially computer programs that buy or sell the underlying assets based on the Index they are associated with in the portion of the underlying index. Therefore you will usually be doing as good or as bad as the market. I personally have the background, education, and skillsets to build very complex models to do fundamental analysis but even I invest primarily in index funds because a well made and well researched stock model could take 8 hours or more and Modern Portfolio Theory would suggest that most investors will inevitably have a regression to the mean and have gains equal to the market rate or return over time. Which is what an index fund already does but without the hours of work and transaction cost.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03fae21fae9758209c96b5f5b74ad594", "text": "Man who made fortune as hedge fund, active investor decries passive investment. Shocker. Even if passive investment was a bad thing, which I don't think it is, wouldn't it result in a less efficient allocation of capital, allowing for more opportunities for active investors?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3947d4b6cc5d4b0c7caa6eab42a99285", "text": "Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cedbdc99a922a2cb2d174e2739d79074", "text": "The Khan Academy has a huge series on finance (Sal Khan used to work at a hedge fund before he started his magnum opus): http://www.khanacademy.org/#core-finance Some are pretty basic stuff, but he does have some interesting commentary and snippets of more interesting topics. They're all very low-commitment and bite-sized.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4731277261774ff58c24662576cba182	What factors you have do you count on to speculate effectively?	[ { "docid": "81c016998574efc6dbf2244659066d3b", "text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5dc7c6c4c4755343d23684696896d141", "text": "\"Well said. And I get it, really I do. Rational means something very specific in the theoretical model of EMH, and it's not the same way that \"\"rational\"\" is usually used. When a person actually gets to the point where he can trade on the stock market, you expect they would have information like \"\"know which stock you're trading\"\". Maybe these people didn't. And even if we assume people have perfect information, they still make mistakes. Regularly. Repeatedly. Sometimes predictably. And those mistakes can overwhelm the right-price-finding effect of EMH.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78ae8d2e3a6fd1e9b448c0e6d931e615", "text": "thanks for the advice, I still have few weeks before my master course starts and would like to do more reading regarding trading, any books that you would recommend ? Also I always assume that modelling skill is not that important in sales and trading, is my assumption correct ? Modelling is probably one of my weak skills but if it is needed I would like to work further on it thank you", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9feb3b7674d2e90e21edb01d70da252e", "text": "I'd say the opposite of hedging is speculating. If you are convinced an asset will appreciate in value, or rather the probability of gains is enough to induce you to hold the asset, you are a speculator. There are lots of ways of speculating, including holding risky assets without hedging that risk and possibly magnifying that risk and return via leverage or the embedded leverage in a derivative contract. Generally speaking, if in expectation you are paying to reduce your risk, you are a hedger. If you are (in expectation) being paid to bear the risk that otherwise someone else would bear, you are a speculator. The word speculation has been tainted by politicians and others trying to vilify the practice, but at the end of the day it's what we are all doing when we buy stock or any other risky asset.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cdb058b7288ffbea2090e1acee56472", "text": "Do You Consult Or Just Do The Job?….. For as long as I can remember I have always sought out information, knowledge, facts, figures. One of my ex-bosses once said to me that I could always be relied on to find untapped resources & deliver. This was when I was in my early 20′s & its a skill that I feel is vital for the success of any business. My second job, when I was 19yrs old was in an Advertising / PR company - I was the Secretary. Part of my remit was credit control & book-keeping, for some reason I was always naturally interested in sales units sold & values – then see how the total sales compared to the previous month / year. Little did I know, this was a good skill for Profit & Loss sheets in years to come!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab0c1e82e1e9f0cc6156e8c9f7686003", "text": "Well, yes. Lewis (and anybody) is presuming that you accept take advantage of good fortune. In his own example, though, he wasn't in any way prepared to go into finance. Having gotten there, and established himself even, he pitched it in favor of writing a book. Neither of those examples supports everyone calling luck the result of work plus brains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "819e593b222cf536ee9048d12356cb06", "text": "\"Be familiar with and able to verbally run through how to do a discounted cash flow analysis. Additionally be up to date with current financial market(s) trends, both domestically and globally. Know where the U.S bond yields are trading, and where they are going, interest rates too. Apart from that big picture stuff I wouldn't stress too much about technicals because he/she may not even ask about them at all if its more of a \"\"fit\"\" interview.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c12795e883710dd4847c9cedd4ede24", "text": "\"Suggest concretely writing out the 3-5 traits you're looking for, gaps you're looking to fill. Assign an acronym to each bullet. When you plan out your questions, write the acronym of the bullet you're looking to assess next to each Q. If none fit, you should seriously consider why you're asking the question. Here's some examples I used for a sales-related search: \"\"(PO) Process Orientation - Understands the anatomy of sales, stage breakdown and discrete steps in a sales process. (CR) Creativity - Doesn't need a well established playbook of scripts, processes to make deals happen. ...\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e151f96ccd054770a6a4f945657f69ae", "text": "Well, what I would do would be to read every journalist's article on the subject, every academic paper, and the appropriate chapters from the CFA curriculum. I'd write down everyone's name (authors and those mentioned) and then email call them for advice. I'd try to find out who those players are, what their specific philosophies are, and then find someone i thought was really smart, had an investment philosophy that I agreed with, wasn't a dick, and then I would call them. By the way, Warren Buffett went to Columbia to learn specifically under Ben Graham. Prior to graduation, Buffett said he'd like to work at Graham Newman for free, such was the value of the education. Benjamin Graham told him (Warren), he wasn't worth that much. You or I literally have nothing to offer these guys that they can't get somewhere else (smarts, hard work, etc) for better. I'd be humble, attentive, and humble (did I say that already). There's an intellectual honesty that comes with admitting you don't know anything (but are willing to learn) that is very much important. That's what I would do. Did any of that help?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb1cf8423107a911bd071f131354e0dc", "text": "If you are looking for money to speculate in the capital markets, then your brokers will already lend to you at a MUCH more favorable rate than an outside party will. For instance, with $4,000 you could EASILY control $40,000 with many brokers, at a 1% interest rate. This is 10:1 leverage, much like how US banks operate... every dollar that you deposit with them, they speculate with 10x as much. Interactive Brokers will do this for you with your current credit score. They are very reputable and clear through Goldman Sachs, so although reputable is subjective in the investment banking world, you won't have to worry the federal government raiding them or anything. If you are investing in currencies than you can easily do 50:1 leverage as an American, or 100:1 as anyone else. This means with only $400 dollars you can control $40,000 account. If you are investing in the futures market, then there are many many ways to double and triple and quadruple your leverage at the lowest interests rates. Any contract you enter into is a loan from the market. You have to understand, that if you did happen to have $40,000 of your own money, then you could get $4,000,000 account size for speculating, at 1% interest. Again, these are QUICK ways to lose your money and owe a lot more! So I'd really advise against it. A margin call in the futures market can destroy you. I advise you to just think more efficiently until you come up with a way to earn that much money initially, and then speculate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e565dff7908157a23a049aca8e6aa30", "text": "No, and using a 37 year old formula in finance that is as simple as: should make it obvious technical analysis is more of a game for retail traders than investment advice. When it comes to currencies, there are a myriad of macroeconomic occurrences that do not follow a predictable timescale. Using indicators like RSI on any time frame will not magically illuminate broad human psychology and give you an edge. It is theoretically possible for a single public stock's price to be driven by a range of technical traders who all buy at RSI 30 and sell at RSI 70, after becoming a favorite stock on social media, but it is infinitely more likely for all market participants to have completely different goals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fd096c812c0ad78c3fd458f3ed8988e", "text": "In fact markets are not efficient and participants are not rational. That is why we have booms and busts in markets. Emotions and psychology play a role when investors and/or traders make decisions, sometimes causing them to behave in unpredictable or irrational ways. That is why stocks can be undervalued or overvalued compared to their true value. Also, different market participants may put a different true value on a stock (depending on their methods of analysis and the information they use to base their analysis on). This is why there are always many opportunities to profit (or lose your money) in liquid markets. Doing your research, homework, or analysis can be related to fundamental analysis, technical analysis, or a combination of the two. For example, you could use fundamental analysis to determine what to buy and then use technical analysis to determine when to buy. To me, doing your homework means to get yourself educated, to have a plan, to do your analysis (both FA and TA), to invest or trade according to your plan and to have a risk management strategy in place. Most people are too lazy to do their homework so will pay someone else to do it for them or they will just speculate (on the latest hot tip) and lose most of their money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f005627c0a65c90c24df227befe02560", "text": "There's a grey area where investing and speculating cross. For some, the stock market, as in 10% long term return with about 14% standard deviation, is too risky. For others, not enough action. Say you have chosen 10 penny stocks, done your diligence, to the extent possible, and from a few dozen this is the 10 you like. I'd rather put $100 into each of 10 than to put all my eggs in one basket. You'll find that 3 might go up nicely, 3 will flounder around, and 4 will go under. The gambler mentality is if one takes off, you have a profit. After the crash of '08, buying both GM and Ford at crazy prices actually worked, GM stockholders getting nothing, but Ford surviving and now 7X what I bought it for. Remember, when you go to vegas, you don't drop all your chips on Red, you play blackjack/craps as long as you can, and get all the free drinks you can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "317fdf0e949f3e98c8a3d0b63e256340", "text": "I was referring to insider information as a seperate means of profiting. So I assumed: 1. Fundamental analysis/picking the direction 2. Insider information 3. Gaming the market (illiquid markets) If this is true. What makes a good market maker? Stoploss/takeprofit management and hope there are enough players in it not to win it (i.e. hedge positions) to take profit from? Sounds very luck base or is there something im missing? Thanks", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92ee9cadaa14d9d89f6ca7d5aaa4a99e", "text": "\"There are some assumptions which can be made in terms of the flexibility you have - I will start with the least flexible assumption and then move to more flexible assumptions. If you must put down a number 1, your go-to for this(\"\"Change the start period to 1\"\"), is pretty good, and it's used frequently for other divide-by-zero calculations like kda in a video game. The problem I have with '1' is that it doesn't allow you to handle various scales. Some problems are dealt with in thousands, some in fractions, and some in hundreds of millions. Therefore, you should change the start period to the smallest significantly measurable number you could reasonably have. Here, that would take your example 0 and 896 and give you an increase of 89,500%. It's not a great result, but it's the best you can hope for if you have to put down a number, and it allows you to keep some of the \"\"meaning in the change.\"\" If you absolutely must put something This is the assumption that most answers have taken - you can put down a symbol, a number with a notation, empty space, etc, but there is going to be a label somewhere called 'Growth' that will exist. I generally agree with what I've seen, particularly the answers from Benjamin Cuninghma and Nath. For the sake of preservation - those answers can be summarized as putting 'N/A' or '-', possibly with a footnote and asterisk. If you can avoid the measurement entirely The root of your question is \"\"What do my manager and investors expect to see?\"\" I think it's valuable to dig even further to \"\"What do my manager and investors really want to know?\"\". They want to know the state of their investment. Growth is often a good measurement of that state, but in cases where you are starting from zero or negative, it just doesn't tell you the right information. In these situations, you should avoid % growth, and instead talk in absolute terms which mention the time frame or starting state. For example:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd07e3d575eb4ffa0cedff232d7267c4", "text": "I trade futures. No FX or equities though. It is my only source of income, and has been for about 5 years now. Equities and FX, to me, seems like more of a gamble than Vegas. I don't know how people do it.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7a579b2758d471292b83fd8aa7789c02	What factors should I consider when evaluating index funds?	[ { "docid": "2b6cde81fdb549260eac7262ff180761", "text": "The idea of an index is that it is representative of the market (or a specific market segment) as a whole, so it will move as the market does. Thus, past performance is not really relevant, unless you want to bank on relative differences between different countries' economies. But that's not the point. By far the most important aspect when choosing index funds is the ongoing cost, usually expressed as Total Expense Ratio (TER), which tells you how much of your investment will be eaten up by trading fees and to pay the funds' operating costs (and profits). This is where index funds beat traditional actively managed funds - it should be below 0.5% The next question is how buying and selling the funds works and what costs it incurs. Do you have to open a dedicated account or can you use a brokerage account at your bank? Is there an account management fee? Do you have to buy the funds at a markup (can you get a discount on it)? Are there flat trading fees? Is there a minimum investment? What lot sizes are possible? Can you set up a monthly payment plan? Can you automatically reinvest dividends/coupons? Then of course you have to decide which index, i.e. which market you want to buy into. My answer in the other question apparently didn't make it clear, but I was talking only about stock indices. You should generally stick to broad, established indices like the MSCI World, S&P 500, Euro Stoxx, or in Australia the All Ordinaries. Among those, it makes some sense to just choose your home country's main index, because that eliminates currency risk and is also often cheaper. Alternatively, you might want to use the opportunity to diversify internationally so that if your country's economy tanks, you won't lose your job and see your investment take a dive. Finally, you should of course choose a well-established, reputable issuer. But this isn't really a business for startups (neither shady nor disruptively consumer-friendly) anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a71e54c51a33edaa86448edea5040c1", "text": "Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b37971b421af08c8675b6b64c044e31f", "text": "One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdcf05dafe8669ec0c776f77e15f1190", "text": "Yes you should take in the expenses being incurred by the mutual fund. This lists down the fees charged by the mutual fund and where expenses can be found in the annual statement of the fund. To calculate fees and expenses. As you might expect, fees and expenses vary from fund to fund. A fund with high costs must perform better than a low-cost fund to generate the same returns for you. Even small differences in fees can translate into large differences in returns over time. You don't pay expenses, so the money is taken from the assets of the fund. So you pay it indirectly. If the expenses are huge, that may point to something i.e. fund managers are enjoying at your expense, money is being used somewhere else rather than being paid as dividends. If the expenses are used in the growth of the fund, that is a positive sign. Else you can expect the fund to be downgraded or upgraded by the credit rating agencies, depending on how the credit rating agencies see the expenses of the fund and other factors. Generally comparison should be done with funds invested in the same sectors, same distribution of assets so that you have a homogeneous comparison to make. Else it would be unwise to compare between a fund invested in oil companies and other in computers. Yes the economy is inter twined, but that is not how a comparison should be done.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1551ce33e769d1897d208ca91c38a52", "text": "\"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%. The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement \"\"admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642605635985e7e03e7dea5aa0e99d77", "text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbbe1fd1341e1ff9781db641f39c960f", "text": "My main criterion for choosing a broker is the fee schedule. I care about investing in index funds and paying as little as possible in fees. In the US that brings everyone to Vanguard or Fidelity, and currently Vanguard edges Fidelity out on costs for the particular funds I am invested in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78edcf3c84f09c26a42e0c97f2ab44b3", "text": "Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d67e11a7c3b69dc6f4b90c0aaaa9054", "text": "I don't know what you mean by 'major'. Do you mean the fund company is a Fidelity or Vanguard, or that the fund is broad, as in an s&P fund? The problem starts with a question of what your goals are. If you already know the recommended mix for your age/risk, as you stated, you should consider minimizing the expenses, and staying DIY. I am further along, and with 12 year's income saved, a 1% hit would be 12% of a year's pay, I'd be working 1-1/2 months to pay the planner? In effect, you are betting that a planner will beat whatever metric you consider valid by at least that 1% fee, else you can just do it yourself and be that far ahead of the game. I've accepted the fact that I won't beat the average (as measured by the S&P) over time, but I'll beat the average investor. By staying in low cost funds (my 401(k) S&P fund charges .05% annual expense) I'll be ahead of the investors paying planner fees, and mutual fund fees on top of that. You don't need to be a CFP to manage your money, but it would help you understand the absurdity of the system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5103c63d89644a428f070da7464eb105", "text": "\"Ah ok, I can appreciate that. I'm fluent in English and Mr. Graham's command of English can be intimidating (even for me). The edition I have has commentary by Mr. Jason Zweig who effectively rewrites the chapters into simpler English and updates the data (some of the firms listed by Mr. Graham don't exist either due to bankruptcy or due to consolidation). But I digress. Let's start with the topics you took; they're all very relevant, you'd be surprised, the firm I work for require marketing for certain functions. But not being good at Marketing doesn't block you from a career in Finance. Let's look at the other subjects. You took high level Maths, as such I think a read through Harry Markowitz's \"\"Portfolio Selection\"\" would be beneficial, here's a link to the paper: https://www.math.ust.hk/~maykwok/courses/ma362/07F/markowitz_JF.pdf Investopedia also has a good summary: http://www.investopedia.com/walkthrough/fund-guide/introduction/1/modern-portfolio-theory-mpt.aspx This is Mr. Markowitz's seminal work; while it's logical to diversify your portfolio (remember the saying \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\"), Mr. Markwotiz presented the relationship of return, risk and the effects of diversification via mathematical representation. The concepts presented in this paper are taught at every introductory Finance course at University. Again a run through the actual paper might be intimidating (Lord knows I never read the paper from start to finish, but rather read text books which explained the concepts instead), so if you can find another source which explains the concepts in a way you understand, go for it. I consider this paper to be a foundation for other papers. Business economics is very important and while it may seem like it has a weak link to Finance at this stage; you have to grasp the concepts. Mr. Michael Porter's \"\"Five Forces\"\" is an excellent link between industry structure (introduced in Microeconomics) and profit potential (I work in Private Equity, and you'd be surprised how much I use this framework): https://hbr.org/2008/01/the-five-competitive-forces-that-shape-strategy There's another text I used in University which links the economic concept of utility and investment decision making; unfortunately I can't seem to remember the title. I'm asking my ex-classmates so if they respond I'll directly send you the author/title. To finish I want to give you some advice; a lot of subjects are intimidating at first, and you might feel like you're not good enough but keep at it. You're not dumber than the next guy, but nothing will come for free. I wasn't good at accounting, I risked failing my first year of University because of it, I ended up passing that year with distinction because I focused (my second highest grade was Accounting). I wasn't good in economics in High School, but it was my best grades in University. I wasn't good in financial mathematics in University but I aced it in the CFA. English is your second language, but you have to remember a lot of your peers (regardless of their command of the language) are being introduced to the new concepts just as you are. Buckle down and you'll find that none of it is impossible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0918254a089cca9fd94fee63324ec519", "text": "\"Your bank's fund is not an index fund. From your link: To provide a balanced portfolio of primarily Canadian securities that produce income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in Canadian money market instruments, debt securities and common and preferred shares. This is a very broad actively managed fund. Compare this to the investment objective listed for Vanguard's VOO: Invests in stocks in the S&P 500 Index, representing 500 of the largest U.S. companies. There are loads of market indices with varying formulas that are supposed to track the performance of a market or market segment that they intend to track. The Russel 2000, The Wilshire 1000, The S&P 500, the Dow Industrial Average, there is even the SSGA Gender Diversity Index. Some body comes up with a market index. An \"\"Index Fund\"\" is simply a Mutual Fund or Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that uses a market index formula to make it's investment decisions enabling an investor to track the performance of the index without having to buy and sell the constituent securities on their own. These \"\"index funds\"\" are able to charge lower fees because they spend $0 on research, and only make investment decisions in order to track the holdings of the index. I think 1.2% is too high, but I'm coming from the US investing world it might not be that high compared to Canadian offerings. Additionally, comparing this fund's expense ratio to the Vanguard 500 or Total Market index fund is nonsensical. Similarly, comparing the investment returns is nonsensical because one tracks the S&P 500 and one does not, nor does it seek to (as an example the #5 largest holding of the CIBC fund is a Government of Canada 2045 3.5% bond). Everyone should diversify their holdings and adjust their investment allocations as they age. As you age you should be reallocating away from highly volatile common stock and in to assets classes that are historically more stable/less volatile like national government debt and high grade corporate/local government debt. This fund is already diversified in to some debt instruments, depending on your age and other asset allocations this might not be the best place to put your money regardless of the fees. Personally, I handle my own asset allocations and I'm split between Large, Mid and Small cap low-fee index funds, and the lowest cost high grade debt funds available to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07f7202017432ca3558e5ec9494595bc", "text": "Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b90dc3f316e64f6d93f0fd4e355334d", "text": "An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef0e9ae89d9c52b31c87383d6b21d9af", "text": "Financial advisers like to ask lots of questions and get nitty-gritty about investment objectives, but for the most part this is not well-founded in financial theory. Investment objectives really boils down to one big question and an addendum. The big question is how much risk you are willing to tolerate. This determines your expected return and most characteristics of your portfolio. The addendum is what assets you already have (background risk). Your portfolio should contain things that hedge that risk and not load up on it. If you expect to have a fixed income, some extra inflation protection is warranted. If you have a lot of real estate investing, your portfolio should avoid real estate. If you work for Google, you should avoid it in your portfolio or perhaps even short it. Given risk tolerance and background risk, financial theory suggests that there is a single best portfolio for you, which is diversified across all available assets in a market-cap-weighted fashion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "663374eb1366efd15357a239d1becb56", "text": "Thanks for the advice. I will look into index funds. The only reason I was interested in this stock in particular is that I used to work for the company, and always kept an eye on the stock price. I saw that their stock prices recently went down by quite a bit but I feel like I've seen this happen to them a few times over the past few years and I think they have a strong catalogue of products coming out soon that will cause their stock to rise over the next few years. After not being able to really understand the steps needed to purchase it though, I think I've learned that I really don't know enough about the stock system in general to make any kind of informed decisions about it and should probably stick to something lower-risk or at least do some research before making any ill-informed decisions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0643549bec4cfd3d47f375fa02daa3dc", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4babe885cc0b9c925ba104bf0a8636c8", "text": "\"Nope, its not legal. Easy to explain: If you know something that isn't public known (\"\"inside\"\") it's called insider trading. Hard to prove (impossible), but still illegal. To clarify: If the CEO says it AND its known in public its not illegal. In any case the CEO could face consequences (at least from his company).\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
500fe766e9e6c66eb149a38862df150d	For young (lower-mid class) investors what percentage should be in individual stocks?	[ { "docid": "54932d70e3156a5d564a63e0bdc9a1f4", "text": "\"The short answer: zero. dg99's answer gives some good reasons why. You will basically never be able to achieve diversification with individual stocks that is anywhere close to what you can get with mutual funds. Owning individual stocks exposes you to much greater risk in that random one-off events that happen to affect one of the companies you own can have a disproportionate effect on your assets. (For instance, some sort of scandal involving a particular company can cause its stock to tank.) There are only two reasons I can see to invest in individual stocks: a. You have some unique opportunity to acquire stock that other people might not be able to get (or get at that price). This can be the case if you work for a privately-held company that allows you to buy stock (or options), or allows you to participate in its IPO. Even then, you should not go too crazy, since having too much stock in the company you work for can double your pain if the company falls on hard times (you may lose your job and your investment). b. For fun. If you like tracking stocks and trying to beat the market, you may want to test your skills at this by using a small proportion of your investable cash (no more than 10%). In this case you're not so much hoping to increase your returns as to just enjoy investing more. This can also have a psychological benefit in that it allows you to \"\"blow off steam\"\" and indulge your desire to make decisions, while allowing your passive investments (index funds) to shoulder the load of actually gaining value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ae55bf06b5b29598b4932492d995608", "text": "\"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24bde5cc34ca02716339d0bb8a4accbc", "text": "I would not advise any stock-picking or other active management (even using mutual funds that are actively managed). There is a large body of knowledge that needs learning before you even attempt that. Stay passive with index funds (either ETFs or (even better) low-cost passive mutual funds (because these prevent you from buying/selling). But I have not problem saying you can invest 100% in equity as long as your stomach can handle the price swings. If you freek out after a 25% drop that does not recover within a year, so you sell at the market bottom, then you are better off staying with a lot less risk. It is personal. There are a lot of valid reasons for young people to accept more risk - and equally valid reason why not. See list at http://www.retailinvestor.org/saving.html#norisk", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7383dd763f68e1302c984a493b88e7fe", "text": "I don't believe the decision is decided by age or wealth. You only stock pick when a) you enjoy the process because it takes time and if you consider it 'work' then the cost will probably not be offset by higher returns. b) you must have the time to spend trading, monitoring, choosing, etc. c) you must have the skills/experience to 'bring something to the table' that you think gives you an edge over everyone else. If you don't then you will be the patsy that others make a profit off.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d5e1bde29d805bce6086b8598a343c8b", "text": "This depends completely on your investing goals. Typically when saving for retirement younger investors aim for a more volatile and aggressive portfolio but diversify their portfolio with more cautious stocks/bonds as they near retirement. In other words, the volatility that owning a single stock brings may be in line with your goals if you can shoulder the risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46954434d854deff0918901928a5d57c", "text": "How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19a399279fa3d682c76b0f1cb8422a2e", "text": "IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32f8621bb2dbd2b0f0f4b28ba3bab59a", "text": "The only sensible reason to invest in individual stocks is if you have reason to think that they will perform better than the market as a whole. How are you to come to that conclusion other than by doing in-depth research into the stock and the company behind it? If you can't, or don't want to, reach that conclusion about particular stocks then you're better off putting your money into cheap index trackers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6e009ec30f69b32a49996716bf36410", "text": "\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aa78e92743857ed9109abd1c871a63c", "text": "That is absolute rubbish. Warren Buffet follows simple value and GARP tenants that literally anyone could follow if they had the discipline to do so. I have never once heard of an investment made by Warren Buffet that wasn't rooted in fundamentals and easy to understand. The concept is fairly simple as is the math, buying great companies trading at discounts to what they are worth due to market fluctuations, emotionality, or overreactions to key sectors etc. If I buy ABC corp at $10 knowing it is worth $20, it could go down or trade sideways for FIVE YEARS doing seemingly nothing and then one day catch up with its worth due to any number of factors. In that case, my 100% return which took five years to actualize accounts for an average 20% return per year. Also (and this should be obvious), but diversification is a double edged sword. Every year, hundreds of stocks individually beat the market return. Owning any one of these stocks as your only holding would mean that YOU beat the market. As you buy more stocks and diversify your return will get closer and closer to that of an index or mutual fund. My advice is to stick to fundamentals like value and GARP investing, learn to separate when the market is being silly from when it is responding to a genuine concern, do your own homework and analysis on the stocks you buy, BE PATIENT after buying stock that your analysis gives you confidence in, and don't over diversify. If you do these things, congrats. YOU ARE Warren Buffet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d58f98963f60b0132ca92e895b7293a", "text": "\"Wouldn't this be part of your investing strategy to know what price is considered a \"\"good\"\" price for the stock? If you are going to invest in company ABC, shouldn't you have some idea of whether the stock price of $30, $60, or $100 is the bargain price you want? I'd consider this part of the due diligence if you are picking individual stocks. Mutual funds can be a bit different in automatically doing fractional shares and not quite as easy to analyze as a company's financials in a sense. I'm more concerned with the fact that you don't seem to have a good idea of what the price is that you are willing to buy the stock so that you take advantage of the volatility of the market. ETFs would be similar to mutual funds in some ways though I'd probably consider the question that may be worth considering here is how much do you want to optimize the price you pay versus adding $x to your position each time. I'd probably consider estimating a ballpark and then setting the limit price somewhere within that. I wouldn't necessarily set it to the maximum price you'd be willing to pay unless you are trying to ride a \"\"hot\"\" ETF using some kind of momentum strategy. The downside of a momentum strategy is that it can take a while to work out the kinks and I don't use one though I do remember a columnist from MSN Money that did that kind of trading regularly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b78580b88a1a29dd3ce954b9a6d999d", "text": "I'm in a remarkably similar situation as yourself. I keep roughly 80% of my portfolio in low-cost ETFs (16% bond, 16% commodities, 48% stock), with about 20% in 6-8 individual stocks. Individual stocks are often overlooked by investors. The benefits of individual stock ownership are that you can avoid paying any holding or management fee (unlike ETFs and mutual funds). As long as you assess the fundamentals (P/B, P/E, PEG etc.) of the company you are buying, and don't over-trade, you can do quite well. I recommend semi-annual re-balancing among asset classes, and an individual stock check up. I've found over the years that my individual stocks outperform the S&P500 the vast majority of the time, although it often accompanied by an increase in volatility. Since you're limiting your stake to only 20%, the volatility is not really an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a", "text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eee03650200f5d1f81afdedae2ae5dfb", "text": "At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "271b245c66784da2295c00234b95afee", "text": "Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d69f5e6cf8b569f776788242ee66c6a8", "text": "\"Chris - you realize that when you buy a stock, the seller gets the money, not the company itself, unless of course, you bought IPO shares. And the amount you'd own would be such a small portion of the company, they don't know you exist. As far as morals go, if you wish to avoid certain stocks for this reason, look at the Socially Responsible funds that are out there. There are also funds that are targeted to certain religions and avoid alcohol and tobacco. The other choice is to invest in individual stocks which for the small investor is very tough and expensive. You'll spend more money to avoid the shares than these very shares are worth. Your proposal is interesting but impractical. In a portfolio of say $100K in the S&P, the bottom 400 stocks are disproportionately smaller amounts of money in those shares than the top 100. So we're talking $100 or less. You'd need to short 2 or 3 shares. Even at $1M in that fund, 20-30 shares shorted is pretty silly, no offense. Why not 'do the math' and during the year you purchase the fund, donate the amount you own in the \"\"bad\"\" companies to charity. And what littleadv said - that too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e769761effd1d77533856624ea79940", "text": "If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cacfa26102b736a50d8bc1bed41ad7c", "text": "\"Curious, are you asking about average, or the good numbers? The median family doesn't have $2500 to address an emergency. We are a nation of debtors, and spenders. A young couple at .8 is doing well. It means they saved 20% for a down payment, and just bought a house. Not too tough to buy with 5% down, have no other savings, and a student loan to put the debt to equity over 100%. Older people should be shooting for zero. I semi-retired at 50, and my mortgage is at about 8% of my net worth. 50% would be too high. Others 50+ should have at least 50% equity in their home and nearly half their \"\"number,\"\" the amount needed to retire. So, a target is 25% maximum. These numbers shouldn't impact you at all. You should plan wisely, spend frugally, and prioritize your goals. There are 'zero debt' people out there who make me look reckless, and others who invest in rentals with a goal of keeping them highly leveraged. Neither group is wrong, what's right for you is what lets you sleep at night.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d90fea8919eaee4e7a4053d3661257cb", "text": "You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
df78900b973f6200ecdf60893095db41	Has anyone heard of Peerstreet?	[ { "docid": "13579414bd19097f500ef210e2dfd057", "text": "\"(Disclosure - PeerStreet was at FinCon, a financial blogger conference I attended last month. I had the chance to briefly meet a couple people from this company. Also, I recognize a number of the names of their financial backers. This doesn't guarantee anything, of course, except the people behind the scenes are no slackers.) The same way Prosper and Lending Club have created a market for personal loans, this is a company that offers real estate loans. The \"\"too good to be true\"\" aspect is what I'll try to address. I've disclosed in other answers that I have my Real Estate license. Earlier this year, I sold a house that was financed with a \"\"Hard Money\"\" loan. Not a bank, but a group of investors. They charged the buyer 10%. Let me state - I represented the seller, and when I found out the terms of the loan, it would have been a breach of my own moral and legal responsibility to her to do anything to kill the deal. I felt sick for days after that sale. There are many people with little credit history who are hard workers and have saved their 20% down. For PeerStreet, 25%. The same way there's a business, local to my area, that offered a 10% loan, PeerStreet is doing something similar but in a 'crowd sourced' way. It seems to me that since they show the duration as only 6-24 months, the buyer typically manages to refinance during that time. I'm guessing that these may be people who are selling their house, but have bad timing, i.e. they need to first close on the sale to qualify to buy the new home. Or simply need the time to get their regular loan approved. (As a final side note - I recalled the 10% story in a social setting, and more than one person responded they'd have been happy to invest their money at 6%. I could have saved the buyer 4% and gotten someone else nearly 6% more than they get on their cash.)\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8586796e8d64cc6ebeb5ef6bc6cc0f27", "text": "Yes and no, P2P Capital Markets is similar concept but is more geared towards business loans. Community Lend used to offer this service but has stopped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acd5d4f44adefb80da6debcf6de03ed1", "text": "I don't have a business relationship with Hire.Bid, I just use it to get extra money whenever I am free, so I thought I could share it in the case someone else is interested. If you know any other app like this, feel free to share it, maybe I can use it too. For GiftBac, I wanted to find out if anyone used it before and let me know if it is trustable. About PinkApp, I wanted to know people's thoughts about it to see if it was worth investing in. For now, I am looking for more ways to make money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e5ab272109b1379ea16fea75b9a8be9", "text": "\"I feel like he's just doing this for the kicks and doesn't really believe in it. But then I see the numerous talks, the book etc and I can't decide. His entire basis for a \"\"idea meritocracy\"\" is that everyone should be truthful or \"\"radical transparency\"\". I do not see the connection at all. You cannot build an idea meritocracy because it inherently means you can judge if an idea succeeds or fails before implementing it. If you want to bias yourself toward successful ideas, it requires nothing more than allowing people to implement what they think and then rewarding the ones who succeed. Basically, I cannot see the point of this \"\"radical transparency\"\" etc. Except for one possibility - his computer algorithm. I feel like that is his grasp at immortality and the algorithm requires stupid tons of data to function. So why not give it to the best source for such data? Top ivy league graduates and brilliant people hired by the one of the biggest hedge funds on the planet. And then sell them on this idea that \"\"radical transparency\"\" is the basis for all success in the firm, and ask them to start inputting data on it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81a0892a695ba40344a68db23cb8c3a6", "text": "moneydashboard.com claims to be the UK's Mint but I have problem using it with my HSBC account right now. I have contacted their helpdesk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47d2401e8c9dcd835a24ea517a73bda6", "text": "I've seen this tool. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can just get a list of all the companies. For example, you can get up to 100 results at a time, if I just search latest filings for 10-K. This isn't really an efficient way to go about what I want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b86ec02925e05de918f7e9ac205d3e0", "text": "Money Dashboard and Love Money look like two best options out there now that Kublax closed their doors. Mint were making noises last year about spreading to UK/Canada, but I've not heard anything new about that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d31fd6f177f82e14d0a3c53b84ec20f", "text": "I like the aggregation a lot, but it seems like the site's purpose is designed for lead gen for those tools? Why are there not reviews or profiles of those tools on that site and instead just push their traffic to those platform's websites to download?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2ada2333b9bb048c83e8b2fc8db2e65", "text": "\"just for shits, i'll give you the excerpts from Liar's Poker: \"\"I was living in London in the winter of 1984, finishing a master's degree in economics at the London School of Economics, when I received an invitation to dine with the Queen Mother. It came through a distant cousin of mine who, years before, and somewhat improbably, had married a German baron... What had been advertised as a close encounter with British royalty proved to be a fundraiser with seven or eight hundred insurance salesmen...Somewhere in the Great Hall, as luck would have it, were two managing directors from Salomon Brothers. I knew this only because, as luck would further have it, I was seated between their wives. The wife of the more senior Salomon Brothers managing director, an American, took our table firmly in hand, once we'd finished craning our necks to snatch a glimpse of British royalty. When she learned that I was preparing to enter the job market and was considering investment banking, she turned the evening into an interview... Having examined what good had come from my twenty-four years on earth, the asked why I didn't come and work on the Salomon Brothers' trading floor.\"\" It's a great book, I highly recommend it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af426b3152adaeec95d13e56a086a9df", "text": "I go there and all I see is an overhyped get rich quick conference that you sold tickets in groups to artificially inflate demand. I see no substance. Are you connected to grasshopper labs, where (and I quote) : > the first organization devoted to empowering entrepreneurs through technological innovation and real-world expertise Really? Youre the first? See, hype. Also, youre trying to sell internet phone for $10 a month? You must depend on some pretty NON-tech-savvy customers. I bet youre a people person. Youre probably even nice. But you present yourself as very naive, and your 'goods' dont pass the smell test. Pro tip 1 : dont brag about income. Its non-pro.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8d5564a970929110c227022086015bc", "text": "Is there any truth to this, or is this another niche scam that's been brewing the last few years? While it may not be an outright scam, such schemes do tend to be on borderline of scams. Technically most of what is being said claimed can be true, however in reality such windfall gains never happen to the investors. Whatever gains are there will be cornered by the growers, trades, other entities in supply chain leaving very little to the investors. It is best to stay away from such investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "235f063b15ea8d58511488c38c8316ab", "text": "Looks more like an idea for a business rather than an actual business -- especially since it hasn't even launched. That said, it does have its merits. What bank actually holds the deposit funds becomes irrelevant, and may actaully change from time to time as they forge better partnerships with different banks. Think of it like a mutual fund -- the individual stocks (if there are stocks) in the fund are less important than the balance of risk vs. income and the leveling of change over the course of time. It offers services banks offer, without fees (at least that is the proposal) with the addition of budgetting capability as well. It does have downsides as well There is an increased level of indirection between you and your money. They propose to simplify the banking business model, but in fact are only hiding it from you. The same complexity that was there before is still there, with the added complexity of their service on top of it. It's just a matter of how much of that complexity you would have to deal with directly. With that in mind, I would reiterate that they are not a business yet -- just a proposed business model. Even the sign up process is a red flag for me. I understand they need to gauge interest in order to forge initial relationships with various banks, but I don't see the need for the 'invitation only' sign up method. It just sounds like a way to increase interest (who doesn't like feeling exclusively invited), and is a bit too 'gimmicky' for my taste. But, like I said, the idea has merit -- I have my reservations, but will reserve full judgement until they are an actual operating business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99d61bda3e6310ae960085c1f7f8eb4e", "text": "\"I've had a MF Stock Advisor for 7 or 8 years now, and I've belong to Supernova for a couple of years. I also have money in one of their mutual funds. \"\"The Fool\"\" has a lot of very good educational information available, especially for people who are new to investing. Many people do not understand that Wall Street is in the business of making money for Wall Street, not making money for investors. I have stayed with the Fool because their philosophy aligns with my personal investment philosophy. I look at the Stock Advisor picks; sometimes I buy them, sometimes I don't, but the analysis is very good. They also have been good at tracking their picks over time, and writing updates when specific stocks drop a certain amount. With their help, I've assembled a portfolio that I don't have to spend too much time managing, and have done pretty well from a return perspective. Stock Advisor also has a good set of forums where you can interact with other investors. In summary, the view from the inside has been pretty good. From the outside, I think their marketing is a reflection of the fact that most people aren't very interested in a rational & conservative approach to investing in the stock market, so MF chooses to go for an approach that gets more traffic. I'm not particularly excited about it, but I'm sure they've done AB testing and have figured out what way works the best. I think that they have had money-back guarantees on some of their programs in the past, so you could try them out risk free. Not sure if those are still around.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e02f04f2eec2d7d35162e66091e90a64", "text": "Let me begin with very interesting article that was published in Charlotte Business Journal on August 17, 2012. According to the news - Bridgetree wins $4.2 million jury award against Red F Marketing of Charlotte and others, including its founder, Dan Roselli, in a software trade-secrets case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "896ff60c02a11b0c3a5a277a91fca460", "text": "Putting aside whether that characterization is reasonable, it doesn't follow from what Speckles said. He is suggesting that PayPal shutting people out of its own service would make alternatives to that service more of a fringe thing. I don't see how.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c774fc5dd8a3e7e9a5d3ceaeacb1520a", "text": "I honestly can't believe two million people care enough to pay 12.95 per month and is that a recurring charge? Wouldn't you just get your family tree and then never visit the site again? I'll be honest and say I don't know their business model well and I can't see myself ever being interested enough in investing in it to bother to figure it out.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0a4c837a7d75663a22b10e332f72e1bd	Filing Taxes for Two Separate Jobs Being Worked at the Same Time?	[ { "docid": "eebfd26667517727702aaec038ea12a4", "text": "\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \"\"interview\"\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7631499e373cae1204e353f7b36277e8", "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.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9fd632a34c4689f4fcdbfb85bb386537", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9724203d4f5b5c13be3e4ffa92717c5", "text": "I would think that the real teeth here would be the IRS, should they look into it (and they should). Splitting paychecks to avoid overtime also reduces taxes paid, which is large scale tax fraud, which generally leads to a sentence in gently-caress-my-bum-Federal-Penitentiary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "563440e7c3bd9c4100cc7605236340c8", "text": "\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \"\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\"\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \"\"make you whole\"\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \"\"Contract-to-Hire\"\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c414ddf19d92a996247a16664983c33f", "text": "With a limited company, you'll have to pay yourself a salary through PAYE. With income from your other job taking you over the higher-rate threshold, you should inform HMRC of this and get a tax code of DO for the second job, meaning 40% tax (and also both employer's and employee's National Insurance) will be deducted from the whole amount of the salary. See here. Dividends should be like any other dividend -- you won't pay extra tax when you receive them, but will have to declare them on your tax return and pay the tax later. See the official information here. You'll get a £5,000 tax allowance for dividends, but they'll still count as income for purposes of hitting the higher-rate threshold. I think in practice this means the first £5,000 will be tax-free, and the rest will be taxed at 32.5%. But note that you have to pay yourself at least the minimum wage as salary, not as dividend. I can't see IR35 being an issue. However, I'm not a professional, and this situation is complicated enough to need professional advice. Talk to an accountant or a tax advisor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2226740c96f085d39471c7c914edee3f", "text": "If you are paid by foreigners then it is quite possible they don't file anything with the IRS. All of this income you are required to report as business income on schedule C. There are opportunities on schedule C to deduct expenses like your health insurance, travel, telephone calls, capital expenses like a new computer, etc... You will be charged both the employees and employers share of social security/medicare, around ~17% or so, and that will be added onto your 1040. You may still need a local business license to do the work locally, and may require a home business permit in some cities. In some places, cities subscribe to data services based on your IRS tax return.... and will find out a year or two later that someone is running an unlicensed business. This could result in a fine, or perhaps just a nice letter from the city attorneys office that it would be a good time to get the right licenses. Generally, tax treaties exist to avoid or limit double taxation. For instance, if you travel to Norway to give a report and are paid during this time, the treaty would explain whether that is taxable in Norway. You can usually get a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries against your US taxes, which helps avoid paying double taxes in the USA. If you were to go live in Norway for more than a year, the first $80,000/year or so is completely wiped off your US income. This does NOT apply if you live in the USA and are paid from Norway. If you have a bank account overseas with more than $10,000 of value in it at any time during the year, you owe the US Government a FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR). This is pretty important, there are some large fines for not doing it. It could occur if you needed an account to get paid in Norway and then send the money here... If the Norwegian company wires the money to you from their account or sends a check in US$, and you don't have a foreign bank account, then this would not apply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001777fad85611bd1aebbaf3796d70df", "text": "To clarify that legality of this (for those that question it), this is directly from IRS Publication 926 (2014) (for household employees): If you prefer to pay your employee's social security and Medicare taxes from your own funds, do not withhold them from your employee's wages. The social security and Medicare taxes you pay to cover your employee's share must be included in the employee's wages for income tax purposes. However, they are not counted as social security and Medicare wages or as federal unemployment (FUTA) wages. I am sorry this does not answer your question entirely, but it does verify that you can do this. UPDATE: I have finally found a direct answer to your question! I found it here: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sh/ar01.html Form W-2 and Form W-3 If you file one or more Forms W-2, you must also file Form W-3. You must report both cash and noncash wages in box 1, as well as tips and other compensation. The completed Forms W-2 and W-3 in the example (in these instructions) show how the entries are made. For detailed information on preparing these forms, see the General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3. Employee's portion of taxes paid by employer. If you paid all of your employee's share of social security and Medicare taxes, without deducting the amounts from the employee's pay, the employee's wages are increased by the amount of that tax for income tax withholding purposes. Follow steps 1 through 3 below. (See the example in these instructions.) Enter the amounts you paid on your employee's behalf in boxes 4 and 6 (do not include your share of these taxes). Add the amounts in boxes 3, 4, and 6. (However, if box 5 is greater than box 3, then add the amounts in boxes 4, 5, and 6.) Enter the total in box 1.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90605b0a6f67febcdf781d210077a575", "text": "I'm not sure I am fully understanding the nuance of your question, but based on your answer in the comments you and your business are not separate legal entities. So your income is the full $70K, there is no distinct business to have income. If you clarify your question to include why you want to know this I might be able to give a more meaningful answer for your situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9379f5ad0e097a21cb007559a3207893", "text": "It looks like you can. Take a look at these articles: http://www.googobits.com/articles/1747-taking-an-itemized-deduction-for-job-expenses.html http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/business-expenses-that-benefit-you.aspx http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/employment.html But of course, go to the source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html#en_US_publink100026912 From publication 529: You can deduct certain expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR). You can claim the amount of expenses that is more than 2% of your adjusted gross income. You figure your deduction on Schedule A by subtracting 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total amount of these expenses. Your adjusted gross income is the amount on Form 1040, line 38, or Form 1040NR, line 36. I hope that helps. Happy deducting!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8422693db687a36bf9cb06ee289c6cec", "text": "I don't think you need double-entry bookkeeping. To quote Robert Kiyosaki (roughly): Income is when money enters you pocket, and expenses are when money leaves your pocket. Income is an addition; expenses are subtractions. But if you want double-entry accounting, I'm not qualified to answer that. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a03266c8bf735a7316fe2d58e988bf6", "text": "Of course not. You had another job for which you earned money. What does the corporation have to do with it? Corporation is a separate entity from your person, and since it was in no way involved in the transaction - there's no justification to funnel money through it. Doing so may pierce the corporate veil and expose you to liability which you created the corporation to shield yourself from. Not to mention the tax evasion, which is the reason you are asking the question to begin with....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "719c0a7c4a90b1bc43da880d1d4a1584", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b287fe3e5c18c67590e241a102689ff", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3cd89c0d64142d65db6089237dac981", "text": "How do I account for this in the bookkeeping? Here is an example below: This is how you would accurately depict contributions made by an owner for a business. If you would want to remove money from your company, or pay yourself back, this would be called withdrawals. It would be the inverse of the first journal entry with cash on the credit side and withdrawals on the debited side (as it is an expense). You and your business are not the same thing. You are two different entities. This is why you are taxed as two different entities. When you (the owner) make contributions, it is considered to be the cash of the business. From here you will make these expenses against the business and not yourself. Good luck,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56366def285b890e0e187764b2691abf", "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!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87c9d0ed048118e676a8196605eb034b", "text": "A computer is a special case because the IRS thinks that you might be using it for personal applications. You may need to keep a log, or be able to state that you also have another computer for non-business use. That said, if your schedule C shows a small profit then you don't need to itemize expenses, just state the total.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2ebed0ca7af93b27963c92cb0186999b	When will the 2017 US Federal Tax forms be released?	[ { "docid": "e39a1801cbfa777e2fda516c1822da31", "text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cd95509e847580c275bb372e84f35c71", "text": "An amended return is required for situations that impact tax owed, or your tax refund. 8606 purpose is to track non-deducted IRA deposits. I'd recommend you gather all your returns to form a paper trail, and when filing your 2016 return, show a proper 8606 as if you'd tracked it all along.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78619ef0b9c3bb98ba6bd974ee9cb02e", "text": "The purpose of the W-4 form is to allow you to adjust the withholding to meet your tax obligations. If you have outside non-wage income (money from tutoring) you will have to fill out the W-4 to have extra taxes withheld. If you have deductions (kids, mortgages, student loan interest) then you need to adjust the form to have less tax taken out. Now if yo go so far that you owe too much in April, then you can get hit with penalties and a requirement to file your taxes quarterly the next year. Most years I adjust my W-4 to reflect changes to my situation. The idea is to use it to manage your withholding so that you minimize your refund without triggering the penalties. The HR department has advised you well. How to adjust: If you want to decrease withholding (making the refund smaller) add one to the number on the worksheet. In 2014 a change by 1 exemption is equal to a salary adjustment of $3,950. If this was spread over 26 paychecks that would be the same as lowering your salary by ~$152. If you are in the 15% tax bracket that increases your take home pay by ~10 a check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cfbf35be74e0c9661608793f6144579", "text": "In November '14, I wrote TurboTax 2014 Marketing Mistake Shortly after writing it, a TurboTax agent wrote (on Amazon) to counter the complaints by saying that Deluxe has these forms but did not offer Interview help for them. As Ben notes in his comment on LittleAdv's answer. TurboTax issued an apology letter, which, in my opinion, didn't really set things straight, factually. The forms are there, the interview and data import for stock transactions is gone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51f303003ef67ef10636697db9026a39", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-details-corporate-rate-individual-brackets-deductions-cuts-2017-9) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) *** > &quot;After years of work, we are moving forward with a unified framework that paves the way for bold, transformational tax reform - tax reform that will bring more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks,&quot; Brady said in a statement. > While there is no precise number in the plan, officials have indicated the rate could end up somewhere around 10%. Personal tax changes: A bottom individual tax rate of 12%. The plan specifies three tax brackets, with the lowest rate being 12%. That would represent a slight bump in the bottom bracket, which is now 10%. People currently in the 15% marginal tax bracket would most likely be included here. > &quot;An additional top rate may apply to the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code and does not shift the tax burden from high-income to lower- and middle-income taxpayers,&quot; the plan reads. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72ves8/gop_tax_plan_overview/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~217749 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: tax^#1 rate^#2 plan^#3 bracket^#4 deduction^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b15d163a90235fed85ed81ab71d178ac", "text": "\"Do I understand correctly, that we still can file as \"\"Married filing jointly\"\", just add Schedule C and Schedule SE for her? Yes. Business registration information letter she got once registered mentions that her due date for filing tax return is January 31, 2016. Does this prevent us from filing jointly (as far as I understand, I can't file my income before that date)? IRS sends no such letters. IRS also doesn't require any registration. Be careful, you might be a victim to a phishing attack here. In any case, sole proprietor files a regular individual tax return with the regular April 15th deadline. Do I understand correctly that we do not qualify as \"\"Family partnership\"\" (I do not participate in her business in any way other than giving her money for initial tools/materials purchase)? Yes. Do I understand correctly that she did not have to do regular estimated tax payments as business was not expected to generate income this year? You're asking or saying? How would we know what she expected? In any case, you can use your withholding (adjust the W4) to compensate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc4a1b2cc14db985ebf879d270c24d48", "text": "If you have previously made a contribution during that tax year, you can pull it out and re-add it as often as you need until the deadline for that tax year (April 15 of the following year.) This assumes your gross income isn't high enough to exclude you from eligibility for new contributions--in 2017 the phase-out starts at $118,000 and it is completely phased out at $133,000. Within 60 days of distribution, you can re-contribute up to that amount, but you are only allowed one such 60 day rollover per year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26b9ef47787676d25e91b11143e4b3ec", "text": "The 2012 return was due 4/15/2013 (I'm assuming it didn't fall on a weekend). No late filing penalty if there was no tax due, but he has until 4/15/2016 to file for a refund or to document anything that should have carried forward.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20d029ee79bf663c0ef296cbf536a153", "text": "Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "034e29cd4e755643f5e95ac6daae8337", "text": "I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccbc20034b475506fd64d7f07b3989cf", "text": "There are a few methods you can use to estimate your taxes. On the results screen, the app will show you your estimated tax burden, your estimated withholding for the year, and your estimated overpayment/refund or shortfall/tax due. It may also have recommendations for you on how to adjust your W-4 (although, this late in the year, I think it only tells you to come back next year to reevaluate). Your state might also have income tax, and if you are curious about that, you can find the state tax form and estimate your state income tax as well. My guess is that you will be getting a refund this year, as you have only worked half of the year. But that is only a guess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6c958f80703d863eece8776a95b0b4a", "text": "I don't like keeping my tax information online. Personally, I buy TaxCut from Amazon for $25-30. I store my info securely on resources under my control. Call me a luddite or a weirdo, but I also file using paper, because I don't see the advantage of paying for the privilege of saving the government time and money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f591963899eb4a32562e19cb18bcc65", "text": "\"Why do stock markets allow these differences in reporting? The IRS allows businesses to use fiscal calendars that differ from the calendar year. There are a number of reasons a company would choose do this, from preferring to avoid an accounting rush at end of year during holiday season, to aligning with seasonality for their profits (some like to have Q4 as the strongest quarter). Smaller businesses may prefer to keep the extra stress of year end closeout to a traditionally slower time for the business, and some just start their fiscal calendar when the company starts up. You'll notice the report dates are a couple weeks after fiscal quarter end, you would read it as \"\"three months ended...,\"\" so for Agilent, three months ended October 31, 2017, so August, September, October are their Q4 months.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85794d485be3d23157e21a9378a3e00f", "text": "To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ccd5eb1d0b5465caec02197574beaf4", "text": "This all comes down to time: You can spend the maximum on taxes and penalties and have your money now. Or you can wait about a decade and not pay a cent in taxes or penalties. Consider (assuming no other us income and 2017 tax brackets which we know will change): Option 1 (1 year): Take all the money next year and pay the taxes and penalty: Option 2 (2 years): Spread it out to barely exceed the 10% bracket: Option 3 (6 years): Spread it out to cover your Standard Deduction each year: Option 4 (6-11 years): Same as Option 3 but via a Roth Conversion Ladder:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a79b608ac23033932aa652e440fc33b", "text": "Your tax return will be due on April 18th of 2017 for the amounts made in 2016. Based on the figures that you have provided, assuming you are 18, and assuming you are a single taxpayer your total tax will be around $2600.00 ($2611.25 to be exact, without additional credits or deductions to AGI accounted for). The $1,234 in fed. inc. tax that you have already paid is considered to be a prepaid by the government. If at year-end you have provided more than you have made the government will refund you the excess (federal tax return).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
17ef18945b6492a72fb22db5610cb2a3	What things are important to consider when investing in one's company stock?	[ { "docid": "6f01eeea150ed6a5edaa8031d9c0b963", "text": "I would pass on their deal if they will only match if you invest in their stock. Think about when/if the company falls on bad times. What happens to the stock of a company when bad times come? The board of directors will reduce or eliminate the dividend payout. Current and potential investors will take notice. Current owners of the stock will sell. Potential investors will avoid buying. The price of the stock with go down. And, quite likely, the company will lay off workers. If/when that happens you would find yourself without a job and holding (almost) worthless stock as your savings. That would be quite a bad situation to be in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72f8406a31741459ff9869a0c5d52123", "text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0e9b6eb1bb4818486d9d4637a157a6c", "text": "It appears your company is offering roughly a 25% discount on its shares. I start there as a basis to give you a perspective on what the 30% matching offer means to you in terms of value. Since you are asking for things to consider not whether to do it, below are a few considerations (there may be others) in general you should think about your sources of income. if this company is your only source of income, it is more prudent to make your investment in their shares a smaller portion of your overall investment/savings strategy. what is the holding period for the shares you purchase. some companies institute a holding period or hold duration which restricts when you can sell the shares. Generally, the shorter the duration period the less risk there is for you. So if you can buy the shares and immediately sell the shares that represents the least amount of relative risk. what are the tax implications for shares offered at such a discount. this may be something you will need to consult a tax adviser to get a better understanding. your company should also be able to provide a reasonable interpretation of the tax consequences for the offering as well. is the stock you are buying liquid. liquid, in this case, is just a fancy term for asking how many shares trade in a public market daily. if it is a very liquid stock you can have some confidence that you may be able to sell out of your shares when you need. personally, i would review the company's financial statements and public statements to investors to get a better understanding of their competitive positioning, market size and prospects for profitability and growth. given you are a novice at this it may be good idea to solicit the opinion of your colleagues at work and others who have insight on the financial performance of the company. you should consider other investment options as well. since this seems to be your first foray into investing you should consider diversifying your savings into a few investments areas (such as big market indices which typically should be less volatile). last, there is always the chance that your company could fail. Companies like Enron, Lehman Brothers and many others that were much smaller than those two examples have failed in the past. only you can gauge your tolerance for risk. As a young investor, the best place to start is to use index funds which track a broader universe of stocks or bonds as the first step in building an investment portfolio. once you own a good set of index funds you can diversify with smaller investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a90aba0d9207276fd2fe9e3902a3e306", "text": "\"Check how long you have to hold the stock after buying it. If you can sell reasonably soon and your company is reasonably stable, you're unlikely to lose and/or be taxed and/or pay enough in fees to lose more than the 30% \"\"free money\"\" they're giving you. Whether you hold it longer than the minimum time depends partly on whether you think you can better invest the money elsewhere, and partly on how you feel about having both your salary and (part of) your investments tied to the company's success? The company would like you to \"\"double down\"\" that way, in the theory that it may make you mors motivated... but some investment councelors would advise keeping that a relatively small part of your total investments, basically for the same reasons you are always advised to diversify.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1dda3980b8a649a668891403f564f85", "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).", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "55007fd29e85f7c0371128de9781b4b8", "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.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d58f98963f60b0132ca92e895b7293a", "text": "\"Wouldn't this be part of your investing strategy to know what price is considered a \"\"good\"\" price for the stock? If you are going to invest in company ABC, shouldn't you have some idea of whether the stock price of $30, $60, or $100 is the bargain price you want? I'd consider this part of the due diligence if you are picking individual stocks. Mutual funds can be a bit different in automatically doing fractional shares and not quite as easy to analyze as a company's financials in a sense. I'm more concerned with the fact that you don't seem to have a good idea of what the price is that you are willing to buy the stock so that you take advantage of the volatility of the market. ETFs would be similar to mutual funds in some ways though I'd probably consider the question that may be worth considering here is how much do you want to optimize the price you pay versus adding $x to your position each time. I'd probably consider estimating a ballpark and then setting the limit price somewhere within that. I wouldn't necessarily set it to the maximum price you'd be willing to pay unless you are trying to ride a \"\"hot\"\" ETF using some kind of momentum strategy. The downside of a momentum strategy is that it can take a while to work out the kinks and I don't use one though I do remember a columnist from MSN Money that did that kind of trading regularly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "953d5b75857bdbe44165bbc1c5c11381", "text": "Each situation is different, but it has to do with assessing what the Company is trying to do. People always talk about WACC, but in reality, WACC is less important than figuring how how much debt a Company can support (determined by leverage and solvency statistics). Here are a few things to think about: -How stable are the Company's cash flows? (big difference between a Company that has multi-year contracts locked in place vs. variable/cyclical revenue streams; what type of Capex requirement is there?) -What is the purpose of raising the capital? (growth vs. recapitalization; where are the proceeds going?) -What collateral is available for creditors? -What does working capital look like? (is there seasonality?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "165c8721276816e9d3741cd78e343015", "text": "Pick one stock (probably within Utilities) and know it well. Understand what it trades on (EV / EBITDA, P / E, P / Rev) and why. What are the typical margins for the industry? What are rev growth trends? What isn't priced in? I think studying one company deeply would be helpful Other things to look at would be how your fund is structured, what it's benchmark is, voting structure, and how ideas are sourced Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c214d560ed54ea4495c8526b2894adf6", "text": "The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47693cc23fde88c8eed203721d2aebe5", "text": "\"I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that \"\"momentum\"\" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is \"\"Cut your losses, and let your winners ride.\"\" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52d826b925842aa604e0b295fcd54608", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33559cb95204fca917084c32f4a7cebd", "text": "\"None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Sure it is, it's just not always obvious. When a company makes money it either: Other then the fourth option, the first three all increase the total value of the company. If you owned 1% of a company that was worth X, and is now worth X+1, the value of that 1% ownership should go up as well. One model of the value of a share of stock is the present value of all future cash flows that the company produces for its shareholders, which would be either through dividends, earnings (provided that they are invested back into the company) or through liquidation (sale). So as earnings increase (or more accurately as projected future earnings increase), so does the value of a share of the company. Also note that the payment of dividends causes the price of a stock to go down when the dividend is paid, since that's equity (cash) that's leaving the company, reducing the value of the company by an equivalent amount. Of course, there's also something to be said for the behavioral aspect of investing, meaning that people sometimes invest in companies that they like, and sell stock of companies that they don't like or disagree with (e.g. Nordstrom's).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "915e6ec3c328a2e4c2e8506fe7bc97cb", "text": "\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\"\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\"\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \"\"woulda-shoulda\"\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "167e7ba61ac8b036dc0a477a9e81d0df", "text": "Don't start by investing in a few individual companies. This is risky. Want an example? I'm thinking of a big company, say $120 billion or so, a household name, and good consistent dividends to boot. They were doing fairly well, and were generally busy trying to convince people that they were looking to the future with new environmentally friendly technologies. Then... they went and spilled a bunch of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, it wasn't a pretty picture if BP was one of five companies in your portfolio that day. Things would look a lot better if they were one of 500 or 5000 companies, though. So. First, aim for diversification via mutual funds or ETFs. (I personally think you should probably start with the mutual funds: you avoid trading fees, for one thing. It's also easier to fit medium-sized dollar amounts into funds than into ETFs, even if you do get fee-free ETF trading. ETFs can get you better expense ratios, but the less money you have invested the less important that is.) Once you have a decent-sized portfolio - tens of thousands of dollars or so - then you can begin to consider holding stocks of individual companies. Take note of fees, including trading fees / commissions. If you buy $2000 worth of stock and pay a $20 commission you're already down 1%. If you're holding a mutual fund or ETF, look at the expense ratio. The annualized real return on the stock market is about 4%. (A real return is after adjusting for inflation.) If your fee is 1%, that's about a quarter of your earnings, which is huge. And while it's easy for a mutual fund to outperform the market by 1% from time to time, it's really really hard to do it consistently. Once you're looking at individual companies, you should do a lot of obnoxious boring stupid research and don't just buy the stock on the strength of its brand name. You'll be interested in a couple of metrics. The main one is probably the P/E ratio (price/earnings). If you take the inverse of this, you'll get the rate at which your investment is making you money (e.g. a P/E of 20 is 5%, a P/E of 10 is 10%). All else being equal, a lower P/E is a good thing: it means that you're buying the company's income really cheap. However, all else is seldom equal: if a stock is going for really cheap, it's usually because investors don't think that it's got much of a future. Earnings are not always consistent. There are a lot of other measures, like beta (correlation to the market overall: riskier volatile stocks have higher numbers), gross margins, price to unleveraged free cash flow, and stuff like that. Again, do the boring research, otherwise you're just playing games with your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4ae38af3242ec23e15bb3730a65c228", "text": "\"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \"\"like\"\" it. The \"\"tiny chunks\"\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b81f264b75ed4b2f443dd090e38ece66", "text": "Every listed company needs to maintain book of accounts, when you are investing in companies you would have to look at what is stated in the books and along with other info decide to invest in it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4edced1ac9a8249708dd0ee8f3852303", "text": "While on the surface it might not make sense to pay more than one dollar to get just one dollar back, the key thing is that a good company's earnings are recurring each year. So, you wouldn't just be paying for the $1 dollar of earnings per share this year, but for the entire future stream of earnings per share, every year, in perpetuity -- and the earnings may grow over time too (if it remains a good company.) Your stock is a claim on a portion of the company's future. The brighter and/or more certain that future, the more investors are willing to pay for each recurring dollar of earnings. And the P/E ratio tells you, in effect, how many years it might take for your investment to earn back what you paid – assuming earnings remain the same. But you would hope the earnings would grow, too. When a company's earnings are widely expected to grow, the P/E for the stock is often higher than average. Bear in mind you don't actually receive the company's earnings, since management often decides to reinvest all or a portion of it to grow the company. Yet, many companies do pay a portion of earnings out as dividends. Dividends are money in your pocket each year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1fd26ee58a9ba5d07e635ce82827285", "text": "Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbb2f50c03a1c5041c58a7725a59c60d", "text": "Patrick, This article points out three likely effects (direct and indirect) sovereign default can have on the individual: http://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/economics/comments/the-sovereign-default-option-is-costly/ This looks at how a default may not look like a default - even if it is. But again, how defaults can impact the man in the street: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703323704574602030789251824.html The fascinating Argentine default is described in a blow-by-blow format here, including brief references to things like unemployment and personal savings: http://theinflationist.com/sovereign-default/argentine-sovereign-default-2002-argentina-financial-crisis Remember, though. Not all defaults are the same. And a modern-European country's default may look very different to what has occurred elsewhere.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a5ef1ce3e1b9adcf43a4ea4e8678c06a	At what point do index funds become unreliable?	[ { "docid": "54d8c9482978200445c2f0e391f4b6af", "text": "\"A great deal of analysis on this question relies on misunderstandings of the market or noticing trends that happened at the same time but were not caused by each other. Without knowing your view, I'll just give the basic idea. The amount of active management is self-correcting. The reason people have moved out of actively managed funds is that the funds have not been performing well. Their objective is to beat their benchmarks by profiting as they correct mispricing. They are performing poorly because there is too much money chasing too few mispricings. That is why the actively managed industry is shrinking. If it gets small enough, presumably those opportunities will become more abundant and mispricing correction will become more profitable. Then money will flow back into active funds. Relevant active management may not be what a lay person is thinking of. At the retail level, we are observing a shift to passive funds, but there is still plenty of money in other places. For example, pension and endowment funds normally have an objective of beating a market benchmark like the Russell 3000. As a result they are constantly trying to find opportunities to invest in active management that really can outperform. They represent a great deal of money and are nothing like the \"\"buy and forget\"\" stereotype we sometimes imagine. Moreover, hedge funds and propreitary trading shops explicitly and solely try to correct mispricings. They represent a very, very large bucket of money that is not shrinking. Active retail mutual funds and individual investors are not as relevant for pricing as we might think. More trading volume is not necessarily a good thing, nor is it the measure of market quality. One argument against passive funds is that passive funds don't trade much. Yet the volume of trading in the markets has risen dramatically over time as a result of technological improvements (algorithmic traders, mostly). They have out-competed certain market makers who used to make money on inefficiencies of the market. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, prices are more efficient now and it appears that these computers are more responsive to price-relevant information than people used to be. So even if trading volume does decrease, I see no reason to worry that prices will become less efficient. That's not the direction things have gone, even as passive investing has boomed. Overall, worries about passive investing rely on an assumption that there is not enough interest in and resources for making arbitrage profits to keep prices efficient. This is highly counterfactual and always will be. As long as people and institutions want money and have access to the markets, there will be plenty of resources allocated to price correction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5425400aa00739f218859eaffbd248", "text": "\"The argument you are making here is similar to the problem I have with the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis. That is if the market already has incorporated all of the information about the correct prices, then there's no reason to question any prices and then the prices never change. However, the mechanism through which the market incorporates this information is via the actors buying an selling based on what they see as the market being incorrect. The most basic concept of this problem (I think) starts with the idea that every investor is passive and they simply buy the market as one basket. So every paycheck, the index fund buys some more stock in the market in a completely static way. This means the demand for each stock is the same. No one is paying attention to the actual companies' performance so a poor performer's stock price never moves. The same for the high performer. The only thing moving prices is demand but that's always up at a more or less constant rate. This is a topic that has a lot of discussion lately in financial circles. Here are two articles about this topic but I'm not convinced the author is completely serious hence the \"\"worst-case scenario\"\" title. These are interesting reads but again, take this with a grain of salt. You should follow the links in the articles because they give a more nuanced understanding of each potential issue. One thing that's important is that the reality is nothing like what I outline above. One of the links in these articles that is interesting is the one that talks about how we now have more indexes than stocks on the US markets. The writer points to this as a problem in the first article, but think for a moment why that is. There are many different types of strategies that active managers follow in how they determine what goes in a fund based on different stock metrics. If a stocks P/E ratio drops below a critical level, for example, a number of indexes are going to sell it. Some might buy it. It's up to the investors (you and me) to pick which of these strategies we believe in. Another thing to consider is that active managers are losing their clients to the passive funds. They have a vested interest in attacking passive management.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e54e0f1c7850927cf99c179d785dde21", "text": "\"As more actively managed funds are driven out of the market, the pricing of individual stocks should become less rational. I.e. more stocks will become underpriced relative to their peers. As stock prices become less rational, the reward for active investing will increase, since it will become easier to \"\"pick a winner\"\". Eventually, the market will reach a new equilibrium where only active investors who are good enough to turn a profit will remain. Even then, passive investment will still do roughly as well as \"\"the market\"\" since it has low overhead and minimal investment lag. There is no reason to expect the system to collapse, since it is characterized primarily by negative feedback loops rather than positive feedback. The last few decades have seen a shift from active to passive investment because increased market transparency and efficiency have reduced the labor required to keep pricing rational. Basically, as people have gotten better at predicting stock performance, less active investment has been required to keep prices rational.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e683e94cf2644484ac1676cade3c202", "text": "\"private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment. This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this \"\"index ETF parasitism\"\" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue. Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25ecfa8f3c795681212ee83de19234fc", "text": "Private investors as mutual funds are a minority of the market. Institutional investors make up a substantial portion of the long term holdings. These include pension funds, insurance companies, and even corporations managing their money, as well as individuals rich enough to actively manage their own investments. From Business Insider, with some aggregation: Numbers don't add to 100% because of rounding. Also, I pulled insurance out of household because it's not household managed. Another source is the Tax Policy Center, which shows that about 50% of corporate stock is owned by individuals (25%) and individually managed retirement accounts (25%). Another issue is that household can be a bit confusing. While some of these may be people choosing stocks and investing their money, this also includes Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) and company founders. For example, Jeff Bezos owns about 17% of Amazon.com according to Wikipedia. That would show up under household even though that is not an investment account. Jeff Bezos is not going to sell his company and buy equity in an index fund. Anyway, the most generous description puts individuals as controlling about half of all stocks. Even if they switched all of that to index funds, the other half of stocks are still owned by others. In particular, about 26% is owned by institutional investors that actively manage their portfolios. In addition, day traders buy and sell stocks on a daily basis, not appearing in these numbers. Both active institutional investors and day traders would hop on misvalued stocks, either shorting the overvalued or buying the undervalued. It doesn't take that much of the market to control prices, so long as it is the active trading market. The passive market doesn't make frequent trades. They usually only need to buy or sell as money is invested or withdrawn. So while they dominate the ownership stake numbers, they are much lower on the trading volume numbers. TL;DR: there is more than enough active investment by organizations or individuals who would not switch to index funds to offset those that do. Unless that changes, this is not a big issue.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1f844c3721d14b0eb0bbbb2963e0852d", "text": "I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases. Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon. Source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e16bf72b7e84e7aac3a2eb57a804450", "text": "\"This falls under value investing, and value investing has only recently picked up study by academia, say, at the turn of the millennium; therefore, there isn't much rigorous on value investing in academia, but it has started. However, we can describe valuations: In short, valuations are randomly distributed in a log-Variance Gamma fashion with some reason & nonsense mixed in. You can check for yourself on finviz. You can basically download the entire US market and then some, with many financial and technical characteristics all in one spreadsheet. Re Fisher: He was tied for the best monetary economist of the 20th century and created the best price index, but as for stocks, he said this famous quote 12 days before the 1929 crash: \"\"Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.\"\" - Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929 EDIT Value investing has almost always been ignored by academia. Irving Fisher and other proponents of it before it was codified by Graham in the mid 20th century certainly didn't help with comments like the above. It was almost always believed that it was a sucker's game, \"\"the bigger sucker\"\" game to be more precise because value investors get destroyed during recession/collapses. So even though a recessionless economy would allow value investors and everyone never to suffer spontaneous collapses, value investors are looked down upon by academia because of the inevitable yet nearly always transitory collapse. This expresses that sentiment perfectly. It didn't help that Benjamin Graham didn't care about money so never reached the heights of Buffett who frequently alternates with Bill Gates as the richest person on the planet. Buffett has given much credibility, and academia finally caught on around in 2000 or so after he was proven right about a pending tech collapse that nearly no one believed would happen; at least, that's where I begin seeing papers being published delving into value concepts. If one looks harder, academia's even taken the torch and discovered some very useful tools. Yes, investment firms and fellow value investors kept up the information publishing, but they are not academics. The days of professors throwing darts at the stock listings and beating active managers despite most active managers losing to the market anyways really held back this side of academia until Buffett entered the fray and embarrassed them all with his club's performance, culminating in the Superinvestors article which is still relatively ignored. Before that, it was the obsession with beta, the ratio of a security's variance to its covariance to the market, a now abandoned theory because it has been utterly discredited; the popularizers of beta have humorously embraced the P/B, not giving the satisfaction to Buffet by spurning the P/E. Tiny technology firms receive ridiculous valuations because a long-surviving tiny tech firm usually doesn't stay small for long thus will grow at huge rates. This is why any solvent and many insolvent tech firms receive large valuations: risk-adjusted, they should pay out huge on average. Still, most fall by the wayside dead, and those 100 P/S valuations quickly crumble. Valuations are influenced by growth. One can see this expressed more easily with a growing perpetuity: Where P is price, i is income, r is the rate of return, and g is the growth rate of i. Rearranging, r looks like: Here, one can see that a higher P relative to i will dull the expected rate of return while a higher g will boost it. It's fun for us value investor/traders to say that the market is totally inefficient. That's a stretch. It's not perfectly inefficient, but it's efficient. Valuations are clustered very tightly around the median, but there are mistakes that even us little guys can exploit and teach the smart money a lesson or two. If one were to look at a distribution of rs, one'd see that they're even more tightly packed. So while it looks like P/Es are all over the place industry to industry, rs are much more well clustered. Tech, finance, and discretionaries frequently have higher growth rates so higher P/Es yet average rs. Utilities and non-discretionaries have lower growth rates so lower P/Es yet average rs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ff85e09a474f0d9e101faea6f81b394", "text": "If you throw up a 20 year chart on the 10 year you can see it isn't fluctuating around 2%. It happens to be at 2% now but it has been relentlessly driving lower for at least 20 years. My own personal biased opinion is that it is a market infested with ultra-wealthy people who aren't looking for returns. They just basically want to maintain what they already sucked out of the system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fe88507bbc13e2adef09b375816123b", "text": "\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22901303846ca60835b18ec9e5f5cbc3", "text": "By all measures, the U.S. stock market is currently frothy. The apparent stability of the world financial system is superficial – financial asset prices are not real, the equilibrium is temporary, the lack of volatility is a trap, and when the whole thing goes haywire, there will truly be hell to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "247dfb2dc3b33e6a52abd129f07abd93", "text": "The volatility of an index fund should usually be a lot lower than that of an individual stock. However even with a broad index fund you should consider the fact that being down by 10% in the time frame you refer to is quite possible! So is being up by 10% of course. A corporate bond might be a better choice if you can find one you trust.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37fe0e231579670b8da116d8a164aff4", "text": "great example of levered tracking error is any 2x/3x VIX etf. during periods of high volatility (like last week) you will be able to realize much higher returns on the underlying index as the levered and inverse ETFs are unable to replicate their intended performance using market securities. it is not uncommon to see the VIX up ~30% with levered ETFs only netting ~10-12% as opposed to the intended 60 or 90%, for example", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bae2ad702ebc1440fa3a7f006e568fe8", "text": "\"The problem with the proposed plan is the word \"\"inevitable\"\". There is no such thing as a recovery that is guaranteed (though we may wish it to be so), and even if there was there is no telling how long it will take for a recovery to occur to a sufficient degree. There are also no foolproof ways to determine when you have hit the bottom. For historical examples, consider the Nikkei. In 2000 the value fell from 20000 to 15000 in a single year. Had you bought then, you would have found the market still fell and didn't get back to 15k until 2005...where it went up and down for years, when in 2008 it fell again and would not get back to that level again until 2014. Lest you think this was an isolated international incident, the same issues happened to the S&P in 2002, where things went up until they fell even lower in 2009 before finally climbing again. Will there be another recession at some point? Surely. Will there be a single, double, or triple dip, and at what point is the true bottom - and will it take 5, 10, or 20+ years for things to get back above when you bought? No one really knows, and we can only guess. So if you want to double down after a recession, you can, but it's important you not fool yourself into thinking you aren't greatly increasing your risk exposure, because you are.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f721f620e679c516aabc50115b8c3d77", "text": "If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c2dde5217bba8832a2d722576b1c794", "text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9810fb83e7253b932c4b16a16d9e55", "text": "\"Yes, many hedge funds (for example) did not survive 2008-2009. But hedge funds were failing both before and after that period, and other hedge funds thrived. Those types of funds are particularly risky because they depend so much on leverage (i.e. on money that isn't actually theirs). More publically-visible funds (like those of the big-name index fund companies) tended not to close because they are not leveraged. You say that \"\"a great many companies\"\" failed during the recession, but that's not actually true. I can't think of more than a handful of publically-traded companies that went bankrupt. So, since the vast majority of publically-traded companies stayed in business, their stocks kept some/most of their value, and the funds that owned those stocks stayed afloat. I personally did not see a single index fund that went out of business due to the recession.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7777b222351bc03f73b9c5d9a640863", "text": "Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance. Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested. We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years. If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6241d19ae4f4a34d2000f940bf82e549", "text": "The issue is the time frame. With a one year investment horizon the only way for a fund manager to be confident that they are not going to lose their shirt is to invest your money in ultra conservative low volatility investments. Otherwise a year like 2008 in the US stock market would break them. Note if you are willing to expand your payback time period to multiple years then you are essentially looking at an annuity and it's market loss rider. Of course those contacts are always structured such that the insurance company is extremely confident that they will be able to make more in the market than they are promising to pay back (multiple decade time horizons).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7129104fb2ab770f186c5882f2e6074c", "text": "\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88df300e6b133556974c6289f78c352f", "text": "The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
af80e9c5955d6e793599499dcdfa416d	Why is it rational to pay out a dividend?	[ { "docid": "283fc5c844dfed1d7a837cf58c8a42b5", "text": "The main reason, as far as I can see, is that the dividends are payments with which the shareholders may do what they want. Capital that the company has no use for does not make a significant positive return on investment, as you pointed out, yes the company could accrue interest, but that is not going to make the company large sums of cash. While the company may be great at making shoes - maybe even the best in the world - doesn't mean they are good investors. Sure they could dabble at using their capital to invest in other equities, but they don't, because they just want to focus on making shoes. If the dividend goes to the investors, they can do what they wish, be it reinvest in the company, or invest elsewhere. Other companies that may make good use of the capital, and create significant returns on it are one such example. That is the rational answer, beyond that, one of the main reasons is that people like the feeling of receiving dividends - it might not be the answer you are looking for, but many people prefer companies that pay dividends for no rational reason over companies which grow their asset value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fd41a325f0fb649082ee85699cff9a3", "text": "First, you need to understand that not every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in companies that pay a regular dividend and use that income while keeping his investment intact. Imagine this: Let's say I own a profitable company, and I offer to sell you part ownership in that company. However, I tell you this upfront: no matter how much profit our company makes, you will never get a penny from me. You will be getting a stock certificate - a piece of paper - and that's it. You can watch the company grow, and you can tell yourself you own it, but the only way you will personally benefit from your investment would be to sell your piece to someone else, who would also never see a penny in profit. Does that sound like a good investment? The fact of the matter is, stocks in companies that do not distribute dividends do have value, but this value is largely based on the potential of profits/dividends at some point in the future. If a company vows never ever to pay dividends, why would anyone invest? An investment would be more of a donation (like Kickstarter) at that point. A company that pays dividends is possibly past their growth stage. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have stopped growing altogether, but remember that an expansion project for any company does not automatically yield a good result. If a company does not have a good opportunity currently for a growth project, I as an investor would rather get a dividend than have the company blow all the profit on a ill-fated gamble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a576e7d641e8ee105c3d97b8edfc4b51", "text": "Actually, share holder value is is better maximised by borrowing, and paying dividends is fairly irrelevant but a natural phase on a mature and stable company. Company finance is generally a balance between borrowing, and money raised from shares. It should be self evident with a little thought that if not now, then in the future, a company should be able to create earnings in excess of the cost of borrowing, or it's not a very valuable company to invest in! In fact what's the point of borrowing if the cost of the interest is greater than whatever wealth is being generated? The important thing about this is that money raised from shares is more expensive than borrowing. If a company doesn't pay dividends, and its share price goes up because of the increasing value of the business, and in your example the company is not borrowing more because of this, then the proportion of the value of the company that is based on the borrowing goes down. So, this means a higher and higher proportion of the finance of a company is provided by the more expensive share holders than the less expensive borrowing, and thus the company is actually providing LESS value to share holders than it might. Of course, if a company doesn't pay a dividend AND borrows more, this is not true, but that's not the scenario in your question, and generally mature companies with mature earnings may as well pay dividends as they aren't on a massive expansion drive in the same way. Now, this relative expense of share holders and borrowing is MORE true for a mature company with stable earnings, as they are less of a risk and can borrow at more favourable rates, AND such a company is LIKELY to be expanding less rapidly than a small new innovative company, so for both these reasons returning money to share holders and borrowing (or maintaining existing lending facilities) maintains a relatively more efficient financing ratio. Of course all this means that in theory, a company should be more efficient if it has no share holders at all and borrows ALL of the money it needs. Yes. In practise though, lenders aren't so keen on that scenario, they would rather have shareholders sharing the risk, and lending a less than 100% proportion of the total of a companies finance means they are much more likely to get their money back if things go horribly wrong. To take a small start up company by comparison, lenders will be leary of lending at all, and will certainly impose high rates if they do, or ask for guarantors, or demand security (and security is only available if there is other investment besides the loan). So this is why a small start up is likely to be much more heavily or exclusively funded by share holders. Also the start up is likely not to pay a dividend, because for a start it's probably not making any profit, but even if it is and could pay a dividend, in this situation borrowing is unavailable or very expensive and this is a rapidly growing business that wants to keep its hands on all the cash it can to accelerate itself. Once it starts making money of course a start up is on its way to making the transition, it becomes able to borrow money at sensible rates, it becomes bigger and more valuable on the back of the borrowing. Another important point is that dividend income is more stable, at least for the mature companies with stable earnings of your scenario, and investors like stability. If all the income from a portfolio has to be generated by sales, what happens when there is a market crash? Suddenly the investor has to pay, where as with dividends, the company pays, at least for a while. If a company's earnings are hit by market conditions of course it's likely the dividend will eventually be cut, but short term volatility should be largely eliminated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "521df5e113f22567afd3acdd292d5b3f", "text": "It comes down to the practical value of paying dividends. The investor can continually receive a stream of income without selling shares of the stock. If the stock did not pay a dividend and wanted continual income, the investor would have to continually sell shares to gain this stream of income, incurring transaction costs and increased time and effort involved with making these transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1bc62cb643f486e533c3927d4cf9cd7", "text": "The real value of a share of stock is the current cash value of all dividends the owner will receive, plus the current cash value of the final liquidation if any. Since people with different needs may judge the current cash value of an income stream differently, there would be a market basis for people to buy and sell stocks even if everyone could predict all future payouts perfectly. If shareholders knew that a company wouldn't pay any dividends until it was liquidated in the year 2066, whereupon it would pay $2000/share, then each share would in 2016 effectively be a fifty-year zero-coupon bond with a $2000 maturity value. While some investors would be willing to trade in such an instrument, the amount of money a company could charge for such an instrument would be far lower than the money it could charge for one with payouts that were more evenly distributed through time. Since the founders of most companies want their companies to be around for a long time, that would mean that shareholders would have no expectation of their shares ever yielding anything of value within any foreseeable timeframe. Even those who would be more interested in share-price appreciation than dividends wouldn't be able to see share prices rise if there wasn't any likelihood of the stock being bought by someone who wanted the dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22dfc1874b671568caacf18252b7cbd0", "text": "Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too) Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74ef942d4e73c953544714a81f8b0383", "text": "Paying out dividends and financing new projects with debt also lessens the agency problem. The consequences of a failed project are greater when debt is used, so the manager now has a greater incentive to see that the project is a success. This, in addition to the paid divided is a benefit to the shareholder. If equity wasn't paid out and instead used for the project then the manager may not be so interested in its success. And if it's a failure then the shareholders are worse off.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "caa2039cbfb91620e8f945061e12ad2b", "text": "Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16b0f346130714809d8295fe35c92f4d", "text": "\"Dividend-paying securities generally have predictable cash flows. A telecom, electric or gas utility is a great example. They collect a fairly predictable amount of money and sells goods at a fairly predictable or even regulated markup. It is easy for these companies to pay a consistent dividend since the business is \"\"sticky\"\" and insulated by cyclical factors. More cyclic investments like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Gold, etc are more exposed to the crests and troughs of the economy. They swing with the economy, although not always on the same cycle. The DJIA is a basket of 30 large industrial stocks. Gold is a commodity that spikes when people are faced with uncertainty. The \"\"Alpha\"\" and \"\"Beta\"\" of a stock will give you some idea of the general behavior of a stock against the entire market, when the market is trending up and down respectively.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b48723be4cfd22c056c3bd1f60c6f2b5", "text": "Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3149270826356975b301bd95c0ebabf6", "text": "\"This question is predicated on the assumption that investors prefer dividends, as this depends on who you're speaking to. Some investors prefer growth stocks (some which don't pay dividends), so in this case, we're covering the percent of investors who like dividend paying stocks. It depends on who you ask and it also depends on how self-aware they are because some people may give reasons that make little financial sense. The two major benefits that I hear are fundamentally psychological: Dividends are like mini-paychecks. Since people get a dopamine jolt from receiving a paycheck, I would predict the same holds true for receiving dividends. More than likely, the brain feels a reward when getting dividends; even if the dividend stock performs lower than a growth stock for a decade, the experience of receiving dividends may feel more rewarding (plus, depending on the institution, they may get a report or see the tax information for the year, and that also feels good). Some value investors don't reinvest dividends, as they believe the price of the stock matters (stocks are either cheap or expensive and automatic reinvestment to these investors implies that the price of a stock doesn't matter), so dividends allow them to rebuild their cash after a buy. They can either buy more shares, if the stock is cheap, or keep the cash if the stock is expensive. Think about Warren Buffett here: he purchased $3 billion worth of shares of Wells Fargo at approximately $8-12 a share in 2009 (from my memory, as people were shocked that be bought into a bank when no one liked banks). Consider how much money he makes from dividends off that purchase alone and if he were to currently believe Wells Fargo was overpriced, he could keep the cash and buy something else he believes is cheaper. In these cases, dividends automatically build cash cushions post buying and many value investors believe that one should always have cash on hand. This second point is a little tricky because it can involve risk assessment: some investors believe that high dividend paying stocks, like MO, won't experience the huge declines of indexes like the SPY. MO routed the SPY in 2009 (29% vs. 19%) and these investors believe that's because it's yield was too desired (it feels safer to them - the index side would argue \"\"but what happens in the long run?\"\"). The problem I have with this argument (which is frequent) is that it doesn't hold true for every high yield stock, though some high yield stocks do show strong resistance levels during bear markets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c90632e5a5534cfb491f783708f5b0c9", "text": "There are many stocks that don't have dividends. Their revenue, growth, and reinvestment help these companies to grow, and my share of such companies represent say, one billionth of a growing company, and therefore worth more over time. Look up the details of Berkshire Hathaway. No dividend, but a value of over $100,000. Not a typo, over one hundred thousand dollars per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce", "text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07840ca3531beffb6cc1cd5266218a0c", "text": "\"In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a \"\"loss harvesting\"\" strategy. So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax \"\"benefits\"\" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends. You have precise control of the realization of gains. However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch. One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses. Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly. While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule. If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07bfc4bf7cdff666fb929873475d0159", "text": "Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question. Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d133fdf8af7ed7e81a929aefa9fb736", "text": "The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can sell it and make more money than dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b6204d3f9eabcbb760debffba4fbe26", "text": "Why do people talk about stock that pay high dividends? Traditionally people who buy dividend stocks are looking for income from their investments. Most dividend stock companies pay out dividends every quarter ( every 90 days). If set up properly an investor can receive a dividend check every month, every week or as often as they have enough money to stagger the ex-dates. There is a difference in high $$ amount of the dividend and the yield. A $1/share dividend payout may sound good up front, but... how much is that stock costing you? If the stock cost you $100/share, then you are getting 1% yield. If the stock cost you $10/share, you are getting 10% yield. There are a lot of factors that come into play when investing in dividend stocks for cash flow. Keep in mind why are you investing in the first place. Growth or cash flow. Arrange your investing around your major investment goals. Don't chase big dollar dividend checks, do your research and follow a proven investment plan to reach your goals safely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aeb17bf4b73d0f13117216075ec7f99", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "743d2e65a512c9a50e965e0a1b4a80f0", "text": "\"Dividends telegraph that management has a longer term focus than just the end of quarter share price. There is a committment to at least maintain (if not periodically increase) the dividend payout year over year. Management understands that cutting or pausing dividends will cause dividend investors in market to dump shares driving down the stock price. Dividends can have preferential tax treatment in some jurisdictions, either for an individual compared to capital gains or compared to the corporation paying taxes themselves. For example, REITs (real estate investment trusts) are a type of corporation that in order to not pay corporate income tax are required to pay out 95% of income as dividends each year. These are not the only type, MLP (master limited partnerships) and other \"\"Partnership\"\" structures will always have high dividend rates by design. Dividends provide cash flow and trade market volatility for actual cash. Not every investor needs cash flow, but for certain investors, it reduces the risks of a liquidity crisis, such as in retirement. The alternative for an investor who seeks to use the sale of shares would be to maintain a sufficient cash reserve for typical market recessions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71e70c6c3d426e2f03e616d2b9f7092d", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8cee11e55fd3e106fa825d34f6905a0", "text": "There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
61da9a19e5712da1d91638f8c3ea5080	Is it worth investing in Index Fund, Bond Index Fund and Gold at the same time?	[ { "docid": "5ee7208f09c10566f9a7a1ef874d6c38", "text": "\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \"\"actively managed\"\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \"\"time the market\"\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99f1f899ec6427bcb78988b25cbce56a", "text": "I'd say neither. Index Funds mimic whatever index. Some stocks that are in the index are good investment opportunities, others not so much. I'm guessing the Bond Index Funds do the same. As for Gold... did you notice how much gold has risen lately? Do you think it will keep on rising like that? For which period? (Hint: if your timespan is less than 10 years, you really shouldn't invest). Investing is about buying low, and selling high. Gold is high, don't touch it. If you want to invest in funds, look at 4 or 5 star Morningstar rated funds. My advisors suggest Threadneedle (Lux) US Equities DU - LU0096364046 with a 4 star rating as the best American fund at this time. However, they are not favoring American stocks at this moment... so maybe you should stay away from the US for now. Have you looked at the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe4513005bf90450c2695629c0f31560", "text": "Taking into account that you are in Cyprus, a Euro country, you should not invest in USD as the USA and China are starting a currency war that will benefit the Euro. Meaning, if you buy USD today, they will be worth less in a couple of months. As for the way of investing your money. Look at it like a boat race, starting on the 1st of January and ending on the 31st of December each year. There are a lot of boats in the water. Some are small, some are big, some are whole fleets. Your objective is to choose the fastest boat at any time. If you invest all of your money in one small boat, that might sink before the end of the year, you are putting yourself at risk. Say: Startup Capital. If you invest all of your money in a medium sized boat, you still run the risk of it sinking. Say: Stock market stock. If you invest all of your money in a supertanker, the risk of it sinking is smaller, and the probability of it ending first in the race is also smaller. Say: a stock of a multinational. A fleet is limited by it's slowest boat, but it will surely reach the shore. Say: a fund. Now investing money is time consuming, and you may not have the money to create your own portfolio (your own fleet). So a fund should be your choice. However, there are a lot of funds out there, and not all funds perform the same. Most funds are compared with their index. A 3 star Morningstar rated fund is performing on par with it's index for a time period. A 4 or 5 star rated fund is doing better than it's index. Most funds fluctuate between ratings. A 4 star rated fund can be mismanaged and in a number of months become a 2 star rated fund. Or the other way around. But it's not just luck. Depending on the money you have available, your best bet is to buy a number of star rated, managed funds. There are a lot of factors to keep into account. Currency is one. Geography, Sector... Don't buy for less than 1.000€ in one fund, and don't buy more than 10 funds. Stay away from Gold, unless you want to speculate (short term). Stay away from the USD (for now). And if you can prevent it, don't put all your eggs in one basket.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b8dd2d1f26695900988a3ec1ae84aa65", "text": "Are you going to need any of the money in the next year or two, or are you saving it long term? Are you going to need any of it before you are 65? If no to both, put in a Roth IRA with a Vanguard Target retirement fund. If no to the first and yes to the second, put in the VTI index fund. If you want, you can keep 20-30% in a bond fund instead of 100% stock. Every 3-12 months, log in and redistribute your funds to maintain the desired split if you'd like, but this is somewhat optional. If you really, really want, set aside 5% for investing in a few companies you really believe in. You'll probably lose money on that investment, but it will reassure you that the rest of your money is wisely invested.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "136a3319c5a9aa18f28e1dc9a86d035d", "text": "If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f010325a3fe156fe86ddd14c85278e5e", "text": "\"Of course. \"\"Best\"\" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fbf857901037be395e69f69dff8648e", "text": "Bond laddering is usually a good idea, but with interest rates so low, a properly laddered portfolio is going to have a higher duration that you should be willing to accept right now. CD laddering seems like a silly idea. Just keep whatever amount you're going to need in a Money Market account and invest the rest according to your risk tolerance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cedfdaf74a6b62e2c8d8004af049661d", "text": "Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a16e38607c9d834e9d46ff63df423c5", "text": "No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0614273d91d85965c4ba9eaaef0c1251", "text": "Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eac11a4d733d751de25624ac4dd2d817", "text": "\"Without knowing anything else about you, I'd say I need more information. If all of your investments are in stocks, then that's not really diversified, regardless of how many stocks you own. There are other things to invest in besides stocks (and bonds, for that matter). What countries? \"\"International\"\" is pretty broad, and some countries are better bets than others at the moment. If you're old, I'd say very little of your money should be in stocks anyway. I'd also seek financial advice that is tailored to your goals, sophistication, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce6a9019ce22a1ff13282f68d93ca6f4", "text": "\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca8fac4806f4b0fd56b54a22da82a967", "text": "ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "256db289807bdd637e3836697a5df9ea", "text": "You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5fb93b7a5cd0209d2b227983b37eb21", "text": "Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619", "text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7872e2a2885e23482027b15df8710aa", "text": "Putting the money in a bank savings account is a reasonably safe investment. Anything other than that will come with additional risk of various kinds. (That's right; not even a bank account is completely free of risk. Neither is withdrawing cash and storing it somewhere yourself.) And I don't know which country you are from, but you will certainly have access to your country's government bonds and the likes. You may also have access to mutual funds which invest in other countries' government bonds (bond or money-market funds). The question you need to ask yourself really is twofold. One, for how long do you intend to keep the money invested? (Shorter term investing should involve lower risk.) Two, what amount of risk (specifically, price volatility) are you willing to accept? The answers to those questions will determine which asset class(es) are appropriate in your particular case. Beyond that, you need to make a personal call: which asset class(es) do you believe are likely to do better or less bad than others? Low risk usually comes at the price of a lower return. Higher return usually involves taking more risk (specifically price volatility in the investment vehicle) but more risk does not necessarily guarantee a higher return - you may also lose a large fraction of or even the entire capital amount. In extreme cases (leveraged investments) you might even lose more than the capital amount. Gold may be a component of a well-diversified portfolio but I certainly would not recommend putting all of one's money in it. (The same goes for any asset class; a portfolio composed exclusively of stocks is no more well-diversified than a portfolio composed exclusively of precious metals, or government bonds.) For some specifics about investing in precious metals, you may want to see Pros & cons of investing in gold vs. platinum?.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc8b26879a2340e97a9b043f7e3f155", "text": "My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
73ef4b0046ba5159fb1521766adfc8ee	Is it true that more than 99% of active traders cannot beat the index?	[ { "docid": "a138eba53b94d8218782106dd88a7a6e", "text": "What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1049121ec177abfc5cd10991f71b76c", "text": "Obviously, these numbers can never be absolute simply because not all the information is public. Any statistic will most likely be biased. I can tell you the following from my own experience that might get you closer in your answer: Hence, even though I cannot give you exact numbers, I fully agree that traders cannot beat the index long term. If you add the invested time and effort that is necessary to follow an active strategy, then the equation looks even worse. Mind you, active trading and active asset allocation (AAA) are two very different things. AAA can have a significant impact on your portfolio performance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d551a112c05e7e4ad3cf68a202c506dc", "text": "That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7cd5e8af0b5545ab3beca350d62578d0", "text": "Yes an index is by definition any arbitrary selection. In general, to measure performance there are 2 ways: By absolute return - meaning you want a positive return at all times ie. 10% is good. -1% is bad. By relative return - this means beating the benchmark. For example, if the benchmark returns -20% and your portfolio returns -10%, then it has delivered +10% relative returns as compared to the benchmark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25ecfa8f3c795681212ee83de19234fc", "text": "Private investors as mutual funds are a minority of the market. Institutional investors make up a substantial portion of the long term holdings. These include pension funds, insurance companies, and even corporations managing their money, as well as individuals rich enough to actively manage their own investments. From Business Insider, with some aggregation: Numbers don't add to 100% because of rounding. Also, I pulled insurance out of household because it's not household managed. Another source is the Tax Policy Center, which shows that about 50% of corporate stock is owned by individuals (25%) and individually managed retirement accounts (25%). Another issue is that household can be a bit confusing. While some of these may be people choosing stocks and investing their money, this also includes Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) and company founders. For example, Jeff Bezos owns about 17% of Amazon.com according to Wikipedia. That would show up under household even though that is not an investment account. Jeff Bezos is not going to sell his company and buy equity in an index fund. Anyway, the most generous description puts individuals as controlling about half of all stocks. Even if they switched all of that to index funds, the other half of stocks are still owned by others. In particular, about 26% is owned by institutional investors that actively manage their portfolios. In addition, day traders buy and sell stocks on a daily basis, not appearing in these numbers. Both active institutional investors and day traders would hop on misvalued stocks, either shorting the overvalued or buying the undervalued. It doesn't take that much of the market to control prices, so long as it is the active trading market. The passive market doesn't make frequent trades. They usually only need to buy or sell as money is invested or withdrawn. So while they dominate the ownership stake numbers, they are much lower on the trading volume numbers. TL;DR: there is more than enough active investment by organizations or individuals who would not switch to index funds to offset those that do. Unless that changes, this is not a big issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eea837f2962ad63b6cc13e0c938fd84a", "text": "Support and resistance only works as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone trading that stock agrees there's a resistance at so-and-so level, and it is on such-and-such scale, then they will trade accordingly and there will really be a support or resistance. So while you can identify them at any time scale (although as a rule the time scale on which you observed them should be similar to the time scale on which you intend to use them), it's no matter unless that's what all the other traders are thinking as well. Especially if there are multiple possible S/P levels for different time scales, there will be no consensus, and the whole system will break down as one cohort ruins the other group's S/P by not playing along and vice versa. But often fundamentals are expected to dominate in the long run, so if you are thinking of trades longer than a year, support and resistance will likely become meaningless regardless. It's not like that many people can hold the same idea for that long anyhow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d9775c0ff085d4d7023a275e8706142", "text": "\"A huge amount of money in all financial markets is from institutional investors, such as mutual funds, government pension plans, sovereign wealth funds, etc. For various reasons these funds do all of their trading at the end of the day. They care primarily that their end-of-day balances are in line with their targets and are easy to audit and far less about \"\"timing the market\"\" for the best possible trades. So, if you're looking at a stock that is owned by many institutional investors -- such as a stock (like AAPL) that makes up a significant portion of an index that many funds track -- there will be a huge amount of activity at this time relative to stocks that are less popular among institutions. Even just in its introduction this paper (PDF) gives a fair overview of other reasons why there's a lot of trading at end-of-day in general. (In fact, because of all this closing activity and the reliance on end-of-day prices as signposts for financial calculations, the end-of-day has for decades been the single most fraud-ridden time of the trading day. Electronic trading has done away with a lot of the straight-up thievery that floor traders and brokers used to get away with at the expense of the public, but it still exists. See, for example, any explanation of the term banging the close, or the penalties against 6 banks just last month for manipulating the FX market at the close.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77f40b3209aec2de9ea6811bdedc2815", "text": "Focusing on options, many people and companies use them to mitigate risk(hedge) When used as a hedge the objective is not to win big, it is to create a more predictable outcome. Option traders win big by consistenly structuring trades with a high probability of success. In this way, they take 100 and turn it into 1000 with 100 small trades with a target profit of $10/trade. Although options are a 'zero sum' game, a general theory among options traders is the stock market only has a 54-56 probability of profit(PoP) - skewed from 50-50 win/loss because the market tends to go up over a long time frame. Using Option trading strategies strategically, you have more control over PoP and you can set yourself up to win whether the security goes up/down/sideways. A quick and dirty measure of PoP is an options' delta. If the delta on a call option is 19, there is roughly a 19% chance your option will be in the money at expiration - or a 19% chance of hitting a home run and multiplyimg your money. If the delta is 68, there is a 68% chance of a profitable trade or getting on base. There are more variables to this equation, but I hope this clearly explains the essence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9", "text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6cebd35e0d7b2223ba9bbf6ab880406", "text": "Backstory (since I've never submitted a link before and don't know how to write a paragraph up there): I work as an analyst intern at a small RIA and this paper has been mentioned a few times. What do you guys think? What are the managers that actually CAN outperform benchmarks doing that most (~2/3) can't?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d54dbd5a6b33f419ebeafe4f977782", "text": "\"I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part. But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the \"\"fundamental index\"\" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think \"\"beating the market\"\" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying \"\"you can't beat the market so buy the index\"\" or Greenblatt saying \"\"here's how to beat the market with this strategy,\"\" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an \"\"index hugger,\"\" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a \"\"moat\"\" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15eea65830ec471dbb2b7d7acf7f652a", "text": "No. As long as you are sensible, an average person can make money on the stock market. A number of my investments (in Investment trusts) over the last 10 yeas have achieved over 200%. You're not going to turn $1000 into a million but you can beat cash. I suggest reading the intelligent investor by Graham - he was Warren Buffet's mentor", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1492fef953735b5f6997e04a1d5492e", "text": "\"The professional financial advisors do have tools which will take a general description of a portfolio and run monte-carlo simulations based on the stock market's historical behavior. After about 100 simulation passes they can give a statistical statement about the probable returns, the risk involved in that strategy, and their confidence in these numbers. Note that they do not just use the historical data or individual stocks. There's no way to guarantee that the same historical accidents would have occurred that made one company more successful than another, or that they will again. \"\"Past performance is no guarantee of future results\"\"... but general trends and patterns can be roughly modelled. Which makes that a good fit for those of us buying index funds, less good for those who want to play at a greater level of detail in the hope of doing better. But that's sorta the point; to beat market rate of return with the same kind of statistical confidence takes a lot more work.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b809e27c7650e4615cd9a31b7744ab4f", "text": "From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe940f93051087ade962c2d903cb6d8e", "text": "In my opinion, the ability to set a sell or buy price is the least of my concerns. Your question of whether to choose individual stocks vs funds prompts a different issue for me to bring to light. Choosing stocks that beat the market is not simple. In fact, a case can be made for the fact that the average fund lags the market by more and more over time. In the end, conceding that fact and going with the lowest cost funds or ETFs will beat 90% of investors over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e4f01017045a7b9ef74ebae91eacf5a", "text": "\"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99a35d8a21693b605106176989414fed", "text": "This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today. The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da17d5be6aabf802964420172f6efc5", "text": "\"Sure they work - right until they don't. Explanation: A stock picking strategy based on technical indicators is at worst a mix of random guessing and confirmation bias, which will \"\"work\"\" only due to luck. At best, it exploits a systematic inefficiency of the market. And any such inefficiency will automatically disappear when it is exploited by many traders. If it's published in a book, it is pretty much guaranteed not to work anymore. Oh, and you only get to know in hindsight (if at all) which of the two cases above applies to any given strategy.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fe29c70b2f4d72a6c62c42aeadc9410f	Employer skipped payments, should I allow them to defer payment until Jan 2017?	[ { "docid": "8670fe180d96963e64f7335cd3d86721", "text": "\"First, let's look at the tax brackets for single taxpayers in 2016: The cutoff between the 25% and 28% tax bracket is $91,150. You said that your gross is $87,780. This will be reduced by deductions and exemptions (at least $10,350). Your rental income will increase your income, but it is offset in part by your rental business expenses. For this year, you will almost certainly be in the 25% bracket, whether or not you receive your backpay this year. Next year, if you receive your backpay then and your salary is $11k higher, I'm guessing you'll be close to the edge. It is important to remember that the tax brackets are marginal. This means that when you move up to the next tax bracket, it is only the amount of income that puts you over the top that is taxed at the higher rate. (You can see this in the chart above.) So if, for example, your taxable income ends up being $91,160, you'll be in the 28% tax bracket, but only $10 of your income will be taxed at 28%. The rest will be taxed at 25% or lower. As a result, this probably isn't worth worrying about too much. A bit more explanation, requested by the OP: Here is how to understand the numbers in the tax bracket chart. Let's take a look at the second line, $9,276-$37,650. The tax rate is explained as \"\"$927.50 plus 15% of the amount over $9,275.\"\" The first $9,275 of your taxable income is taxed at a 10% rate. So if your total taxable income falls between $9,276 and $37,650, the first $9,275 is taxed at 10% (a tax of $927.50) and the amount over $9,275 is taxed at 15%. On each line of the chart, the amount of tax from all the previous brackets is carried down, so you don't have to calculate it. When I said that you have at least $10,350 in deductions and exemptions, I got that number from the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount. For 2016, the standard deduction for single taxpayers is $6,300. (If you itemize your deductions, you might be able to deduct more.) Personal exemptions for 2016 are at $4,050 per person. That means you get to reduce your taxable income by $4,050 for each person in your household. Since you are single with no dependents, your standard deduction plus the personal exemption for yourself will result in a reduction of at least $10,350 on your taxable income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2bc2c214b9eb7e002d1e82a7014e0c8", "text": "TL;DR: The difference is $230. Just for fun, and to illustrate how brackets work, let's look at the differences you could see from changing when you're paid based on the tax bracket information that Ben Miller provided. If you're paid $87,780 each year, then each year you'll pay $17,716 for a total of $35,432: $5,183 + $12,532 (25% of $50,130 (the amount over $37,650)) If you were paid nothing one year and then double salary ($175,560) the next, you'd pay $0 the first year and $42,193 the next: $18,558 + $23,634 (28% of $84,410 (the amount over $91,150)) So the maximum difference you'd see from shifting when you're paid is $6,761 total, $3,380 per year, or about 4% of your average annual salary. In your particular case, you'd either be paying $35,432 total, or $14,948 followed by $20,714 for $35,662 total, a difference of $230 total, $115 per year, less than 1% of average annual salary: $5,183 + $9,765 (25% of $39,060 (the amount $87,780 - $11,070 is over $37,650)) $18,558 + $2,156 (28% of $7,700 (the amount $87,780 + $11,070 is over $91,150))", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d7885cbddc73d702df6c3ddfae17ec64", "text": "\"See Publication 505, specifically the section on \"\"Annualized Income Installment Method\"\", which says: If you do not receive your income evenly throughout the year (for example, your income from a repair shop you operate is much larger in the summer than it is during the rest of the year), your required estimated tax payment for one or more periods may be less than the amount figured using the regular installment method. The publication includes a worksheet and explanation of how to calculate the estimated tax due for each period when you have unequal income. If you had no freelance income during a period, you shouldn't owe any estimated tax for that period. However, the process for calculating the estimated tax using this method is a good bit more complex and confusing than using the \"\"short\"\" method (in which you just estimate how much tax you will owe for the year and divide it into four equal pieces). Therefore, in future years you might want to still use the equal-payments method if you can swing it. (It's too late for this year since you missed the April deadline for the first payment.) If you can estimate the total amount of freelance income you'll receive (even though you might not be able to estimate when you'll receive it), you can probably still use the simpler method. If you really have no idea how much money you'll make over the year, you could either use the more complex computation, or you could use a very high estimate to ensure you pay enough tax, and you'll get a refund if you pay too much.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be1da953541e9ce40e4598da9a824e4", "text": "\"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, \"\"lag time\"\", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72444a1e64993e7ab98a68200e75d954", "text": "Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching. You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52eaf6d964328f4903cdb42885603788", "text": "It's my understanding that deferred revenue will be included as income as the services are rendered. In this way, gains originating from deferred revenue are not recognized until they are actually earned. It's a formality so the accounting adheres to the matching principle. It may help to view a DR as an advance payment (say like what an airline may do with ticket purchases that occur before the flight). It sounds like you're wanting to penalize the business for having to eventually provide a service. But I don't know if that would be accurate, I mean, from the business's perspective, isn't it always preferable to be paid in advance? Are you concerned the company may not have any recourse should the customer try to back out or something? I don't think I'm understanding your question, could you come at it from another angle to explain it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f34ae6731ec7e2a6fc4ab50ff0ac7e1e", "text": "\"It has been reported in consumer media (for example Clark Howard's radio program) that the \"\"no interest for 12 months\"\" contracts could trick you with the terms and the dates on the contract. Just as an example: You borrow $1000 on 12/1/2013, same as cash for 12 months. The contract will state the due date very clearly as 12/1/2014. BUT they statements you get will take payment on the 15th of each month. So you will dutifully pay your statements as they come in, but when you pay the final statement on 12/15/2014, you are actually 14 days late, have violated the terms, and you now owe all the interest that accumulated (and it wasn't a favorable rate). That doesn't happen all the time. Not all contracts are written that way. But you better read your agreement. Some companies use the same as cash deal because they want to move product. Some do it because they want to trick you with financing. Bottom line is, you better read the contract.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed29c570eae7fb018586b19dfcde1b80", "text": "\"This is really unfortunate. In general you can't back date individual policies. You could have (if it was available to you) elected to extend your employer's coverage via COBRA for the month of May, and possibly June depending on when your application was submitted, then let the individual coverage take over when it became effective. Groups have some latitude to retroactively cover and terminate employees but that's not an option in the world of individual coverage, the carriers are very strict about submission deadlines for specific effective dates. This is one of the very few ways that carriers are able to say \"\"no\"\" within the bounds of the ACA. You submit an application, you are assigned an effective date based on the date your application was received and subsequently approved. It has nothing to do with how much money you send them or whether or not you told them to back date your application. If someone at the New York exchange told you you could have a retroactive effective date they shouldn't have. Many providers have financial hardship programs. You should talk to the ER hospital and see what might be available to you. The insurer is likely out of the equation though if the dates of service occurred before your policy was effective. Regarding your 6th paragraph regarding having paid the premium. In this day and age carriers can only say \"\"no\"\" via administrative means. They set extremely rigid effective dates based on your application date. They will absolutely cancel you if you miss a payment. If you get money to them but it was after the grace period date (even by one minute) they will not reinstate you. If you're cancelled you must submit a new application which will create a new coverage gap. You pay a few hundred dollars each month to insure infinity risk, you absolutely have to cover your administrative bases because it's the only way a carrier can say \"\"no\"\" anymore so they cling to it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e51a65eb4d4db5998634f1c89bd9d272", "text": "\"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \"\"deluxe\"\" or \"\"premier\"\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "525b16126118a6a76b0ba4d2aed044bc", "text": "I think you're looking a step beyond the question being asked. This is a pretty simple accounting question that doesn't take into account any other activity, like earnings generated during the time period by the employee being paid. It's far more simple. Unpaid wages accrue to liabilities, assets remain constant because no cash leaves the door, this equity decreases equal to the change in liability. He's not deferring an expense, he accrued it at the time the work was done, he simply hasn't paid it. That's not the same as a DTA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "063b37e61a4683a727704eef73d1d360", "text": "\"Is there any practical reason... to hold off on making payments until I receive a billing statement? Yes, a few: As for a zero balance, FICO consumer affairs manager Barry Paperno says, \"\"The idea here is the lower, the better, in terms of the utilization percentage, but something is better than nothing....The score wants to see some kind of activity.\"\" How low should you go? In a recent interview, FICO spokesman Craig Watts said, \"\"If your utilization is 10 percent or lower, you're in great shape as far as utilization goes.\"\" That being said, there are downsides especially if you wind up forgetting to make a payment. The easiest thing to do (also from a time management perspective) is to get your billing statement once a month, verify the purchases on it, and at that time you receive the statement schedule an online bill payment so that it will be paid in full before the due date. As Aganju points out, you don't have to wait for a paper bill in hand or even an e-mail notification; you can go online after your statement date to get the statement. This makes sure you won't have extra costs related to unreliability of mail (if you still receive paper statements)/e-mail, though it does require remembering to check (and/or setting a recurring calendar reminder). Paying much in advance of that, as is your current practice, might be a good idea to free up available balance if you are planning a purchase that would take you over your credit limit, but this should be relatively rare (and some credit card companies will raise that limit if you have been paying well and ask nicely, though find out first if they do a \"\"hard pull\"\" of your credit report for that).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5b3bab0b93e6ec8c3de5d92d1996680", "text": "They gave advanced notice, so when the date is solidified, no one can say they didn't know anything. It's not as if the money is in limbo until then, it's still at fidelity. I am certain there will come time in '17 when you get a 30-60 day notice that the move will happen. There are rules that employers must deposit the money within X days of withholding from your check. But I don't believe there's anything against warning you too far in advance that a change in provider is planned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4896f11a944f6d57641a6383c67637c", "text": "This is not your problem and you should not try to fix it. If your employer paid money into someone else's account instead of yours they should ask their bank to reverse it and should pay you your wages while they are waiting for this to be done. No bank will let you do anything about money paid by someone else into an account that is not yours, or give you details of someone else's account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96be169c2db8ab9588b647f3b54e964b", "text": "By definition, this is a payroll deduction. There's no mechanism for you to tell the 401(k) administrator that a Jan-15 deposit is to be credited for 2016 instead of 2017. (As is common for IRAs where you do have the 'until tax time' option) If you are paid weekly, semi-monthly, or monthly, 12/31 is a Saturday this year and should leave no ambiguity about the date of your last check. The only unknown for me if if one is paid bi-weekly, and has a check covering 12/25 - 1/7. Payroll/HR will need to answer whether that check is considered all in 2016, all in 2017 or split between the two.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ca1b59e45e7dd98ad3c7f6ba8724c30", "text": "They call you because that is their business rules. They want their money, so their system calls you starting on the 5th. Now you have to decide what you should do to stop this. The most obvious is to move the payment date to before the 5th. Yes that does put you at risk if the tenant is late. But since it is only one of the 4 properties you own, it shouldn't be that big of a risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c868a5a5da49707a69a0ddc035f9c7a4", "text": "\"This is fairly simple, actually. You should insist on payment for the rent payment you never received and stop accepting cash payments. If you want to be nice, and believe the story, allow the tenant additional time or payment in installments for the missing $750, but this is a textbook example of why it's a bad idea to transact with cash. Insist on cash equivalents that are traceable and verifiable - check, money order or cashier's check, made out to you or your company name. Also, for what it's worth, you are not out $750, unless you choose to be. Your tenant is. \"\"I put cash in your mailbox\"\" is not proof of payment, and doesn't fly as payment anywhere. If it did, I'd never pay any of my bills.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d528af1915fd76bb48ff938a339e435", "text": "Let's look at the two options. It sounds like, at this time, the company has enough cash to pay you a salary or pay your loan off, but not both at the same time. Ideally, in the future, there will be enough cash flow to be able to do both at the same time. If you start your salary now, when the cash flow increases to the point where the company can pay off your loan, you will continue to receive your salary while the loan is being repaid. So it is probably most advantageous to you to start the salary now and wait with the loan payments. (If you think that the company is not going to make it and there is a danger of not ever getting the loan repaid, this could change; however, you are probably optimistic about the company, or you wouldn't have made the loan and agreed to work for free in the first place.) With the other option, the company gets out of debt quicker and cheaper. I can totally understand your brother wanting to eliminate this debt ASAP. It looks like you and your brother had different expectations about what was going to happen. That's why it is so critical to put these kinds of agreements in writing. If you had had a payment schedule in your written loan agreement, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, the issue of how long you would continue to work for free would still be there, but this could also have been decided ahead of time. As is, you have two different things going on that were left up in the air with no formal agreement. As to what is fair, that is something only you and he can work out. Perhaps you can propose a payment schedule for your loan that the company can afford now while paying your salary; that way, you will start getting paid for working, and the company will start moving toward eliminating the debt. I hope that you will be able to agree to a solution without ruining the relationship you have with your brother. Besides the fact that family relationships are important, a rift between the two of you would certainly be disastrous for the company and, as a result, your and his finances.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
41f394ed83dd1b269781432783fdcaab	What is a better way for an American resident in a foreign country to file tax?	[ { "docid": "0152ba06545b89e5d1178360243f5d4b", "text": "\"If you live outside the US, then you probably need to deal with foreign tax credits, foreign income exclusions, FBAR forms (you probably have bank account balances enough for the 10K threshold) , various monsters the Congress enacted against you like form 8939 (if you have enough banking and investment accounts), form 3520 (if you have a IRA-like local pension), form 5471 (if you have a stake in a foreign business), form 8833 (if you have treaty claims) etc ect - that's just what I had the pleasure of coming across, there's more. TurboTax/H&R Block At Home/etc/etc are not for you. These programs are developed for a \"\"mainstream\"\" American citizen and resident who has nothing, or practically nothing, abroad. They may support the FBAR/FATCA forms (IIRC H&R Block has a problem with Fatca, didn't check if they fixed it for 2013. Heard reports that TurboTax support is not perfect as well), but nothing more than that. If you know the stuff well enough to fill the forms manually - go for it (I'm not sure they even provide all these forms in the software though). Now, specifically to your questions: Turbo tax doesn't seem to like the fact that my wife is a foreigner and doesn't have a social security number. It keeps bugging me to input a valid Ssn for her. I input all zeros for now. Not sure what to do. No, you cannot do that. You need to think whether you even want to include your wife in the return. Does she have income? Do you want to pay US taxes on her income? If she's not a US citizen/green card holder, why would you want that? Consider it again. If you decide to include here after all - you have to get an ITIN for her (instead of SSN). If you hire a professional to do your taxes, that professional will also guide you through the ITIN process. Turbo tax forces me to fill out a 29something form that establishes bonafide residency. Is this really necessary? Again in here it bugs me about wife's Ssn Form 2555 probably. Yes, it is, and yes, you have to have a ITIN for your wife if she's included. My previous state is California, and for my present state I input Foreign. When I get to the state tax portion turbo doesn't seem to realize that I have input foreign and it wants me to choose a valid state. However I think my first question is do i have to file a California tax now that I am not it's resident anymore? I do not have any assets in California. No house, no phone bill etc If you're not a resident in California, then why would you file? But you might be a partial resident, if you lived in CA part of the year. If so, you need to file 540NR for the part of the year you were a resident. If you have a better way to file tax based on this situation could you please share with me? As I said - hire a professional, preferably one that practices in your country of residence and knows the provisions of that country's tax treaty with the US. You can also hire a professional in the US, but get a good one, that specializes on expats.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3640c3d8eb5ae32901be9fe97c340101", "text": "There's no law that prohibits a US citizen or US LPR from holding an account abroad, at least in a country that's not subject to some sort of embargo, so I don't see how it could affect your wife's chances of getting US citizenship when she's eligible. As mentioned by other posters, you'll have to file FBAR if the money you have in all your accounts abroad exceeds $10k at any point of the year and if the account pays any interest, you'll have to tell the IRS about the interest paid and (if applicable) taxes you paid on the interest income abroad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2948cd0e63af02de801485656a7996bc", "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) >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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc721c0bcdd095c130ae3e926407beb0", "text": "Companies in the US will take care of paying a portion of your required income tax on your behalf based on some paperwork you fill out when starting work. However, it is up to you as an individual to submit an income tax return. This is used to ensure that you did not end up under or overpaying based on what your company did on your behalf and any other circumstances that may impact your actual tax owed. In my experience, the process is similar in Europe. I think anyone who has a family, a house or investments in Europe would need to file an income tax return as that is when things start to get complex.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "810d4842bdc077402c3b1d10247a8e7f", "text": "If your gross income is only $3000, then you don't need to file: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf That said, pay careful attention to: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad You should be reporting ALL income, without regard to WHERE you earned it, on your US taxes. Not doing so could indeed get you in trouble if you are audited. Your level of worry depends on how much of the tax law you are willing to dodge, and how lucky you feel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e11cdeaad788b7bd62e45704991b7ad2", "text": "Plenty of retired people do stay in the US for longer than 60 days and don't pay taxes. In this IRS document 60 days stay appears to be the test for having a 'substantial presence' in the US, which is part of the test for determining residency. However the following is also written: Even if you meet the substantial presence test, you can be treated as a nonresident alien if you are present in the United States for fewer than 183 days during the current calendar year, you maintain a tax home in a foreign country during the year, and you have a closer connection to that country than to the United States. In other words, if your property in the US is not your main one, you pay tax in another country, and you stay there less than half the year, you should be treated as a non-resident (I am not a lawyer and this is not advice). This IRS webpage describes the tax situation of nonresident aliens. As I understand it, if you are not engaged in any kind of business in the US and have no income from US sources then you do not have to file a tax return. You should also look into the subject of double tax agreements. If your home country has one, and you pay taxes there, you probably won't need to pay extra tax to the US. But again, don't take my word for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6848e7ec4c1f2dd2f1436826fa588d0b", "text": "I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. 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! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. 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!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. 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. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. 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!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ee9f8d91bf9c6edf84fc8a1577ed745", "text": "Instead of SSN, foreign person should get a ITIN from the IRS. Instead of W9 a foreigner should fill W8-BEN. Foreigner might also be required to file 1040NR/NR-EZ tax report, and depending on tax treaties also be liable for US taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc041b18ffe6b806ba4fbcb0c963b9b0", "text": "\"The IRS taxes worldwide income of its citizens and green card holders. Generally, for those Americans genuinely living/working overseas the IRS takes the somewhat reasonable position of being in \"\"2nd place\"\" tax-wise. That is, you are expected to pay taxes in the country you are living in, and these taxes can reduce the tax you would have owed in the USA. Unfortunately, all of this has to be documented and tax returns are still required every year. Your European friends may find this quite surprising as I've heard, for instance, that France will not tax you if you go live and work in Germany. A foreign company operating in a foreign country under foreign law is not typically required to give you a W-2, 1099, or any of the forms you are used to. Indeed, you should be paying taxes in the place where you live and work, which is probably somewhat different than the USA. Keep all these records as they may be useful for your USA taxes as well. You are required to total up what you were paid in Euros and convert them to US$. This will go on the income section of a 1040. You should be paying taxes in the EU country where you live. You can also total those up and convert to US$. This may be useful for a foreign tax credit. If you are living in the EU long term, like over 330 days/year or you have your home and family there, then you might qualify for a very large exemption from your income for US tax purposes, called the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. This is explained in IRS Publication 54. The purpose of this is primarily to avoid double taxation. FBAR is a serious thing. In past years, the FBAR form went to a Financial Crimes unit in Detroit, not the regular IRS address. Also, getting an extension to file taxes does not extend the deadline for the FBAR. Some rich people have paid multi-million dollar fines over FBAR and not paying taxes on foreign accounts. I've heard you can get a $10,000 FBAR penalty for inadvertent, non-willful violations so be sure to send those in and it goes up from there to $250k or half the value of the account, whichever is more. You also need to know about whether you need to do FATCA reporting with your 1040. There are indeed, a lot of obnoxious things you need to know about that came into existence over the years and are still on the law books -- because of the perpetual 'arms race' between the government and would be cheaters, non-payers and their advisors. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ http://americansabroad.org/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d53cbcfda05a67c215e8a525befa1ad0", "text": "You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53af2fbd6c534776004b7b8a41d14360", "text": "\"Read up on filing an \"\"amended tax return\"\". Essentially you'll fill out the entire return as it should have been originally, then fill out form 1040X stating what has changed (and pay the additional tax due if needed). According to TurboTax's website, they have partnered with Sprintax for non-resident tax prep. I am not vouching for the service; just offering it as information.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb125c96f620e4c9f504cb2ff32448c2", "text": "\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \"\"shoot the jaywalker\"\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28526f65abdc2985664cffeb477ba4eb", "text": "\"IRS Pub 554 states (click to read full IRS doc): \"\"Do not file a federal income tax return if you do not meet the filing requirements and are not due a refund. ... If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must file a return if your gross income for the year was at least the amount shown on the appropriate line in Table 1-1 below. \"\" You may not have wage income, but you will probably have interest, dividend, capital gains, or proceeds from sale of a house (and there is a special note that you must file in this case, even if you enjoy the exclusion for primary residence)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b9bce9854b27eaf8e901277ae0536e3", "text": "If you're paying a foreign person directly - you submit form 1042 and you withhold the default (30%) amount unless the person gives you a W8 with a valid treaty claim and tax id. If so - you withhold based on the treaty rate. From the IRS: General Rule In general, a person that makes a payment of U.S. source income to a foreign person must withhold the proper amount of tax, report the payment on Form 1042-S and file a Form 1042 by March 15 of the year following the payment(s). I'd suggest to clarify this with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who's familiar with this kind of issues, and not rely on free advice on the Internet or DIY. Specific cases require specific advice and while the general rule above holds in most cases - in some there are exceptions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85794d485be3d23157e21a9378a3e00f", "text": "To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b810befb58360be5aa7896bc91f112ce", "text": "Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
419f1e27d24757cc087ce7de011d973e	Working Capital Definition	[ { "docid": "9e905a52faf79b0f5c72e8e48ceeefe1", "text": "As you say, if you delay paying your bills, your liabilities will increase. Like say your bills total $10,000 per month. If you normally pay after 30 days, then your short-term liabilities will be $10,000. If you stretch that out to pay after 60 days, then you will be carrying two months worth of bills as a short-term liability, or $20,000. Your liabilities go up. Assume you keep the same amount of cash on hand after you stretch out your payments like this as you did before. Now your liabilities are higher but your assets are the same, so your working capital goes down. For example, suppose you kept $25,000 in the bank before this change and you still keep $30,000 after. Then before your working capital was $25,000 minus $10,000, or $15,000. After it is $25,000 minus $20,000, or only $5,000. So how does this relate to cash flow? While presumably if the company has $10,000 per month in bills, and their bank balance remains at $25,000 month after month, then they must have $10,000 per month in income that's going to pay those bills, or the bank balance would be going down. So now if they DON'T pay that $10,000 in bills this month, but the bank account doesn't go up by $10,000, then they must have spent the $10,000 on something else. That is, they have converted that money from an on-going balance into cash flow. Note that this is a one-time trick. If you stretch out your payment time from 30 days to 60 days, then you are now carrying 2 months worth of bills on your books instead of 1. So the first month that you do this -- if you did it all at once for all your bills -- you would just not pay any bills that month. But then you would have to resume paying the bills the next month. It's not like you're adding $10,000 to your cash flow every month. You're adding $10,000 to your cash flow the month that you make the change. Then you return to equilibrium. To increase your cash flow every month this way, you would have to continually increase the time it takes you to pay your bills: 30 days this month, 45 days the next, 60 the next, then 75, 90, etc. Pretty soon your bills are 20 years past due and no one wants to do business with you any more. Normally people see an action like this as an emergency measure to get over a short-term cash crunch. Adopting it as a long-term policy seems very short-sighted to me, creating a long-term relationship problem with your suppliers in exchange for a one-shot gain. But then, I'm not a big corporate finance officer.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "69c205cbf9bf56e0b9473160c3e8c9ba", "text": "Market Capitalization is the equity value of a company. It measures the total value of the shares available for trade in public markets if they were immediately sold at the last traded market price. Some people think it is a measure of a company's net worth, but it can be a misleading for a number of reasons. Share price will be biased toward recent earnings and the Earnings Per Share (EPS) metric. The most recent market price only reflects the lowest price one market participant is willing to sell for and the highest price another market participant is willing to buy for, though in a liquid market it does generally reflect the current consensus. In an imperfect market (for example with a large institutional purchase or sale) prices can diverge widely from the consensus price and when multiplied by outstanding shares, can show a very distorted market capitalization. It is also a misleading number when comparing two companies' market capitalization because while some companies raise the money they need by selling shares on the markets, others might prefer debt financing from private lenders or sell bonds on the market, or some other capital structure. Some companies sell preferred shares or non-voting shares along with the traditional shares that exist. All of these factors have to be considered when valuing a company. Large-cap companies tend to have lower but more stable growth than small cap companies which are still expanding into new markets because of their smaller size.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d91641b0115b29c154cba6ec4cc1368", "text": "Just to clarify things: The Net Working Capital is the funds, the capital that will finance the everyday, the short term, operations of a company like buying raw materials, paying wages erc. So, Net Working Capital doesn't have a negative impact. And you should not see the liabilities as beneficial per se. It's rather the fact that with smaller capital to finance the short term operations the company is able to make this EBIT. You can see it as the efficiency of the company, the smaller the net working capital the more efficient the company is (given the EBIT). I hope you find it helpful, it's my first amswer here. Edit: why do you say the net working capital has a negative impact?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "862b9445109a46967822a08ef1286be4", "text": "Buying capital assets doesn't immediatley reduce a company's profits. They can get allowances for it but the assets are written down over a number of years Edit: two comments below mine were deleted which fairly called me out for amazon's high capital investment policy to which I reaponded: Fine I've had a few drinks. All I meant was capital doesn't directly reduce profits in most instances. Large investments like amazon would. You are right. But for Joe bloggs limited it doesn't. I had in mind the accountant the movie where one line Affleck says confuses capital and revenue and it stuck with me that a lot of people thought this. Didn't mean to have a go.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9529241402c4dcf8bf0a1425d45b5c92", "text": "I think this is a bit of fallacy. Capital is not a fix thing. If there is value to be realized, business can find the money. The issue really is that the job is hard and the company views it as a cost, not an investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4521934ec85b9804d0873a7241a44ee", "text": "Companies in their earliest stages will likely not have profits but do have the potential for profits. Thus, there can be those that choose to invest in companies that require capital to stay in business that have the potential to make money. Venture Capital would be the concept here that goes along with John Bensin's points that would be useful background material. For years, Amazon.com lost money particularly for its first 6 years though it has survived and taken off at times.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b05298f3563d6864d3393cef31eb4c9", "text": "Based on the definitions I found on Investopedia, it depends on whether or not it is going against an asset or a liability. I am not sure what type of accounting you are performing, but I know in my personal day-to-day dealings credits are money coming into my account and debits are money going out of my account. Definition: Credit, Definition: Debit", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8efcdd3d51f7df55046289063213940d", "text": "\"Doing fine != creating more jobs edit:4 million in the past two years isn't really enough to say that we are making any real progress on the millions out of work. Also wages are declining as they seek to cut costs which is a major problem as well. They way you define \"\"fine\"\" is very relative.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f4e6ede9c7537f3b3b238688c7e2262", "text": "While true, I don't have capital. The VC does. And while whatever my product is is in development, I'm haemorrhaging that capital on things like food and rent. If I want to make more, my startup is put on hold while I find some paid work. The dollar signs are an incentive for the VC to help make your business a success.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f76bb54bf06f0c84f8169e7d1583ffa0", "text": "Living wage applies to the location that the job is in. Warehouse in Northern KY? Living wage for northern KY. Warehouse in NYC? Living wage for NYC. Those numbers will be very different. As for a definition of a living wage, that varies. One definition is that it's the minimum income that allows a worker to meet their basic needs (food, housing, transportation, healthcare, etc), presumably without needing to rely on a social net. If you need for food stamps or housing assistance to meet your basic needs for food and shelter, you probably aren't making a living wage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70d63e6d6967e380b926dcbec8186683", "text": "Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bc6f8bc8f09c67ea95d522896ed8f58", "text": "Put simply: Financial Services provides or facilitates access to capital in some capacity, and are companies unto themselves (TD Ameritrade, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc), this also includes accounting companies which provide financial information, and insurance companies that deal with risk. Corporate Finance is part of all businesses in any industry (So for example Starbucks has a finance department, and those employees are doing corporate finance), and plans how to use capital to fund a company's projects and make sure there is sufficient cash on hand as it's needed for daily operations. Corporate Finance interacts with Financial Services to access the capital needed to fund the business's activities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8627b383cbdb6db68614a5784acb1870", "text": "In view of business, we have to book the entries. Business view, owner and business are different. When capital is invested in business by owner, in future business has to repay it. That's why, capital always credit. When we come about bank (business prospective) - cash, bank, fd are like assets which can help in the business. Bank is current asset (Real account) - Debit (what comes into the business) Credit (what goes out of the business) Hence credit and debit differs from what type of account is it.... credit - when business liables debit - what business has and receivables", "title": "" }, { "docid": "085b9e5bbc0ece3cb0def12fbf86347c", "text": "You need to look at where the profits are coming from. In this case, compressed wage growth and extreme cost-cutting. I mean shit, Dimon ripped out all of JPMs Bloomberg terminals. Work happiness at banks are much lower and people are leaving, save for at certain types of banks. The profits are just coming from employees. Overtime is a lot lower to non-existent in right to work states and you'll pull 10-30 hours over what you signed on for on a weekly basis. If you're not aware of what capital requirements are then I really can't dive into this. I suggest you read up on Basel 3, the US system, liquidity cover ratio (LCR) and then understand generally what products yield more and the risks attached to those. If you do know those then I feel like you know where my response is going, but I'm happy to get into it more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ac0b0b64d309a1940fa5d71c715c966", "text": "Means A has a much higher level of interest payments dye to either higher debt or higher cost of debt (or combination of both). MM theory suggests higher debt in a capital structure due to the tax shield but you need to consider if A's debt level is appropriate or too high and what that says about your company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0821351bfacb6aad101a8173bd66ac7b", "text": "Also, cash doesn't necessarily mean cash in the bank, like you or I would think of. It means cash-convertible (usually bonds) that can be sold or turned into cash within three months period (but usually can be done within a few weeks). But like you said, they are probably making more money by keeping it in their current investments. Plus, interest rates are at the lowest they will ever be, and GE is practically borrowing money for free. Quite smart, actually.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b150e70290c5aecd9fe5a1668cc56656	Can expense ratios on investment options in a 401(k) plan contain part of the overall 401(k) plan fees?	[ { "docid": "2a0af1c2c1b6c26dbc6f6d137d149688", "text": "There are several things being mixed up in the questions being asked. The expense ratio charged by the mutual fund is built into the NAV per share of the fund, and you do not see the charge explicitly mentioned as a deduction on your 401k statement (or in the statement received from the mutual fund in a non-401k situation). The expense ratio is listed in the fund's prospectus, and should also have been made available to you in the literature about the new 401k plan that your employer is setting up. Mutual fund fees (for things like having a small balance, or for that matter, sales charges if any of the funds in the 401k are load funds, God forbid) are different. Some load mutual funds waive the sales charge load for 401k participants, while some may not. Actually, it all depends on how hard the employer negotiates with the 401k administration company who handles all the paperwork and the mutual fund company with which the 401k administration company negotiates. (In the 1980s, Fidelity Magellan (3% sales load) was a hot fund, but my employer managed to get it as an option in our plan with no sales load: it helped that my employer was large and could twist arms more easily than a mom-and-pop outfit or Solo 401k plan could). A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, my first ever IRA contribution of $2000 into a no-load mutual fund resulted in a $25 annual maintenance fee, but the law allowed the payment of this fee separately from the $2000 if the IRA owner wished to do so. (If not, the $25 would reduce the IRA balance (and no, this did not count as a premature distribution from the IRA). Plan expenses are what the 401k administration company charges the employer for running the plan (and these expenses are not necessarily peanuts; a 401k plan is not something that needs just a spreadsheet -- there is lots of other paperwork that the employee never gets to see). In some cases, the employer pays the entire expense as a cost of doing business; in other cases, part is paid by the employer and the rest is passed on to the employees. As far as I know, there is no mechanism for the employee to pay these expenses outside the 401k plan (that is, these expenses are (visibly) deducted from the 401k plan balance). Finally, with regard to the question asked: how are plan fees divided among the investment options? I don't believe that anyone other than the 401k plan administrator or the employer can answer this. Even if the employer simply adopts one of the pre-packaged plans offered by a big 401k administrator (many brokerages and mutual fund companies offer these), the exact numbers depend on which pre-packaged plan has been chosen. (I do think the answers the OP has received are rubbish).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2985abf51365c0748e889c837755967", "text": "I question the reliability of the information you received. Of course, it's possible the former 401(k) provider happened to charge lower expense ratios on its index funds than other available funds and lower the new provider's fees. There are many many many financial institutions and fees are not fixed between them. I think the information you received is simply an assumptive justification for the difference in fees.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "99f5a86c40bb640dd563d824d274a358", "text": "The management expense ratio (MER) is the management fee, plus all of the other costs required to run the fund, excluding any trading costs. Here's a pretty good explanation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d6c3b768179744cbae7673ecd47ecee", "text": "The expense ratio is stated as an annual figure but is often broken down to be taken out periodically of the fund's assets. In traditional mutual funds, there will be a percent of assets in cash that can be nibbled to cover the expenses of running the fund and most deposits into the fund are done in cash. In an exchange-traded fund, new shares are often created through creation/redemption units which are baskets of securities that make things a bit different. In the case of an ETF, the dividends may be reduced by the expense ratio as the trading price follows the index usually. Expense ratios can vary as in some cases there may be initial waivers on new funds for a time period to allow them to build an asset base. There is also something to be said for economies of scale that allow a fund to have its expense ratio go down over time as it builds a larger asset base. These would be noted in the prospectus and annual reports of the fund to some degree. SPDR Annual Report on page 312 for the Russell 3000 ETF notes its expense ratio over the past 5 years being the following: 0.20% 0.20% 0.22% 0.20% 0.21% Thus, there is an example of some fluctuation if you want a real world example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a93de0c47ea465ff6df525d0abc886ad", "text": "The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88bb43b977aa1af15ce7a4b0fd2dbc66", "text": "Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33f9814f52c84615639ea6c51e2dbc68", "text": "\"Week after week, I make remarks regarding expenses within retirement accounts. A 401(k) with a 1% or greater fee is criminal, in my opinion. Whole life insurance usually starts with fees north of 2%, and I've seen as high as 3.5% per year. Compare that to my own 401(k) with charges .02% for its S&P fund. When pressed to say something nice about whole life insurance, I offer \"\"whole life has sent tens of thousands of children to college, the children of the people selling it.\"\" A good friend would never suggest whole life, a great friend will physically restrain you from buying such a product.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f92b437d308995bcd00e2e5cc8c7f1d", "text": "I like that you are hedging ONLY the Roth IRA - more than likely you will not touch that until retirement. Looking at fees, I noticed Vanguard Target retirement funds are .17% - 0.19% expense ratios, versus 0.04 - 0.14% for their Small/Mid/Large cap stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "398e0210b897b26b43d1e3f1a3761f2f", "text": "It says expense ratio of 0.14%. What does it mean? Essentially it means that they will take 0.14% of your money, regardless of the performance. This measures how much money the fund spends out of its assets on the regular management expenses. How much taxes will I be subject to This depends on your personal situation, not much to do with the fund (though investment/rebalancing policies may affect the taxable distributions). If you hold it in your IRA - there will be no taxes at all. However, some funds do have measures of non-taxable distributions vs dividends vs. capital gains. Not all the funds do that, and these are very rough estimates anyway. What is considered to be a reasonable expense ratio? That depends greatly on the investment policy. For passive index funds, 0.05-0.5% is a reasonable range, while for actively managed funds it can go up as much as 2% and higher. You need to compare to other funds with similar investment policies to see where your fund stands.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a286b75a29218a3fd4c1ff216ddc054a", "text": "Annual-report expense ratios reflect the actual fees charged during a particular fiscal year. Prospectus Expense Ratio (net) shows expenses the fund company anticipates will actually be borne by the fund's shareholders in the upcoming fiscal year less any expense waivers, offsets or reimbursements. Prospectus Gross Expense Ratio is the percentage of fund assets used to pay for operating expenses and management fees, including 12b-1 fees, administrative fees, and all other asset-based costs incurred by the fund, except brokerage costs. Fund expenses are reflected in the fund's NAV. Sales charges are not included in the expense ratio. All of these ratios are gathered from a fund's prospectus.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bce10b43f033ce8418cd40a93e9741fd", "text": "When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments. What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed0ed68df5683cfbdc67e5ce8577bcd3", "text": "Any ETF has expenses, including fees, and those are taken out of the assets of the fund as spelled out in the prospectus. Typically a fund has dividend income from its holdings, and it deducts the expenses from the that income, and only the net dividend is passed through to the ETF holder. In the case of QQQ, it certainly will have dividend income as it approximates a large stock index. The prospectus shows that it will adjust daily the reported Net Asset Value (NAV) to reflect accrued expenses, and the cash to pay them will come from the dividend cash. (If the dividend does not cover the expenses, the NAV will decline away from the modeled index.) Note that the NAV is not the ETF price found on the exchange, but is the underlying value. The price tends to track the NAV fairly closely, both because investors don't want to overpay for an ETF or get less than it is worth, and also because large institutions may buy or redeem a large block of shares (to profit) when the price is out of line. This will bring the price closer to that of the underlying asset (e.g. the NASDAQ 100 for QQQ) which is reflected by the NAV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61983126d87c9525df8f5091a81f81dd", "text": "Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76fdec82f23aeb8c14fab73c29211526", "text": "\"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies. I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k. The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about. In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself). If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future. Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options. Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves. I think it's called a \"\"nondiscrimination test\"\" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management. So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f1a0f80e6dd21796aad206c5e742633", "text": "Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f238a39c1647a151a0184a59ce1b787b", "text": "There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48200c2619731735e1decc0ae5936cd2", "text": "\"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \"\"Deductible\"\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \"\"compensation\"\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \"\"deducted\"\" - deferred).\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d2be780adcd1acc7d28db1f687d68f54	401(k) Investment stategies	[ { "docid": "8b473900266d99d7287e105b68cc01dd", "text": "\"You could end up with nothing, yes. I imagine those that worked at Enron years ago if their 401(k) was all in company stock would have ended up with nothing to give an example here. However, more likely is for you to end up with less than you thought as you see other choices as being better that with the benefit of hindsight you wish you had made different choices. The strategies will vary as some people will want something similar to a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" kind of investment and there may be fund choices where a fund has a targeted retirement date some years out into the future. These can be useful for people that don't want to do a lot of research and spend time deciding amongst various choices. Other people may prefer something a bit more active. In this case, you have to determine how much work do you want to do, do you want to review fund reviews on places like Morningstar, and do periodic reviews of your investments, etc. What works best for you is for you to resolve for yourself. As for risks, here are a few possible categories: Time - How many hours a week do you want to spend on this? How much time learning this do you want to do in the beginning? While this does apply to everyone, you have to figure out for yourself how much of a cost do you want to take here. Volatility - Some investments may fluctuate in value and this can cause issues for some people as it may change more than they would like. For example, if you invest rather aggressively, there may be times where you could have a -50% return in a year and that isn't really acceptable to some people. Inflation - Similarly to those investments that vary wildly there is also the risk that with time, prices generally rise and thus there is something to be said for the purchasing power of your investment. If you want to consider this in more detail consider what $1,000,000 would have bought 30 years ago compared to now. Currency risk - Some investments may be in other currencies and thus there is a risk of how different denominations may impact a return. Fees - How much do your fund's charge in the form of annual expense ratio? Are you aware of the charges being taken to manage your money here?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78fd0dd4f790f86621a72a8b8910ec63", "text": "Ending up with nothing is an unlikely situation unless you invest 100% in a company stock and the company goes under. In order to give you a good answer we need to see what options your employer gives for 401k investments. The best advice would be to take a list of all options that your employer allows and talk with a financial advisor. Here are a few options that you may or may not have as an option from an employer: Definitions from wikipedia: A target-date fund – also known as a lifecycle, dynamic-risk or age-based fund – is a collective investment scheme, usually a mutual fund, designed to provide a simple investment solution through a portfolio whose asset allocation mix becomes more conservative as the target date (usually retirement) approaches. An index fund or index tracker is a collective investment scheme (usually a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund) that aims to replicate the movements of an index of a specific financial market... An exchange-traded fund (ETF) is an investment fund traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks.[1] An ETF holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds, and trades close to its net asset value over the course of the trading day. Most ETFs track an index, such as a stock index or bond index. ETFs may be attractive as investments because of their low costs, tax efficiency, and stock-like features. The capital stock (or stock) of an incorporated business constitutes the equity stake of its owners. Which one can you lose everything in? You can lose everything in stocks by the company going under. In Index funds the entire market that it follows would have to collapse. The chances are slim here since the index made up of several companies. The S&P 500 is made up of 500 leading companies publicly traded in the U.S. A Pacific-Europe index such as MSCI EAFE Index is made up of 907 companies. The chances of losing everything in an ETF are also slim. The ETF that follows the S&P 500 is made up of 500 companies. An Pacific-Europe ETF such as MSCI EAFE ETF is made up of 871 companies. Target date funds are also slim to lose everything. Target date funds are made up of several companies like indexes and etfs and also mix in bonds and other investments depending on your age. What would I recommend? I would recommend the Index funds and/or ETFs that have the lowest fee that make up the following strategy for your age: Why Not Target Date Funds or Stocks? Target date funds have high fees. Later in life when you are closer to retirement you may want to add bonds to your portfolio. At that time if this is the only option to add bonds then you can change your elections. Stocks are too risky for you with your current knowledge. If your company matches by buying their stock you may want to consider reallocating that stock at certain points to your Index funds or ETFs.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c8b263ff314dc2a10885ee319673b4b7", "text": "\"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\"\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \"\"play money\"\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1f1d37b45d53d66203be41d788dcd70", "text": "\"Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc. Now, a statement such as \"\"I see my 401k is up 10%\"\" is meaningless unless you tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest these days), then your 11th contribution increases your 401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is \"\"up 10%\"\". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the 401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now. Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the 401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So, if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%. But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund because there is no money to pay for the additional shares you wish to purchase. Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the \"\"return\"\" can be used to buy more shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "188dd86c3c336b20a110fb5413285e31", "text": "\"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b109a70decdde42f25cf90204e3864d", "text": "Does the 401(k) get any match? Whatever you do, don't lose the match. Without more detail, it's tough. Will you lose more sleep for the debt rising, or for the retire account not? It seems your debt is well managed, a year to zero? A student loan wouldn't scare me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9608373ac4641fd3bf118810516a650", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef335ddf7b8b6c077fd5831a9f3447b6", "text": "\"Sometimes 403b's contain annuities or other insurance related instruments. I know that in many New York schools the local teacher unions administer the 403b plan, and sometimes choose proprietary investments like variable annuities or other insurance products. In New York the Attorney General sued and settled with the state teacher's union for their endorsement of a high cost ING 403b plan -- I believe the maintenance fees were in excess of 3%/year! In a tax deferred plan like a 401k, 403b or 457 plan, the low risk \"\"insurance fund\"\" is generally a GIC \"\"Guaranteed Investment Contract\"\". A GIC (aka \"\"Stable Value Fund\"\") is sort of cross between a CD and a Money Market fund. It's used by insurance companies to raise short term capital. GICs usually yield a premium versus a money market and are a safe investment. If your wife is in a 403b with annuities or other life-insurance tie ins other than GICs, make sure that you understand the fee structure and ask lots of questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3187c81565c030bb4ce834c1add5895", "text": "\"Before anything, I see that no one mentioned the one thing about 401(k) accounts that's just shy of magic - The matching deposit. In 2015, 42% of companies offered a dollar for dollar match on deposits. Can't beat that. (Note - to respond to Xalorous' comment, the $18K OP deposits can be nearly any percent of his income. The typical match is 'up to' 6% of gross income. If that's the case, the 401(k) deposits are doubled. But say he makes $100K. The $18K deposit will see a $6K match. This adds a layer of complexity to the answer that I preferred to avoid, as I show with no match at all, and no change in tax brackets, the deferral alone shows value to the investor.) On to the main answer - Let's pull out a spreadsheet - We start with $10,000, and assume the 25% bracket. This gives a choice of $10,000 in the 401(k) or $7500 in the taxable account. Next, let 20 years pass, with 10% return each year. The 401(k) sees the full 10% and after 20 years, $67K. The taxable account owner waits to get the 15% cap gain rate and adjusts portfolio, thus seeing an 8.5% return each year and carrying no ongoing gains. After 20 years of 8.5% returns, he has $38K net. The 401(k) owner on withdrawal pays the 25% tax and has $50K, still more than 25% more money that the taxable account. Because transactions within the account were all tax deferred. EDIT - With respect to davmp's comment, I'll offer the other extreme - In his comment, he (rightly) objected that I chose to trade every year, although I did assign the long term 15% cap gain rate, he felt the annual trade was my attempt to game the analysis. Above, I offer his extreme case, a 10% return each year, no trade, no dividend. Just a cap gain at the end. The 401(k) still wins. I also left the tax (on the 401(k)) at withdrawal at 25%, when in fact, much, if not all will be taxed at 15% or lower, which would put the net at $57K or 30% above the taxable account final withdrawal. The next issue I'd bring up is that the 401(k) is taken out at the top (marginal) tax rate, e.g. a single filer with taxable income over $37,650 (in 2016) would save 25% on that 401(k) deduction. Of course if the deduction pulls you under that line, I'd go Roth or taxable. But, withdrawals start at zero. Today, a single retiree has a standard deduction ($4050) and exemption ($6300) for a total $10,350 \"\"zero bracket\"\" with the next $9275 taxed at 10%. This points to needing $500K in pre tax accounts before withdrawals each year would get you past the 10% bracket. (This comes from the suggestion of using 4% as an annual withdrawal rate). Last - the tax discussion has 2 major points in time, deposit and withdrawal, of course. But, the answers here all ignore all the time in between. In between, you see that for any number of reasons, you'll drop from the 25% bracket to 15% that year. That's the time to convert a bit of money to Roth and 'top off' the 15% bracket. It can happen due to job loss, marriage with new spouse either not working or having lower income, new baby, house purchase, etc. Or in-between, a disability put you out of work. That permits you to take money out with no penalty, and little chance of paying even the 25% that you paid going in. This, from personal experience with a family member, funded a 401(k) with 28% money. Then divorced and disabled, able to take the $10K/yr to supplement worker's comp (non taxed) income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fb93947461cf2614b37f4ea50bbec9b", "text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20f7479b8a5c1d1d02e6f603d3fbd0c6", "text": "There are several variables to consider. Taxes, fees, returns. Taxes come in two stages. While adding money to the account you can save on state taxes, if the account is linked to your state. If you use an out of state 529 plan there is no tax savings. Keep in mind that other people (such as grandparents) can set aside money in the 529 plan. $1500 a year with 6% state taxes, saves you $90 in state taxes a year. The second place it saves you taxes is that the earnings, if they are used for educational purposes are tax free. You don't pay taxes on the gains during the 10+ years the account exists. If those expenses meet the IRS guidelines they will never be taxed. It does get tricky because you can't double dip on expenses. A dollar from the 529 plan can't be used to pay for an expenses that will be claimed as part of the education tax credit. How those rules will change in the next 18 years is unknown. Fees: They are harder to guess what will happen over the decades. As a whole 401(k) programs have had to become more transparent regarding their fees. I hope the same will be true for the state run 529 programs. Returns: One option in many (all?) plans is an automatic change in risk as the child gets closer to college. A newborn will be all stock, a high school senior will be all bonds. Many (all?) also allow you to opt out of the automatic risk shift, though they will limit the number of times you can switch the option. Time horizon Making a decision that will impact numbers 18 years from now is hard to gauge. Laws and rules may change. The existence of tax breaks and their rules are hard to predict. But one area you can consider is that if you move states you can roll over the money into a new account, or create a second account in the new state. to take advantage of the tax breaks there. There are also rules regarding transferring of funds to another person, the impact of scholarships, and attending schools like the service academies. The tax breaks at deposit are important but the returns can be significant. And the ability shelter them in the 529 is very important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "909eae1d15d84e2380144c2af50e1f14", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba92dda80ec4ee9b2a01658aad4269a3", "text": "\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1930c68a28a19e4e2979740472fa1ec1", "text": "This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5394995b18736e3123af489412bcab30", "text": "\"My two cents: I am a pension actuary and see the performance of funds on a daily basis. Is it normal to see down years? Yes, absolutely. It's a function of the directional bias of how the portfolio is invested. In the case of a 401(k) that almost always mean a positive directional bias (being long). Now, in your case I see two issues: The amount of drawdown over one year. It is atypical to have a 14% loss in a little over a year. Given the market conditions, this means that you nearly experienced the entire drawdown of the SP500 (which your portfolio is highly correlated to) and you have no protection from the downside. The use of so-called \"\"target-date funds\"\". Their very implication makes no sense. Essentially, they try to generate a particular return over the elapsed time until retirement. The issue is that the market is by all statistical accounts random with positive drift (it can be expected to move up in the long term). This positive drift is due to the fact that people should be paid to take on risk. So if you need the money 20 years from now, what's the big deal? Well, the issue is that no one, and I repeat, no one, knows when the market will experience long down moves. So you happily experience positive drift for 20 years and your money grows to a decent size. Then, right before you retire, the market shaves 20%+ of your investments. Will you recoup these damages? Most likely yes. But will that be in the timeframe you need? The market doesn't care if you need money or not. So, here is my advice if you are comfortable taking control of your money. See if you can roll your money into an IRA (some 401(k) plans will permit this) or, if you contribute less that the 401(k) contribution limit you make want to just contribute to an IRA (be mindful of the annual limits). In this case, you can set up a self-directed account. Here you will have the flexibility to diversify and take action as necessary. And by diversify, I don't mean that \"\"buy lots of different stuff\"\" garbage, I mean focus on uncorrelated assets. You can get by on a handful of ETFs (SPY, TLT, QQQ, ect.). These all have liquid options available. Once you build a base, you can lower basis by writing covered calls against these positions. This is allowed in almost all IRA accounts. In my opinion, and I see this far too often, your potential and drive to take control of your assets is far superior than the so called \"\"professionals or advisors\"\". They will 99% of the time stick you in a target date fund and hope that they make their basis points on your money and retire before you do. Not saying everyone is unethical, but its hard to care about your money more than you will.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829", "text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d748bd4ea29786d0b5714c37cbe35e6", "text": "My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1d65ca8e7c65cfaa974737e3da2bfb6d	How can one relatively easily show that low expense ratio funds outperform high expense ratio funds?	[ { "docid": "e3ad56de12a1e57eee094f285039e940", "text": "\"I hope a wall of text with citations qualifies as \"\"relatively easy.\"\" Many of these studies are worth quoting at length. Long story short, a great deal of research has found that actively-managed funds underperform market indexes and passively-managed funds because of their high turnover and higher fees, among other factors. Longer answer: Chris is right in stating that survivorship bias presents a problem for such research; however, there are several academic papers that address the survivorship problem, as well as the wider subject of active vs. passive performance. I'll try to provide a brief summary of some of the relevant literature. The seminal paper that started the debate is Michael Jensen's 1968 paper titled \"\"The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964\"\". This is the paper where Jensen's alpha, the ubiquitous measure of the performance of mutual fund managers, was first defined. Using a dataset of 115 mutual fund managers, Jensen finds that The evidence on mutual fund performance indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance. Although this paper doesn't address problems of survivorship, it's notable because, among other points, it found that managers who actively picked stocks performed worse even when fund expenses were ignored. Since actively-managed funds tend to have higher expenses than passive funds, the actual picture looks even worse for actively managed funds. A more recent paper on the subject, which draws similar conclusions, is Martin Gruber's 1996 paper \"\"Another puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds\"\". Gruber calls it \"\"a puzzle\"\" that investors still invest in actively-managed funds, given that their performance on average has been inferior to that of index funds. He addresses survivorship bias by tracking funds across the entire sample, including through mergers. Since most mutual funds that disappear are merged into existing funds, he assumes that investors in a fund that disappear choose to continue investing their money in the fund that resulted from the merger. Using this assumption and standard measures of mutual fund performance, Gruber finds that mutual funds underperform an appropriately weighted average of the indices by about 65 basis points per year. Expense ratios for my sample averaged 113 basis points a year. These numbers suggest that active management adds value, but that mutual funds charge the investor more than the value added. Another nice paper is Mark Carhart's 1997 paper \"\"On persistence in mutual fund performance\"\" uses a sample free of survivorship bias because it includes \"\"all known equity funds over this period.\"\" It's worth quoting parts of this paper in full: I demonstrate that expenses have at least a one-for-one negative impact on fund performance, and that turnover also negatively impacts performance. ... Trading reduces performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value. In reference to expense ratios and other fees, Carhart finds that The investment costs of expense ratios, transaction costs, and load fees all have a direct, negative impact on performance. The study also finds that funds with abnormally high returns last year usually have higher-than-expected returns next year, but not in the following years, because of momentum effects. Lest you think the news is all bad, Russ Wermer's 2000 study \"\"Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock‐picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses\"\" provides an interesting result. He finds that many actively-managed mutual funds hold stocks that outperform the market, even though the net return of the funds themselves underperforms passive funds and the market itself. On a net-return level, the funds underperform broad market indexes by one percent a year. Of the 2.3% difference between the returns on stock holdings and the net returns of the funds, 0.7% per year is due to the lower average returns of the nonstock holdings of the funds during the period (relative to stocks). The remaining 1.6% per year is split almost evenly between the expense ratios and the transaction costs of the funds. The final paper I'll cite is a 2008 paper by Fama and French (of the Fama-French model covered in business schools) titled, appropriately, \"\"Mutual Fund Performance\"\". The paper is pretty technical, and somewhat above my level at this time of night, but the authors state one of their conclusions bluntly quite early on: After costs (that is, in terms of net returns to investors) active investment is a negative sum game. Emphasis mine. In short, expense ratios, transaction costs, and other fees quickly diminish the returns to active investment. They find that The [value-weight] portfolio of mutual funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities is close to the market portfolio, and estimated before fees and expenses, its alpha is close to zero. Since the [value-weight] portfolio of funds produces an α close to zero in gross returns, the alpha estimated on the net returns to investors is negative by about the amount of fees and expenses. This implies that the higher the fees, the farther alpha decreases below zero. Since actively-managed mutual funds tend to have higher expense ratios than passively-managed index funds, it's safe to say that their net return to the investor is worse than a market index itself. I don't know of any free datasets that would allow you to research this, but one highly-regarded commercial dataset is the CRSP Survivor-Bias-Free US Mutual Fund Database from the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago. In financial research, CRSP is one of the \"\"gold standards\"\" for historical market data, so if you can access that data (perhaps for a firm or academic institution, if you're affiliated with one that has access), it's one way you could run some numbers yourself.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9d53eb6e97cd4e36144f3f6406937ca0", "text": "Thanks for the huge insight. I am still a student doing an intern and this was given as my first task, more of trying to give the IA another perspective looking at these funds rather than picking. I was not given the investors preference in terms of return and risk tolerances so it was really open-ended. However, thanks so much for the quick response. At least now I have a better idea of what I am going to deliver or at least try to show to the IA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b30bd7a9465bf07e15893e3617051654", "text": "\"I am doing an assignment for a finance class, and I am writing a recommendation for a specific capital structure. One of the concerns brought up by the \"\"board of directors\"\" was interest coverage, so in my addressing that topic in my report, I want to compare to competitors. The interest coverage ratio under this capital structure that I'm choosing is 11.8 and the two competitors we are given information on are Company A (who has an interest coverage ratio of 6.67) and Company B (who has an interest coverage ratio of 11.25). It seems good, but my concern is that I may be missing something, as Company A is similar in size (in terms of sales) to the company I am writing a report for while Company B has ~50 times more sales than the company I am writing a report for. Advice, things to consider as I move forward?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a6596afc17a33022b76c8b593409015", "text": "The value premium would state the opposite in fact if one looks at the work of Fama and French. The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) shows a graph with the rates on small-cap/large-cap and growth/value combinations that may be of interest as well for another article noting the same research. Index fund advisors in Figure 9-1 shows various historical returns up to 2012 that may also be useful here for those wanting more detailed data. How to Beat the Benchmark is from 1998 that could be interesting to read about index funds and beating the index in a simpler way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d10497d2ccd984e2f58e17332f779a50", "text": "Nearly all long-lived active funds underperform the market over the long run. The best they can hope for in almost all cases is to approximate the market return. Considering that the market return is ~9%, this fund should be expected to do less well. In terms of predicting future performance, if its average return is greater than the average market return, its future average return can be expected to fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce67213c02975c72d0ddd432803db58a", "text": "1: Low fees means: a Total Expense Ratio of less than 0,5%. One detail you may also want to pay attention to whether the fund reinvests returns (Thesaurierender Fonds) which is basically good for investing, but if it's also a foreign-based fund then taxes get complicated, see http://www.finanztip.de/indexfonds-etf/thesaurierende-fonds/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7e24bce7912b0152999933a27d032f0", "text": "\"The Fidelity funds have an expense ratio, and while some funds may have little to no profit, having you as a customer lets them try to sell you on their managed account/portfolio and other services. It's possible they don't make much or any money from you at all, but with so many accounts it's fine as long as it averages out. Similar to having a credit card and never paying interest on it, but reaping the rewards anyway. Averaged out, they make plenty of money across all accounts. An expense ratio is usually given as a percentage, and it's the amount you pay for the fund per year. If it has a 1% ER, and you have $1,000 invested in it, then it costs you $10 for the year (a very simplified example). You won't notice this as a direct transaction since it gets taken from the funds assets directly, but this is lowering the return (or worsening the loss) on the fund. You can find the ER in your Fidelity account for any funds that are available to you. Something else I thought of is that you add liquidity to their funds, and your assets increase the amount \"\"under management\"\" which may be a selling point, may lower overall costs, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61a3236acf34529cae6bfa96e07ccccb", "text": "\"As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your \"\"S&P 500\"\" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7bbbba72cb8dc5b8dcf6cba5fd65700", "text": "The S&P 500 is a market index. The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500. I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61231aff72e9c22612339590683fd1d6", "text": "Google 'information ratio'. It is better suited to what you want than the Sharpe or Sortino ratios because it only evaluates the excess return you get from your investment, ie. return from your investment minus the return from a benchmark investment. The benchmark here could be an index like the S&P500.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "141996ecd5b6a61868abb87b8a3326de", "text": "In my experiences most hedge funds won't have a benchmark in their mandate and are evaluated based upon absolute returns. Their benchmarks are generally cash + x basis points. So, no attribution and no IR. No experience at all with CTA's though, so not sure how things are there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fc9945af9c41291f054e379070cc7d6", "text": "That expense ratio on the bank fund is criminally high. Use the Vanguard one, they have really low expenses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeae47327398ea15c73b93538235cb5f", "text": "\"Do mutual funds edit/censor underperforming investments to make their returns look better, and if so, is there any way one can figure out if they are doing it? No, that's not what the quote says. What the quote says is that the funds routinely drop investments that do not bring the expected return, which is true. That's their job, that is what is called \"\"active management\"\". Obviously, if you're measuring the fund by their success/failure to beat the market, to beat the market the funds must consistently select over-performers. No-one claims that they only select over-performers, but they select enough of them (or not...) for the average returns to be appealing (or not...) for the investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9bc2704543ef45b92937fea547e721d", "text": "Basically, no. Selecting an actively managed fund over a low-fee index fund means paying for the opportunity to possibly outperform the index fund. A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel argues that the best general strategy for the average investor is to select the index fund because the fee savings are certain. Assuming a random walk means that any mutual fund may outperform the index in some years, but this is not an indication that it will overall. Unless you have special information about the effectiveness of the bank fund management (it's run by the next Warren Buffett), you are better off in the index fund. And even Warren Buffett suggests you are probably better off in the index fund: This year, regarding Wall Street, Buffett wrote: “When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds.”", "title": "" }, { "docid": "874263987ed13e8dad9d7c904843d6e1", "text": "Your initial premise (mid-cap and small-cap company stocks have outperformed the market) is partially correct - they have, over many 40 yr periods, provided higher returns than large caps (or bond funds). The important thing to consider here is that risk adjusted, the returns from a diversified portfolio are far more robust - with proper asset allocation you and expect high returns and reduce your risk simultaneously. Imagine this scenario - you decide to stick to small / mid caps for 10 - 15 yrs and move into a more diversified portfolio then. Had you made that decision during a sustained period of poor small cap performance (late 80s or the 40's) you would have lost a boatload of return, as those were periods were small / mids underperformed the market as a whole, and large caps in particular. As an example, from 1946 to 1958 large caps outperformed small every single year. If 2016 were to be the first year of a similar trend, you've done yourself a major disservice. Since the dot com crash small /mids have outperformed for sure, pretty much every year - but that doesn't mean that they will continue to do so. The reason asset allocation exists is precisely this - over a 40 yr period, no single asset class outperforms a diversified portfolio. If you attempt to time the market, even if you do so with a multi-decade time horizon in mind, there a good chance that you will do more poorly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f733c669f45268778a0bccf62fb4aab9", "text": "Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings. (I have an account there.) Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
38a1b3ef29d4b7eb407a9046da3b71d8	Withdraw funds with penalty or bear high management fees for 10 years?	[ { "docid": "62805ccdb9c6fbf48715ce3709ffaa39", "text": "I think the main question is whether the 1.5% quarterly fee is so bad that it warrants losing $60,000 immediately. Suppose they pull it out now, so they have 220000 - 60000 = $160,000. They then invest this in a low-cost index fund, earning say 6% per year on average over 10 years. The result: Alternatively, they leave the $220,000 in but tell the manager to invest it in the same index fund now. They earn nothing because the manager's rapacious fees eat up all the gains (41.5% = 6%, not perfectly accurate due to compounding but close enough since 6% is only an estimate anyway). The result: the same $220,000 they started with. This back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests they will actually come out ahead by biting the bullet and taking the money out. However, I would definitely not advise them to take this major step just based on this simple calculation. Many other factors are relevant (e.g., taxes when selling the existing investment to buy the index fund, how much of their savings was this $300,000). Also, I don't know anything about how investment works in Hong Kong, so there could be some wrinkles that modify or invalidate this simple calculation. But it is a starting point. Based on what you say here, I'd say they should take the earliest opportunity to tell everyone they know never to work with this investment manager. I would go so far as to say they should look at his credentials (e.g., see what kind of financial advisor certification he has, if any), look up the ethical standards of their issuers, and consider filing a complaint. This is not because of the performance of the investments -- losing 25% of your money due to market swings is a risk you have to accept -- but because of the exorbitant fees. Unless Hong Kong has got some crazy kind of investment management market, charging 1.5% quarterly is highway robbery; charging a 25%+ for withdrawal is pillage. Personally, I would seriously consider withdrawing the money even if the manager's investments had outperformed the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "118e5a811dd63b88e6aef7db892525db", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b26146f4690f6340fd7e29cdd4f8fd28", "text": "Here's the purely mathematical answer for which fees hurt more. You say taking the money out has an immediate cost of $60,000. We need to calculate the present value of the future fees and compare it against that number. Let's assume that the investment will grow at the same rate either with or without the broker. That's actually a bit generous to the broker, since they're probably investing it in funds that in turn charge unjustifiable fees. We can calculate the present cost of the fees by calculating the difference between: As it turns out, this number doesn't depend on how much we should expect to get as investment returns. Doing the math, the fees cost: 220000 - 220000 * (1-0.015)^40 = $99809 That is, the cost of the fees is comparable to paying nearly $100,000 right now. Nearly half the investment! If there are no other options, I strongly recommend taking the one-time hit and investing elsewhere, preferably in low-cost index funds. Details of the derivation. For simplicity, assume that both fees and growth compound continuously. (The growth does compound continuously. We don't know about the fees, but in any case the distinction isn't very significant.) Fees occur at a (continuous) rate of rf = ln((1-0.015)^4) (which is negative), and growth occurs at rate rg. The OPs current principal is P, and the present value of the fees over time is F. We therefore have the equation P e^((rg+rf)t) = (P-F) e^(rg t) Solving for F, we notice that the e^rg*t components cancel, and we obtain F = P - P e^(rf t) = P - P e^(ln((1-0.015)^4) t) = P - P (1-0.015)^(4t)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bf1b43d3c7eea914435f7202afed73a", "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.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cf83056b019251b03db167c6dc0427ba", "text": "http://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/2d15nj/everything_is_on_the_table_property_businesses/cjl7nxp >Not to brag, but I started with 12k a year ago and I plan on having 1M by next year... I think it's entirely possible with smart trades and a lotttttt of self-education. I made the majority of it on penny stocks so far, but have recently switched primarily to options plays and have had some very bad luck, but mostly good fortune. So, in that vein, in your hypothetical situation, I would pay myself to educate myself and then trade for the 1M and keep all the fees that would be paid to someone for everything that was done.. Then I would take the remainder of the 10 years off and travel around the world :) RachelTrades, You are walking into a buzzsaw. You do not understand the risks you are taking, and your gambles will inevitably result in you losing nearly everything. Do yourself a favor and discuss your investing process with a professional. Describe your trades and how you evaluate your positions with this individual and try and hear them when they tell you how badly you are setting yourself up for ruin. I realize that you have no reason to listen to a random person on the internet, but I hope that you are able to take a moment of honest reflection and save yourself", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da87ad09f8ea417326955b272c8086e8", "text": "\"To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point. The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated. I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates. The \"\"deposit to get the matching funds\"\" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach. Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis. I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)? Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "969ee94d14e1dc337601ab97bf11cb94", "text": "Start with the tax delta. For example, you'd hope to deposit at 25% bracket, but take withdrawals while at a marginal 15%. In this case, you're 10% to the good with the 401(k) and need to look at the fee eating away at this over time. Pay an extra 1%/yr and after 10 years, you're losing money. That's too simple, however. Along the way, you need to consider that the capital gain rate is lower than ordinary income. It's easier to take those gains as you wish to time them, where the 401(k) offers no flexibly for this. Even with low fees, this account is going to turn long term gains to ordinary income. (Note - in 2013, a couple with up to $72,500 in taxable income has a 0% long term cap gain rate. So, if they wish, they can sell and buy back a fund, claim the gain, and raise their cost basis. A tiny effort for the avoidance of tax on the gains each year.) First paragraph, don't forget, there are the standard deduction, exemption, and 10% bracket. While you are in the range to save enough to create he income to fill the low end at withdrawal, there's more value than just the 10% I discussed earlier. Last, there's a phenomenon I call The Phantom Tax Rate Zone when one's retirement withdrawals trigger the taxation of Social Security. It further complicates the math and analysis you seek.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a8bd91a31ca04c4af230c948f1b6a41", "text": "I think you're missing several key issues here. First for the facts: IRA contributions are $5500 a year maximum (currently, it changes with inflation), i.e.: you cannot deposit $10K in an IRA account in a single year. IRA withdrawals can only be made if you have something liquid in the IRA. You cannot withdraw from Lending Club IRA unless you manage to sell the notes currently held by you there. Roth IRA is funded with after-tax money, and you can withdraw your deposits in Roth IRA any time for any reason. No 10K limit there, only limited by what you deposited. However the main thing you're missing is this: You can withdraw up to $10K from your IRA for first home purchase without penalty. Pay attention: not without tax but without penalty. So what is the point in depositing $10k into IRA just to withdraw it the next year?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0f9c638a7c7fec5710781b49a98dfc8", "text": "The math is wrong. $16m grows to $72b over 44 years at 21% return (exact return is (72000/16)^(1/44) - 1 = 0.21067). At one percentage point lower return, i.e. 20%, $16m grows to $50b (16m x 1.21^44 = 49.985b). In that case you would have paid about 30 percent of your gain in fees. Still a lot, but not severe. Even the calculation of percent fees is wrong in the article!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2368a6a6d2c21902782f59fdc6929bff", "text": "It's not your money. What does your wife think of this? You know, the withdrawal is subject to full tax at your marginal rate as well as a 10% penalty. That's quite a price to pay, don't do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aa16b8a07ae8ff46fd91f3e373b6fd0", "text": "The point is to provide for yourself in retirement, so it makes sense that these withdrawals would be penalized. Tax deferred accounts are usually created for a specific cause. Using them outside of the scope of that cause triggers penalties. You mentioned 401(k) and IRA that have age limitations because they're geared towards retirement. In the US, here are other types, and if you intend to spend money in the related areas, they may be worth considering. Otherwise, you'll hit penalties as well. Examples: HSA - Health Savings Account allows saving pre-tax contributions and gains towards medical expenses. You must have a high deductible health plan to be eligible. Can be used as IRA once retired. 529 plans - allow saving pre-tax gains (and in some states pre-tax contributions) for education expenses for you or a beneficiary. If a beneficiary - contributions are considered a gift. There's a tax benefit in long term investing in a regular taxable brokerage accounts - long term capital gains are taxed at a preferable (lower) rate than short term or ordinary income. The difference may be significant. Long term = 1+ year holding. The condition here is holding an investment for more than a year, and there's no penalty for not satisfying it but there's a reward (lower rates) if you do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cc9fda9a30d5e545deb8607f0ed6bc2", "text": "I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely). For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: - 1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD = Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c1674dbe0971d64da0bdbd3313c7196", "text": "\"There are (at least) two problems with the argument suggested in the OP. First, the ability to cover the cost, doesn't mean willingness, ease, or no major side effects of doing so. Second is the mitigation of \"\"upside risk\"\". It might be true that the most usual loss is small and manageable, but 10% of incidents could be considerably larger and 1% may be very much larger - without limit. Your own attitude to risk and loss will determine how much these are seen as unlikely+ignore, or worst case situation+avoid.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c82e2a193bfc4bb045a11f2635741d17", "text": "These products are real, but they aren't risk free: 1) The bank could go under in that time. (Are the investments FDIC insured?) 2) Your money is locked up for 5 years, probably with either no way to get it back out or a stiff penalty for early withdrawal, so you risk having a better investment opportunity come along and not having the liquidity to take advantage of it. 3) If the market does go down and you get 100% of your principal back, the endless ratchet of inflation practically guarantees that $10K will be worth less 5 years from now than it is today, so you risk losing purchasing power even if you're not losing any nominal quantity of money. It's still a fairly low-risk investment option, particularly if it's tied to something that you have reason to believe will increase in value significantly faster than inflation in the next 5 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a64063412851ba61dcf6b7f9fab889d7", "text": "If you withdraw the money, regardless of how small the balance is, the IRS will still insist you pay a 10% penalty when you file your taxes (assuming you're under 59 1/2). Your 401K plan provider might have a policy that allows you to avoid the usual automatic withholding. You should check with them. $600 in additional income isn't likely to move your tax bill much, unless you're really close to a boundary in the tax brackets. Rather than withdrawing the money, you can transfer the 401K to your next 401K, or roll it over to an IRA (plenty of no-fee options around). Once in a traditional IRA, you can convert the money to a Roth IRA. You pay the taxes on the amount, but no 10% penalty. Converting to a Roth has eligibility rules. You should double check with your financial institution before doing it. Edit: You can withdraw without the 10% penalty if you leave your job after age 55 (credit to @JoeTaxpayer for the correction). This IRS Page lists the conditions under which the penalty can be avoided. Edit: The original question has been edited to add more background details. Due to OP's investment preferences, I would also recommend that he simply withdraw the funds, pay the taxes and the $60 penalty and put the $500 or so dollars somewhere else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d7d481e5d795432b8b6fdcbe3a1b1df", "text": "In my opinion, the fee is criminal. There are ETFs available to the public that have expenses as low as .05%. The index fund VIIIX an institution level fund available to large 401(k) plans charges .02%. I'll pay a total of under 1% over the next 50 years, Consider that at retirement, the safe withdrawal rate has been thought to be 4%, and today this is considered risky, perhaps too high. Do you think it's fair, in any sense of the word to lose 30% of that withdrawal? Another angle for you - In my working years, I spent most of those years at either the 25% or 28% federal bracket taxable income. I should spend my retirement at 15% marginal rate. On average, the purpose of my 401(k) was to save me (and my wife) 10-13% in tax from deposit to withdrawal. How long does it take for an annual 1.1% excess fee to negate that 10% savings? If one spends their working life paying that rate, they will lose half their wealth to those managing their money. PBS aired a show in its Frontline series titled The Retirement Gamble, it offers a sobering look at how such fees are a killer to your wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2ec2427254f72cd84022316064dcb81", "text": "I would stay away from the Actively Managed Funds. Index funds or the asset allocation funds are your best bet since they have the lowest fees. What is your risk tolerance? How old are you? I would suggest reading:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1592b80f5b99de632e7d9825d8bde8e", "text": "Wow this is a bad article. This is a notional amount.... Eg. $500M US equity fund in Australia wants to hedge their US exposure. They buy a $500M forward contract and roll it over quarterly. Each quarter they settle on the difference (let's say $50 - 500k +/- depending on the way FX moves). What matters is the amount owed...not the notional value. Same goes for interest rates. $1B bond fund could short the 10yr to lower interest rate sensitivity...the end value isn't $1B. It's whatever they owe on the difference at settlement. The issue of swap spreads or settlement/liquidity is so much more important!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c4f199c3229d5ad0d8bd108f7cc2133", "text": "depends entirely on the scope and where your chokepoints are. if its a question of ginormeous amounts of data being stored in your spreadsheet and then extracted/joined with a mess of index match functions, that can quickly run up in size, and can be deftly replaced with a powerquery setup. If it's a computation that requires a few iterative steps or complex nested lookups, but with simple inputs, then a few simply scripted UDFs can lower the complexity (and workload and size) of the workbook. OP also mentions that the workbook is used for the display. If there is a lot of repeated deletion and adding of formats, sometimes workbook size can be seriously affected by these things cluttering up the sheet, and it can be useful to just clear those outs. I'd say it makes sense to move away from workbooks and into something more technical if you the organizational support to do so. If one person sits and codes models in python but none of his colleagues can work on it or fix it, and it's not documented correctly, and there's no support structure, then I'd be cautious of transferring something business critical to that structure, rather than optimizing the solution that people are familiar with and can modify themselves. But if it's a tech-savvy organization that recruits accordingly and has the technical support structures to implement changes and modifications as required by the business, I don't see any problem in using other tools.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f3a06c25d077f0897aa68d563e1024ac	Why do P/E ratios for a particular industry tend to cluster around particular values?	[ { "docid": "7e16bf72b7e84e7aac3a2eb57a804450", "text": "\"This falls under value investing, and value investing has only recently picked up study by academia, say, at the turn of the millennium; therefore, there isn't much rigorous on value investing in academia, but it has started. However, we can describe valuations: In short, valuations are randomly distributed in a log-Variance Gamma fashion with some reason & nonsense mixed in. You can check for yourself on finviz. You can basically download the entire US market and then some, with many financial and technical characteristics all in one spreadsheet. Re Fisher: He was tied for the best monetary economist of the 20th century and created the best price index, but as for stocks, he said this famous quote 12 days before the 1929 crash: \"\"Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.\"\" - Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929 EDIT Value investing has almost always been ignored by academia. Irving Fisher and other proponents of it before it was codified by Graham in the mid 20th century certainly didn't help with comments like the above. It was almost always believed that it was a sucker's game, \"\"the bigger sucker\"\" game to be more precise because value investors get destroyed during recession/collapses. So even though a recessionless economy would allow value investors and everyone never to suffer spontaneous collapses, value investors are looked down upon by academia because of the inevitable yet nearly always transitory collapse. This expresses that sentiment perfectly. It didn't help that Benjamin Graham didn't care about money so never reached the heights of Buffett who frequently alternates with Bill Gates as the richest person on the planet. Buffett has given much credibility, and academia finally caught on around in 2000 or so after he was proven right about a pending tech collapse that nearly no one believed would happen; at least, that's where I begin seeing papers being published delving into value concepts. If one looks harder, academia's even taken the torch and discovered some very useful tools. Yes, investment firms and fellow value investors kept up the information publishing, but they are not academics. The days of professors throwing darts at the stock listings and beating active managers despite most active managers losing to the market anyways really held back this side of academia until Buffett entered the fray and embarrassed them all with his club's performance, culminating in the Superinvestors article which is still relatively ignored. Before that, it was the obsession with beta, the ratio of a security's variance to its covariance to the market, a now abandoned theory because it has been utterly discredited; the popularizers of beta have humorously embraced the P/B, not giving the satisfaction to Buffet by spurning the P/E. Tiny technology firms receive ridiculous valuations because a long-surviving tiny tech firm usually doesn't stay small for long thus will grow at huge rates. This is why any solvent and many insolvent tech firms receive large valuations: risk-adjusted, they should pay out huge on average. Still, most fall by the wayside dead, and those 100 P/S valuations quickly crumble. Valuations are influenced by growth. One can see this expressed more easily with a growing perpetuity: Where P is price, i is income, r is the rate of return, and g is the growth rate of i. Rearranging, r looks like: Here, one can see that a higher P relative to i will dull the expected rate of return while a higher g will boost it. It's fun for us value investor/traders to say that the market is totally inefficient. That's a stretch. It's not perfectly inefficient, but it's efficient. Valuations are clustered very tightly around the median, but there are mistakes that even us little guys can exploit and teach the smart money a lesson or two. If one were to look at a distribution of rs, one'd see that they're even more tightly packed. So while it looks like P/Es are all over the place industry to industry, rs are much more well clustered. Tech, finance, and discretionaries frequently have higher growth rates so higher P/Es yet average rs. Utilities and non-discretionaries have lower growth rates so lower P/Es yet average rs.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0f3adf4b5a6d10cd96ff4f1b65cca73f", "text": "P/E can use various estimates in its calculation as one could speculate about future P/E rations and thus could determine a future valuation if one is prepared to say that the P/E should be X for a company. Course it is worth noting that if a company isn't generating positive earnings this can be a less than useful tool, e.g. Amazon in the 1990s lost money every quarter and thus would have had a N/A for a P/E. PEG would use P/E and earnings growth as a way to see if a stock is overvalued based on projected growth. If a company has a high P/E but has a high earnings growth rate then that may prove to be worth it. By using the growth rate, one can get a better idea of the context to that figure. Another way to gain context on P/E would be to look at industry averages that would often be found on Yahoo! Finance and other sites.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3beff2f050d4a1efb3f16ba20425ebde", "text": "Points are the units of measurement of the index. They're calculated based on the index formula, which in turn based on the prices of the underlying stocks. Movement in points is not really interesting, the movement as a percentage of the base price (daily opening, usually) is more interesting since it gives more context.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5fd2fc3ea79e1c5c3779c8ed00a42f8", "text": "\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \"\"Cap Rate\"\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d9f02719dc4bd5d2fe38df5e59c278b", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea277e4ed379486c09e3bbc1d31fd249", "text": "Your analysis is correct. The income statement from Google states that LinkedIn made $3.4 million in 2010 - the same number you backed into by using the P/E ratio. As you point out, the company seems overvalued compared to other mature companies. There are companies, however, that posts losses and still trade on exchanges for years. How should these companies be valued? As other posters have pointed out there are many different ways to value a company. Some investors may be speculating on substantial growth. Others may be speculating on IPO hype. Amazon did not make a profit until 2003. Its stock had been around for years before that and even split many times. If you bought the stock in 1998 and still have it you would be doing quite well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bf6a14a1513d13c389d1123443d40fb", "text": "\"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \"\"conservative\"\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \"\"Life Strategy\"\" funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bee78018b81af59a0e3e08da5d804a6", "text": "The article is talking about relative cost. You could use the cash Schiller P/E ratio as a proxy. That's unit of price per unit of earning. The answer to your question is one time in history, during the 2000 dot com bubble. It's higher than 2008 before the downturn. You are paying more for the same earnings. That has nothing to do with the size of the economy and everything to do with interest rates being too low for too long", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c0181979f92ee71a72352910947e00d", "text": "\"The \"\"random walk\"\" that you describe reflects the nature of the information flow about the value of a stock. If the flow is just little bits of relatively unimportant information (including information about the broader market and the investor pool), you will get small and seemingly random moves, which may look like a meander. If an important bit of information comes out, like a merger, you will see a large and immediate move, which may not look as random. However, the idea that small moves are a meander of search and discovery and large moves are immediate agreements is incorrect. Both small moves and large moves are instantaneous agreements about the value of a stock in the form of a demand/supply equilibrium. As a rule, neither is predictable from the point of view of a single investor, but they are not actually random. They look different from each other only because of the size of the movement, not because of an underlying difference in how the consensus price is reached.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b903171e5ccf5976a0e9468d1cb7e160", "text": "\"For any isolated equity market, its beta will less resemble the betas of all other interconnected equity markets. For interconnected markets, beta is not well-dispersed, especially during a world expansion because richer nations have more wealth thus a dominant influence over smaller nations' equity markets causing a convergence. If the world is in recession, or a country is in recession, all betas or the recessing country's beta will start to diverge, respectively. If the world's economies diverge, their equity markets' betas will too. If a country is having financial difficulty, its beta too will diverge. Beta is correlation against a ratio of variance, so variance or \"\"volatiliy\"\" is only half of that equation. Correlation or \"\"direction\"\" is the other half. The ratio of variance will give the magnitude of beta, and correlation will give the sign or \"\"direction\"\". Therefore, interconnected emerging equity markets should have higher beta magnitudes because they are more variant but should generally over time have signs that more closely resemble the rest. A disconnected emerging equity market will improbably have average betas both by magnitude and direction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2ec640fa7f7a0b70da50dfc98da4ee5", "text": "\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \"\"natural\"\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0adb3fdabed361261d5cea1a20e2cffd", "text": "One problem is that P/E ratio only looks at the last announced earnings. Let's take your manufacturing plant with a P/E of 12.5. Then they announce a major problem that will hurt future earnings and the price drops in half. Now the P/E is 6.25. It looks great, but since there aren't any new earnings that reflect the problem, it's very misleading.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "392d53e0c27b44b922d2b8d50513eb4d", "text": "\"You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium. If \"\"the market\"\" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company. In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value. Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else. (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9693a8aeda6d310fd31f8997e1672f4e", "text": "When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa3078ec6e69e72a7a071cc61a91b20a", "text": "I'm not in the business but I've always thought that Catalyst + industry context = market beating returns. Meaning that if you know what an event means faster than everyone else you can make money. Though I don't know how you'd express that in a report. An example that comes to mind is when Japan announced they were forming a consortium, the largest in the world, to make LCD panel glass. After that I got the heck of GLW though the stock price kept going up at the time. It is like no one understood the implications.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
140d3a447e3d8df48b7cef47277258af	Why don't market indexes use aggregate market capitalization?	[ { "docid": "47518caed79587e8b2fefc7522b4577f", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e58ec0d9172a4cbb4b23095ab7583a37", "text": "\"would constantly fluctuate and provide an indication of how well the market is doing. The index is there to tell if you made profit or loss by investing in the market. Using a pure total market cap will only tell you \"\"Did IPO activity exceed bankruptcy and privatization activity\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f2ec640fa7f7a0b70da50dfc98da4ee5", "text": "\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \"\"natural\"\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a6596afc17a33022b76c8b593409015", "text": "The value premium would state the opposite in fact if one looks at the work of Fama and French. The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) shows a graph with the rates on small-cap/large-cap and growth/value combinations that may be of interest as well for another article noting the same research. Index fund advisors in Figure 9-1 shows various historical returns up to 2012 that may also be useful here for those wanting more detailed data. How to Beat the Benchmark is from 1998 that could be interesting to read about index funds and beating the index in a simpler way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b9bddfbc13053744ab668020e549954", "text": "Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach: Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash. Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600. If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aad7fd152cc7c2878e7ebaf2e57adbf6", "text": "It's either a broad benchmark sp500, msci world, lehman agg, and or a cash index. Most will not use a specific benchmark. While the broad benchmark may not be applicable from my experience its usually there as a proxy for the overall market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d3ffd2c72c84f436a8e2fad96f98f66", "text": "The companies which define the major indexes do not derive profit directly from the indexes. They are typically brokerages, which use the indexes as a tool for discussing investment options with their clients and as a publicity tool to remind the public that they are long-standing, respected firms whom we might want to consider working with. Can't mention the Dow without being reminded of Dow Jones, for example. Likewise the Standard & Poor's 500 reminds us that S&P is still going strong. There may also be some slight market manipulation opportunities in choosing which specific stocks are included in each index, but since investors rarely follow an index exactly as originally defined I'm not convinced that's significant. And the mix included in each index changes relatively rarely and has to be justified by what the index claims to be representing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6098bbe1b8999157bdd9941118872238", "text": "So ... hotdogs shouldnt count either? What about cars? gasoline? Why shouldn't one off costs count? Virtually everything I buy is a one off cost. New and resold houses are being sold/bought every day. The case and shillers housing index takes attributes from common housing and amalgamates the costs. So theres your perpetual gauge if you need one. Its striking to me that perhaps the hugest cost in most people's lives, isn't considered when calculating inflation. No wonder the housing bubble got out of control.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a9e5b48462236d2c9f48d836295b40f", "text": "Yes, it makes sense. Like Lagerbaer says, the usefulness of technical indicators can not be answered with a simple yes or no. Some people gain something from it, others do not. Aside from this, applying technical indicators (or any other form of technical analysis - like order flow) to instruments which are composed of other instruments, such as indexes (more accurately, a derivative of it), does make sense. There are many theories why this is the case, but personally i believe it is a mixture of self fulfilling prophecy, that the instruments the index is composed of (like the stocks in the S&P500) are traded in similar ways as the index (or rather a trade-able derivative of it like ETFs and futures), and the idea that TA just represents human emotion and interaction in trading. This is a very subjective topic, so take this with a grain of salt, but in contrast to JoeTaxpayer i believe that yields are not necessary in order to use TA successfully. As long as the given instrument is liquid enough, TA can be applied and used to gain an edge. On the other hand, to answer your second question, not all stocks in an index correlate all the time, and not all of them will move in sync with the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d597d62750eca680f64b993c1ceebf3", "text": "Some economist please ELI5 what I’m missing here. In the equities market, it is considered an economic benefit when exchanges settle trades in smaller increments. When we went from eighths to decimal, for example. How is that direction into smaller divisible units different from facilitating trade with pennies for economic goods?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c2f8a9996152c5ebb22abd1d904748f", "text": "Yeah, I mean the real issue is that for probably 30% of users (conservatively) it's and IM system and how they get market data. Anyone that uses BDHs or backtesting does not have a reliable alternative. The analytical tools FS offers for those functions cost almost as much. Also, index level data is very expensive, separated and priced by the index managers themselves. The degree to which this 'debate' has been dumbed down is remarkable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3277d01f335f35f5d19c74329b26e4ea", "text": "\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \"\"clumping\"\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19f06ae3fb5539ce2720a61d47286e51", "text": "\"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices. From an investors point of view, this is not important. What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage. In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%. Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the \"\"compare\"\" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500. You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds. Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9149538d610725a2eac924e1aea37af", "text": "As I write this, the NASDAQ Composite is at 2790.00, down 6.14 points from yesterday. To calculate the percentage, you take 6.14 and divide by yesterday's close of 2796.14 to yield 0.22%. In your example, if SPY drops from 133.68 to 133.32, you use the difference of -0.36 and divide by the original, i.e. -0.36/133.68 = -0.27%. SPY is an ETF which you can invest in that tracks the S&P 500 index. Ideally, the index would have dropped the same percentage as SPY, but the points would be different (~10x higher). To answer your question about how one qualifies a point, it completely depends on the index being discussed. For example, the S&P 500 is a market-capitalization weighted index of the common stock of 500 large-cap US public companies. It is as if you owned every share of each of the 500 companies, then divide by some large constant to create a number that's easily understood mentally (i.e. 1330). The NASDAQ Composite used the same methodology but includes practically all stocks listed on the NASDAQ. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of 30 large-cap companies. It's final value is modified using a divisor known as the Dow Divisor, which accounts for stock splits and similar events that have occurred since a stock has joined the index. Thus, points when referring to an index do not typically represent dollars. Rather, they serve as a quantitative measure of how the market is doing based on the performance of the index constituents. ETFs like SPY add a layer of abstraction by creating an investible vehicle that ideally tracks the value of the underlying index directly. Finally, neither price nor index value is related to volume. Volume is a raw measurement of the total number of shares traded for a given stock or the aggregate for a given exchange. Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e0a17f4cb11fdeada4c57156bbd9bc1", "text": "No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0c0764029404e59244d50be1b159dad", "text": "\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be3f373f8d70b137501de20014c0ab9d", "text": "> So what’s the problem? When investors put their money in an index like the S&P 500, they believe that they are just investing in “the market”, broadly. But now, these for-profit indices have made an active decision to exclude certain stocks on the basis of their voting structures. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between the companies creating the passive funds that track the indices and the companies creating the indices that are being tracked. Indices have always been subject to somewhat arbitrary rules for what is being included and how its value is calculated. So this article is completely missing the point.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cdebe29b008de6d02511e3052b676368	How does end-of-year interact with mutual fund prices (if it does)?	[ { "docid": "1d7415e57f6fb728475f29326f504f12", "text": "\"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ef1d46e35b4796f95e4728a467cc4b46", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b962d0c6c11e5ca3e77f09acaddf793b", "text": "Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a252d3d90b6059f7c527797d75585a7", "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).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6098bada08d41d7fd8943cd63346d6f", "text": "From The Prospectus for VTIVX; as compared to the Total Stock Market Fund; You can see how the Target date fund is a 'pass through' type of expense. It's not an adder. That's how I read this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be31b0d0a6d96cd68b06fdd5cbdf2958", "text": "This is great. Thanks! So, just assuming a fund happened to average out to libor plus 50 for a given year, would applying that rate to the notional value of the index swaps provide a reasonable estimate of the drag an ETF investor would experience due to the cost associated with the index swaps? For instance, applying this to the hypothetical I linked to in the original question, they assumed fund assets of $100M with 2x leverage achieved through $85M of S&P500 stocks, $25M of S&P500 futures, and a notional value of the S&P500 swaps at $90M. So the true costs to an ETF investor would be: expense ratio + commissions on the $85M of S&P500 holdings + costs associated with $25M of futures contracts + costs associated with the $90M of swaps? And the costs associated with the $90M of swaps might be roughly libor plus 50?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e8af2153d47ac0e34eafd553a1d3ccd", "text": "After searching a bit and talking to some investment advisors in India I got below information. So thought of posting it so that others can get benefited. This is specific to indian mutual funds, not sure whether this is same for other markets. Even currency used for examples is also indian rupee. A mutual fund generally offers two schemes: dividend and growth. The dividend option does not re-invest the profits made by the fund though its investments. Instead, it is given to the investor from time to time. In the growth scheme, all profits made by the fund are ploughed back into the scheme. This causes the NAV to rise over time. The impact on the NAV The NAV of the growth option will always be higher than that of the dividend option because money is going back into the scheme and not given to investors. How does this impact us? We don't gain or lose per se by selecting any one scheme. Either we make the choice to get the money regularly (dividend) or at one go (growth). If we choose the growth option, we can make money by selling the units at a high NAV at a later date. If we choose the dividend option, we will get the money time and again as well as avail of a higher NAV (though the NAV here is not as high as that of a growth option). Say there is a fund with an NAV of Rs 18. It declares a dividend of 20%. This means it will pay 20% of the face value. The face value of a mutual fund unit is 10 (its NAV in this case is 18). So it will give us Rs 2 per unit. If we own 1,000 units of the fund, we will get Rs 2,000. Since it has paid Rs 2 per unit, the NAV will fall from Rs 18 to Rs 16. If we invest in the growth option, we can sell the units for Rs 18. If we invest in the dividend option, we can sell the units for Rs 16, since we already made a profit of Rs 2 per unit earlier. What we must know about dividends The dividend is not guaranteed. If a fund declared dividends twice last year, it does not mean it will do so again this year. We could get a dividend just once or we might not even get it this year. Remember, though, declaring a dividend is solely at the fund's discretion; the periodicity is not certain nor is the amount fixed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b609126cbf14eb629535679ac0a875d7", "text": "Hello, I was curious if anyone had any insight as to why some mutual funds had different settlement dates than others. I've seen many funds that settle T+1 and some that are T+2 and yet others that are even longer than that. Just curious what is going on behind the scenes that could cause the variation in settlement times. I've looked on investopedia, my broker's website and other google related searches and couldn't find an answer. If anyone had a link or experience with this I would appreciate the information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e1b383fd0db28de0e0948544e307d5f", "text": "Yes, add the stocks/mutual funds that you want and then you would just need to add all the transactions that you theoretically would have made. Performing the look up on the price at each date that you would have sold or bought is quite tedious as well as adding each transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9540286c4bcd9d9b76518407c6796ed", "text": "The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses. If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns. If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease. This happens from time to time with riskier funds. It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis. In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund. If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daccd8ca0d17624588d8df91bea8c332", "text": "One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa381432a94c74fa8cc9b5ffd9ec4751", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "046ecaa7a1cf3caaa077dc7b109211f5", "text": "Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35c459b8792369297e41681430c55724", "text": "Mutual funds are collections of investments that other people pay to join. It would be simpler to calculate the value of all these investments at one time each day, and then to deem that any purchases or sales happen at that price. The fund diversifies rather than magnifies risk, looking to hold rather than enjoy a quick turnaround. Nobody really needs hourly updated price information for an investment they intend to hold for decades. They quote their prices on a daily basis and you take the daily price. This makes sense for a vehicle that is a balanced collection of many different assets, most of which will have varying prices over the course a day. That makes pricing complicated. This primer explains mutual fund pricing and the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which mandates daily price reporting. It also illustrates the complexity: How does the fund pricing process work? Mutual fund pricing is an intensive process that takes place in a short time frame at the end of the day. Generally, a fund’s pricing process begins at the close of the New York Stock Exchange, normally 4 p.m. Eastern time. The fund’s accounting agent, which may be an affiliated entity such as the fund’s adviser, or a third-party servicer such as the fund’s administrator or custodian bank, is usually responsible for calculating the share price. The accounting agent obtains prices for the fund’s securities from pricing services and directly from brokers. Pricing services collect securities prices from exchanges, brokers, and other sources and then transmit them to the fund’s accounting agent. Fund accounting agents internally validate the prices received by subjecting them to various control procedures. For example, depending on the nature and extent of its holdings, a fund may use one or more pricing services to ensure accuracy. Note that under Rule 22c-1 forward pricing, fund shareholders receive the next daily price, not the last daily price. Forward pricing makes sense if you want shareholders to get the most accurate sale or purchase price, but not if you want purchasers and sellers to be able to make precise calculations about gains and losses (how can you be precise if the price won't be known until after you buy or sell?).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75f914274e0dd57bcb5f30258ce50a8c", "text": "One estimate is to sell today, estimate the taxes, and determine how much cash you need to set aside over the next 12 months. The is no way to calculate what impact dividends and capital gains the funds will have, because unlike interest they aren't guaranteed. The other complexity is that the funds themselves could drop in value. In that case the dividends and capital gains may not even be enough to get you back to even. I use mutual funds to invest over the long term, with the idea of spending the funds over decades. When needing to save for a short term goal, I use banking products. They are guaranteed not to lose value, and the interest changes are slowerand thus easier to predict.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b994b0f50c6b08e9548da99ccc0e2b00", "text": "I don't think that they ask you for your citizenship status when you apply in a dealership. At least I don't remember being asked. I know of at least 3 people from my closest circle of friends who are in various immigration statuses (including one on F1) and got an auto loan from a dealership without a problem and with good rates. They have to ask for your immigration status on online applications because of the post-9/11 law changes. Edit to allow Dilip to retract his unjustified downvote: Chase and Wells Fargo have a reliable track of extending auto loans to non-permanent residents.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2e80e236e1538e0c874599110a6e5d2d	How Warren Buffett made his money	[ { "docid": "6bfdc5b647b5f94ef5ffe18b4b174c9a", "text": "\"Despite Buffett's nearly perfect consistent advice over the past few decades, they don't reflect his earliest days. His modern philosophy seemed to solidify in the 1970s. You can see that Buffett's earliest days grew faster, at 29.5 % for those partners willing to take on leverage with Buffett, than the last half century, at 19.7%. Not only is Buffett limited by size, as its quite difficult to squeeze one half trillion USD into sub-billion USD investments, but the economy thus market is far different than it was before the 1980s. He would have to acquire at least 500 billion USD companies outright, and there simply aren't that many available that satisfy all of his modern conditions. The market is much different now than it was when he first started at Graham-Newman because before the 1960s, the economy thus market would collapse and rebound about every few years. This sort of variance can actually help a value investor because a true value investor will abandon investments when valuations are high and go all in when valuations are low. The most extreme example was when he tried to as quietly as possible buy up an insurance company selling for something like a P/E of 1 during one of the collapses. These kinds of opportunities are seldom available anymore, not even during the 2009 collapse. As he became larger, those investments became off limits because it simply wasn't worth his time to find such a high returner if it's only a bare fraction of his wealth. Also, he started to deviate from Benjamin Graham's methods and started to incorporate Philip Fisher's. By the 1970s, his investment philosophy was more or less cemented. He tried to balance Graham's avarice for price with Fisher's for value. All of the commentary that special tax dodges or cheap financing are central to his returns are false. They contributed, but they are ancillary. As one can see by comparing the limited vs general partners, leverage helps enormously, but this is still a tangent. Buffett has undoubtedly built his wealth from the nature of his investments. The exact blueprint can be constructed by reading every word he has published and any quotes he has not disavowed. Simply, he buys the highest quality companies in terms of risk-adjusted growth at the best available prices. Quantitatively, it is a simple strategy to replicate. NFLX was selling very cheaply during the mid-2000s, WDC sells frequently at low valuations, up and coming retailers frequently sell at low valuations, etc. The key to Buffett's method is emotional control and removing the mental block that price equals value; price is cost, value is revenue, and that concept is the hardest for most to imbibe. Quoting from the first link: One sidelight here: it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately to people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of IQ or academic training. It's instant recognition, or it is nothing. and I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market. These Graham-and-Doddsville investors have successfully exploited gaps between price and value. When the price of a stock can be influenced by a \"\"herd\"\" on Wall Street with prices set at the margin by the most emotional person, or the greediest person, or the most depressed person, it is hard to argue that the market always prices rationally. In fact, market prices are frequently nonsensical. and finally Success in investing doesn’t correlate with I.Q. once you’re above the level of 25. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing. There is almost no information on any who has helped Buffett internally or even managed Berkshire's investments aside from Louis Simpson. It is unlikely that Buffett has allowed anyone to manage much of Berkshire's investments considering the consistent stream of commentary from him claiming that he nearly does nothing except read annual reports all day to the extent that he may have neglected his family to some degree and that listening to others will more likely hurt performance than help with the most striking example being his father's recommendation that he not open a hedge fund after retiring from Graham-Newman because he believed the market was topping, and he absolutely idolized his father.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fdbf339263b1065a53a294559a4d6dd", "text": "\"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: \"\"Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "974603438efffb44dbeb13d6df665925", "text": "I don’t know specifics of the situation but one possibility would be that Buffett may have billions in various assets etc companies he owns, stocks bonds, but if he doesn’t sell any of those stocks or cash in any of those bonds, then on paper he didn’t make any money that year because he’s letting the assets appreciate. I would say net income is the amount of income you claimed that year, so if you had sold some stock, the amount of money you sold them for would be your income. As opposed to net worth being “if they wanted to” if Buffett sold all of his stocks and assets, he would be able to get billions for it. So while he technically is worth billions, on his tax returns he doesn’t claim much income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e468f3dd2a7862c490cba7671c69bba3", "text": "/u/Dexter0_0 - Additionally, nominal dollars should be adjusted for inflation using the [core PCE price deflator](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DPCCRG3A086NBEA). For instance, $5,000 in 1944 (when Mr. Buffett was 14), would feel like $48,000. /u/jaasx - the trailing off in the later years is more likely do to the difficulty of earning high rates of returns on large piles of money (i.e. diminishing marginal returns). [Here are Mr. Buffett's own words](https://valuebin.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/warren-buffett-on-investing-small-sums-of-money/), and can be seen in the stock price of Berkshire Hathaway (appreciating more slowly in recent decades than in the '70s & '80s).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e91b1f08ae696306311d1ca153bab4f0", "text": "\"US federal tax law distinguishes many types of income. For most people, most of their income is \"\"earned income\"\", money you were paid to do a job. Another category of income is \"\"capital gains\"\", money you made from the sale of an asset. For a variety of reasons, capital gains tax rates are lower than earned income tax rates. (For example, it is common that much of the gain is not real profit but inflation. If you buy an asset for $10,000 and sell it for $15,000, you pay capital gains tax on the $5,000 profit. But what if prices in general since you bought the asset have gone up 50%? Then your entire profit is really inflation, you didn't actually make any money -- but you still have to pay a tax on the paper gain.) So if you make your money by investing in assets -- buying and selling at a profit -- you will pay lower taxes than if you made the same amount of money by receiving a salary from a job, or by running a business where you sell your time and expertise rather than an asset. But money made from assets -- capital gains -- is not tax free. It's just a lower tax. It MIGHT be that when combined with other deductions and tax credits this would result in you paying no taxes in a particular year. Maybe you could avoid paying taxes forever if you can take advantage of tax loopholes. But for most people, making money from capital gains could result in lower taxes per dollar of income than someone doing more ordinary work. Or it could result in higher taxes, if you factor in inflation, net present value of money, and so on. BTW Warren Buffet's \"\"secretary\"\" is not a typist. She apparently makes at least $200,000 a year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/#ab91f3718b8a. And side note: if Warren Buffet thinks he isn't paying enough in taxes, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more? The government has a web site where citizens can voluntarily pay additional taxes. In 2015 they received $3.9 million in such contributions. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3dbe23baa3731a9c553bf645a1ddd1d", "text": "\"That's just his base salary for last year. Keep reading in the article: He also received $1.6 million worth of securit[ies]. Plus, he's probably earned plenty in salary, bonuses, and other compensation in previous years to more than keep up his lifestyle. He can also sell (relatively) small amounts of the stock he already owns to get millions in cash without raising an eyebrow. how are people able to spend more than what they make, without going into debt? Well, people can't spend more than they have without going into debt. Certainly money can be saved, won, inherited, whatever without being \"\"earned\"\". Other than that, debt is the only option. That said, MANY \"\"wealthy\"\" people will spend WAY more than they have by going into debt. This can be done through huge mortgages, personal loans using stock, real estate, or other assets as collateral, etc. I don't know about Bezos specifically, but it's not uncommon for \"\"wealthy\"\" people to live beyond their means - they just have more assets behind them to secure personal loans, or bankers are more willing to lend them unsecured money because of the large interest rates they can charge. Their assumption is presumably that the interest they'll pay on these loans is less than the earnings they'll get from the asset (e.g. stock, real estate). While it may be true in some cases, it can also go bad and cause you to lose everything.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e51cf7afa6aabe63143fd7875be00205", "text": "The main thing you're missing is that while you bear all the costs of manipulating the market, you have no special ability to capture the profits yourself. You make money by buying low and selling high. But if you want to push the price up, you have to keep buying even though the price is getting high. So you are buying high. This gives everyone, including you, the opportunity to sell high and make money. But you will have no special ability to capture that -- others will see the price going up and will start selling within a tiny fraction of a second. You will have to keep buying all the shares they keep selling at the artificially inflated price. So as you keep trying to buy more and more to push the price up enough to make money, everyone else is selling their shares to you. You have to buy more and more shares at an inflated price as everyone else is selling while you are still buying. When you switch to selling, the price will drop instantly, since there's nobody to buy from you at the inflated price. The opportunity you created has already been taken -- by the very people you were trading with. Billions have been lost by people who thought this strategy would work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e9ebc57e4df203c6ab584cc9e5ec0ed", "text": "\"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the \"\"underclass\"\" and the \"\"upperclass\"\". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5a2ac814e0f47b51a7f35f47f3c850d", "text": "\"Warren Buffett pointed out that if you set 1 million monkeys to flipping coins, after ten flips, one monkey in about 1,000 (1,024) actually, would have a \"\"perfect\"\" track record of 10 heads. If you can double your money every three to five years (basically, the outer limit of what is humanly possible), you can turn $1,000 into $1 million in 30-50 years. But your chances of doing this are maybe those of that one in 1,000 monkeys. There are people that believe that if Warren Buffett were starting out today, \"\"today's version\"\" could not beat the historical version. One of the \"\"believers\"\" is Warren Buffett himself (if you read between the lines of his writings). What the promoters do is to use the benefit of hindsight to show that if someone had done such-and-such trades on such-and-such days, they would have turned a few thousand into a million in a few short years. That's \"\"easy\"\" in hindsight, but then challenge them to do it in real time!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ace2779c15685158929931d658536e7", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c33a6811b667dc4c41322a763088ef4", "text": "I could be wrong, but I doubt that Bernie started out with any intention of defrauding anyone, really. I suspect it began the first time he hit a quarter when his returns were lower than everyone else's, or at least not as high as he'd promised his investors they'd be, so he fudged the numbers and lied to get past the moment, thinking he'd just make up for it the next quarter. Only that never happened, and so the lie carried forward and maybe grew as things didn't improve as he expected. It only turned into a ponzi because he wasn't as successful at investing as he was telling his investors he was, and telling the truth would have meant the probability that he would have lost most of his clients as they went elsewhere. Bernie couldn't admit the truth, so he had to keep up the fiction by actually paying out returns that didn't exist, which required constantly finding new money to cover what he was paying out. The source of that money turned out to be new investors who were lured in by people already investing with Bernie who told them how great he was as a financial wizard, and they had the checks to prove it. I think this got so far out of hand, and it gradually dragged more and more people in because such things turn into black holes, swallowing up everything that gets close. Had the 2008 financial crisis not hit then Bernie might still be at it. The rapid downturns in the markets hit many of Bernie's investors with margin calls in other investments they held, so they requested redemptions from him to cover their calls, expecting that all of the money he'd convinced to leave with him really existed. When he realized he couldn't meet the flood of redemptions, that was when he 'fessed up and the bubble burst. Could he have succeeded by simple investing in Berkshire? Probably. But then how many people say that in hindsight about them or Amazon or Google, or any number of other stocks that turned out similarly? (grin) Taking people's money and parking it all in one stock doesn't make you a genius, and that's how Bernie wanted to be viewed. To accomplish that, he needed to find the opportunities nobody else saw and be the one to get there first. Unfortunately his personal crystal ball was wrong, and rather than taking his lumps by admitting it to his investors, his pride and ego led him down a path of deception that I'm sure he had every intention of making right if he could. The problem was, that moment never came. Keep in mind one thing: The $64 billion figure everyone cites isn't money that really existed in the first place. That number is what Bernie claimed his fund was worth, and it is not the amount he actually defrauded people out of. His actual cash intake was probably somewhere in the $20 billion range over that time. Everything else beyond that was nothing more than the fictionalized returns he was claiming to get for his clients. It's what they thought they had in the bank with him, rather than what was really there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f72096078666904daa338a9408f0f8e9", "text": "Do you think Buffet's track record is a result of luck? Also it is tough to compare Singer and Buffet because their strategies are so different. Paul Singer's investing focuses on activism & distress, whereas Buffet is a value investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23c0aec2630f46aec1894d85809f1124", "text": "Yes, because we don't want to be China. It also helps stimulate an economy to have your largest portion get most of the wealth. Warren Buffett can only eat one meal at a time, live in one house at a time, and only has so much time in his day. If you give his yearly salary to 150 people that are right now unable to do any of those things, they will put that money to better use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db1ccbc57a778e7a93f06a6a95ab0dde", "text": "\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e6390bc4bd318df463271b969ab2ba9", "text": "This has never really adequately explained it for me, and I've tried reading up on it all over the place. For a long time I thought that in a trade, the market maker pockets the spread for that trade, but that's not the case. The only sensible explanation I've found (which I'm not going to give in full...) is that the market maker will provide liquidity by buying and selling trades they have no actual view on (short or long), and if the spread is higher, that contributes directly to the amount they make over time when they open and close positions they've made. It would be great to see a single definitive example somewhere that shows how a market maker makes money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7d15ce341a607d020f7c95b96e51e11", "text": "\"my problem with your argument is its base falseness: \"\"During the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, Goldman was able to profit from the collapse in subprime mortgage bonds in the summer of 2007 by short-selling subprime mortgage-backed securities. Two Goldman traders, Michael Swenson and Josh Birnbaum, are credited with bearing responsibility for the firm's large profits during America's sub-prime mortgage crisis. The pair, members of Goldman's structured products group in New York, made a profit of $4 billion by \"\"betting\"\" on a collapse in the sub-prime market, and shorting mortgage-related securities.\"\" that is wikipedia, but they seem to know what is going on better than you do so...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0e031045feb0f059b8f4d20233b164", "text": "\"We just got in an argument in another thread, and I don't necessarily want to continue it, but was browsing your comments and saw this. I can say from personal experience (I have several high net worth clients) that this isn't true. The rich do the opposite of leave their money laying around. They invest it to make more money. They buy office buildings, fund new companies, buy up stocks, and drive investment in general. Someone has to do these things. Office buildings can't just be owned by \"\"the people\"\". Someone with a ton of money has to come along and fund them. For example, one of my friends knows Elon Musk (founder of Pay-Pal, Tesla Motors, Solar City, and Space X). He is worth $2 billion, but was living on other people's couches (including my friend's) after he sold Pay-Pal because he had just poured all of his cash into starting Tesla Motors. He was a billionaire without a penny to his name (well I'm sure he had a little cash lying around, but was essentially asset rich, cash broke). THAT is what most ultra rich people are like. They invest their money, they don't just horde it away in a savings account. The things people like Musk do create jobs and sometimes entire industries (or three entire industries in his case). I'm by no means arguing that this is right or wrong, but to say rich people just have money lying around is absurd. You don't get rich by saving money in the bank, you get rich by spending it. I'm in my early 20's, but already own multiple apartment buildings. I'm not rich yet and am in the same boat as Musk was. I have tons of assets, but almost no cash I can spend. However, you bet my efforts are creating jobs. I'm employing people to renovate and people to repair and maintain these buildings. I'm helping stop the bleeding in the real estate market, but, according to the narrative, I'm evil because my \"\"income\"\" is six figures.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f1bac843a6d84f1ee35a83d3a4fd62b9	Do I still need to file taxes with the Canadian government if I am working in the U.S. on a TN visa for a few years?	[ { "docid": "194322872a65caaa165d753c9086df52", "text": "\"You are considered a Canadian resident if you have \"\"significant residential ties to Canada\"\". Because your wife lives in Canada, you therefore are a resident. Even by working temporarily in the US, you are still considered a \"\"factual resident\"\" of Canada. Due to that, your second question is irrelevant.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0c55747bc1f3a76ac6eb4c80269b2d5", "text": "\"The other answer has mentioned \"\"factual resident\"\", and you have raised the existence of a U.S./Canada tax treaty in your comment, and provided a link to a page about determining residency. I'd like to highlight part of the first link: You are a factual resident of Canada for tax purposes if you keep significant residential ties in Canada while living or travelling outside the country. The term factual resident means that, although you left Canada, you are still considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes. Notes If you have established ties in a country that Canada has a tax treaty with and you are considered to be a resident of that country, but you are otherwise a factual resident of Canada, meaning you maintain significant residential ties with Canada, you may be considered a deemed non-resident of Canada for tax purposes. [...] I'll emphasize that \"\"considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes\"\" means you do need to file Canadian income tax returns. The Notes section does indicate the potential treaty exemption that you mentioned, but it is only a potential exemption. Note the emphasis (theirs, not mine) on the word \"\"may\"\" in the last paragraph above. Please don't assume \"\"may\"\" is necessarily favorable with respect to your situation. The other side of the \"\"may\"\" coin is \"\"may not\"\". The Determining your residency status page you mentioned in your comment says this: If you want the Canada Revenue Agency's opinion on your residency status, complete either Form NR74, Determination of Residency Status (Entering Canada) or Form NR73, Determination of Residency Status (Leaving Canada), whichever applies, and send it to the International and Ottawa Tax Services Office. To get the most accurate opinion, provide as many details as possible on your form. So, given your ties to Canada, I would suggest that until and unless you have obtained an opinion from the Canada Revenue Agency on your tax status, you would be making a potentially unsafe assumption if you yourself elect not to file your Canadian income tax returns based on your own determination. You could end up liable for penalties and interest if you don't file while you are outside of Canada. Tax residency in Canada is not a simple topic. For instances, let's have a look at S5-F1-C1, Determining an Individual’s Residence Status. It's a long page, but here's one interesting piece: 1.44 The Courts have stated that holders of a United States Permanent Residence Card (otherwise referred to as a Green Card) are considered to be resident in the United States for purposes of paragraph 1 of the Residence article of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention. For further information, see the Federal Court of Appeal's comments in Allchin v R, 2004 FCA 206, 2004 DTC 6468. [...] ... whereas you are in the U.S. on a TN visa, intended to be temporary. So you wouldn't be exempt just on the basis of your visa and the existence of the treaty. The CRA would look at other circumstances. Consider the \"\"Centre of vital interests test\"\": Centre of vital interests test [...] “If the individual has a permanent home in both Contracting States, it is necessary to look at the facts in order to ascertain with which of the two States his personal and economic relations are closer. Thus, regard will be had to his family and social relations, his occupations, his political, cultural or other activities, his place of business, the place from which he administers his property, etc. The circumstances must be examined as a whole, but it is nevertheless obvious that considerations based on the personal acts of the individual must receive special attention. If a person who has a home in one State sets up a second in the other State while retaining the first, the fact that he retains the first in the environment where he has always lived, where he has worked, and where he has his family and possessions, can, together with other elements, go to demonstrate that he has retained his centre of vital interests in the first State.” [emphasis on last sentence is mine] Anyway, I'm acquainted with somebody who left Canada for a few years to work abroad. They assumed that living in the other country for that length of time (>2 years) meant they were non-resident here and so did not have to file. Unfortunately, upon returning to Canada, the CRA deemed them to have been resident all that time based on significant ties maintained, and they subsequently owed many thousands of dollars in back taxes, penalties, and interest. If it were me in a similar situation, I would err on the side of caution and continue to file Canadian income taxes until I got a determination I could count on from the people that make the rules.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "65c68a828b7a4907e8704f5296b345ee", "text": "If you're under audit - you should get a proper representation. I.e.: EA or CPA licensed in California and experienced with the FTB audit representation. There's a penalty on failure to file form 1099, but it is with the IRS, not the FTB. If I remember correctly, it's something like $50 or $100 per instance. Technically they can disqualify deductions claiming you paid under the table and no taxes were paid on the other side, however I doubt they'd do it in a case of simple omission of filing 1099 forms. Check with your licensed tax adviser. Keep in mind that for the IRS 2011 is now closed, since the 3-year statute of limitations has passed. For California the statute is 4 years, and you're almost at the end of it. However since you're already under audit they may ask you to agree to extend it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0fe4f46c95a1af4c1c188eddc55166d", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4631de9bda8f2ebb39cce887c51539a", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8617be6ccb0f198c77c9c8aeab78dcd2", "text": "If you are still a UK resident, then yes. Also, as I understand it, if the contract is only for a year, then unless it happens to exactly match the payroll year, you will have to remain a UK resident and hence, yes you will have to pay tax. See here for more info (from HMRC FAQ questions)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "134248d08749c7999287d4f12f2c9db6", "text": "My wife and I are both Canadian citizens living in the US with green card status. I still have a Canadian RRSP and bank account in Canada that are dormant for the most part. We use the Canadian debit card only when traveling (which is quite helpful). Neither of us file any paperwork in Canada anymore. But as others have mentioned, we do file the FBAR form... this takes about 10 minutes and gets mailed somewhere in Michigan if I recall correctly. (Keep the balance less than $10k total among all foreign accounts and you relieve yourself of this too.) As far as taxes go, we make less interest in our Canadian account than in our US accounts, so the tax burden is less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff9bcf5e929e7efeefd7f94864242f99", "text": "Residents of Canada must pay Canadian income tax on their worldwide income (source: Wikipedia). However, there is a tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada; I haven't read it, but my guess is that it will allow you to claim a tax credit in Canada for the capital gains tax you have paid to the U.S.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ff48ab59c694db453df646f2d03e011", "text": "\"If you're \"\"living off the land\"\" and make no money, then you don't have to file. Though you might be able to actually make money through credits and the like if you do file. If you've lost more than you've made, then you'll probably need to file since someone will have needed to report that they paid you (W-2 or 1099-MISC). If the IRS receives a form saying that you made X and you don't file, they aren't going to just take your word for it that you lost more than you made, right? That, and if you want a refund, you'll almost certainly need to file to get it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b45e548d7249ae24266bede29b37465", "text": "I will not pay any taxes in the Us, since I am not working for an US company What you will or will not pay is up to you of course, but you definitely should pay taxes in the US, as you're working in the US. Since you mentioned being from Japan, I'll also suggest checking whether you're allowed to perform any work in the US under the conditions of your visa. If you're a F1/J1 student - you'll be breaking the immigration law and may be deported. You might be liable for taxes in Germany, as well, and also in Japan. I'll have to edit this to allow people who downvoted the answer without knowing the legal requirements to change their vote. F1 student cannot be a contractor without a valid EAD. Period. There's no doubt about it and legal requirements are pretty clear. Anyone who claims that you wouldn't be breaking the terms of your visa is wrong. Note, I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax professional, for definite advice talk to a professional.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a998ba4e2f818772ac51100aeaa986e", "text": "I am from India. I visited US 6-8 times on business VISA and then started 2 Member LLC. Myself and My wife as LLC Members. We provide Online Training to american students from India. Also Got EIN number. Never employed any one. Do i need to pay taxes? Students from USA pays online by Paypal and i am paying taxes in India. Do i need to pay Taxes in US? DO i need to file the Tax returns? Please guide me. I formed LLC in 2010. I opened an Office-taken Virtual office for 75 USD per month to open LLC in 2010. As there is physical virtual address, am i liable for US taxes? All my earning is Online, free lancing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28d7f93ee7c7ab730f251aa41b95bf28", "text": "\"If you are a permanent resident (and it wasn't taken away or abandoned), then you are a resident alien for U.S. tax purposes. (One of the two tests for being a resident alien is the \"\"green card test\"\".) Being a resident alien means all your worldwide income is subject to U.S. taxes, regardless of where you live or work. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to actually pay taxes on your income again if you've already paid it -- you may be able to use the Foreign Tax Credit to reduce your taxes by the amount already paid to a foreign government -- but you need to report it on U.S. tax forms just like income from the U.S., and you can then apply any tax credits that you may qualify for. As a resident alien, you file taxes using Form 1040. You are required to file taxes if your income for a particular year is above a certain threshold. This threshold is described in the first few pages of the 1040 instructions for each year. For 2013, for Single filing status under 65, it is $10000. The only way you can legally not file is if your income the whole year was below this amount. You should go back and file taxes if you were required to but failed to. Having filed taxes when required is very important if you want to naturalize later on. It is also one component of demonstrating you're maintaining residency in the U.S., which you're required to do as a permanent resident being outside the U.S. for a long time, or else you'll lose your permanent residency. (Even filing taxes might not be enough, as your description of your presence in the U.S. shows you only go there for brief periods each year, not really living there. You're lucky you haven't lost your green card already; any time you go there you run a great risk of them noticing and taking it away.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20c142df943348a0135a62c9553986d0", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62d4d02c96f3c835c9f5f8998ccd9e9d", "text": "Technically, if you earn in US (being paid there, which means you have a work visa) and live in other country, you must pay taxes in both countries. International treaties try to decrease the double-taxation, and in this case, you may pay in your country the difference of what you have paid in US. ie. your Country is 20% and USA is 15%, you will pay 5%, and vice-versa. This works only with certain areas. You must know the tax legislation of both countries, and I recommend you seek for advisory. This site have all the basic information you need: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c68cedbd4aa170b06821aa99ccc65c1", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb3edb9346792440f6dfe9396e27c24c", "text": "If you have non Residency status in Canada you don't need to file Canadian tax return. To confirm your status you need to contact Canada Revenue (send them letter, probably to complete some form).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ba55b71e8a7ffd034a088d67e115d7c", "text": "That's true for the tax return. The T1135 has some late penalties. These only apply if you had to file one, some/most people don't. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/cmmn/frgn/pnlts_grd-eng.html", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3b1fcd2861c9343dfbc4e5950098eab2	I was given a 1099-misc instead of a w-2 what are my next steps?	[ { "docid": "563440e7c3bd9c4100cc7605236340c8", "text": "\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \"\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\"\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \"\"make you whole\"\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \"\"Contract-to-Hire\"\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9ca487f414c2c6031f240a6f39f57761", "text": "\"Well, as you say, the instructions for form W-2 (for your employer to fill out) say You must report all employer contributions (including an employee's contributions through a cafeteria plan) to an HSA in box 12 of Form W-2 with code W. Employer contributions to an HSA that are not excludable from the income of the employee also must be reported in boxes 1, 3, and 5. However, while it's your employer's job to fill out W-2 correctly, it's only your job to file your taxes correctly. Especially as you say your box 1/3/5 income is correct, this isn't too hard to do. You should file Form 8889 with your return and report the contributions on Line 9 as Employer Contributions. (And as you say, both what the employer contributed outright and what you had deducted from your pay are both Employer Contributions.) Be sure to keep your final pay stub for the year (or other documentation) showing that your employer did contribute that amount, just in case the IRS does end up questioning it for some reason. If you really want to, you could try calling the IRS and letting them know that you have contributions that weren't reported on your W-2 to see if they want to follow up with your employer about correcting their documentation, if your efforts have been fruitless. There's even a FAQ page on the IRS site about how to contact them when your employer isn't giving you a correct W-2 and how to fill out a Form 4852 instead of using the W-2, which I'd recommend if the amount of income listed was wrong or if there were some other more \"\"major\"\" problem with the form. Most likely, though, since it's not going to affect the amount of tax anybody will pay, it's not going to be at the top of their list. I would worry more filling out the forms you need to fill out correctly rather than worrying about the forms your employer isn't filling out correctly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e60c76c4257a2b9514250cba964fb1e6", "text": "I believe it's not only legal, but correct and required. A 1099 is how a business reports payments to others, and they're required by the IRS to send them for payments of $600 or more (for miscalleneous payments like this). The payment is an expense to the landlord and income to you, and the 1099 is how that's documented (although note that if they don't send you a 1099, it's still income to you and you still need to report it as such). It's similar to getting a 1099-INT for interest payments or a 1099-DIV for dividend payments. You'll get a 1099-MISC for a miscellaneous payment. If you were an employee they'd send you a W-2, not a 1099.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f32d820d97c3f202be1a3c1a88a1820b", "text": "\"Does he need to file a tax return in this situation? Will the IRS be concerned that he did not file even if he received a 1099? No. However, if you don't file the IRS may come back asking why, or \"\"make up\"\" a return for you assuming that the whole amount on the 1099-MISC is your net earnings. So in the end, I suspect you'll end up filing even though you don't have to, just to prove that you don't have to. Bottom line - if you have 1099 income (or any other income reported to the IRS that brings you over the filing threshold), file a return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d261b95aa4f917f2b19443b949a5c35e", "text": "\"Whenever you do paid work for a company, you will need to fill out some sort of paperwork so that the company knows how to pay you, and also how to report how much they paid you to the appropriate government agencies. You should not think of this as a \"\"hurdle\"\" and you shouldn't worry that you haven't been employed for a long time. The two most common ways a company pays an individual are via employee wages, or \"\"independent contractor\"\" payments. When you start a relationship with a company, if you are going to become an employee, then you will out a W4 form, and at the end of the year you will receive a W2 form. If you are an independent contractor, (which you would be considered in this case), you will fill out form W9 and at the end of the year you will receive a 1099. This is completely normal and you have nothing to worry about. All it means is that if you make more than a certain amount (typically $600) in a year, you will receive a 1099 in the mail or electronically. The 1099 form basically means that they are reporting that amount to the IRS, and it also helps you file your tax return by showing you all the numbers you need on one form. Please remember that when you are paid as an independent contractor, no taxes are withheld on your behalf, so you may owe some tax on the money you make. It's best to set aside some of your income so you are prepared to pay it come tax time next year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51e02e18fe8ff18b3bbd421ca9eeee5c", "text": "As a follow-up, I was able to find a bank that gave me a loan. I just called several banks listed on Yelp, and one ended up working with me. It is also possible that the previous banks misunderstood me and assumed I was 1099 and not W2. I made it very clear to this guy that I was W2, and there was absolutely no problem. Also, it turned out the recruiter I work for has special paperwork their employees can give to lenders to verify W2 employment. So, I have been in my condo since January. And, the condo was a little under $250K. Anyway, I still think it's ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS that banks would not give a loan to a web developer who is in super high demand and making well over 100K/year -- even if I am 1099. I have never, ever in my life been late on a single payment for anything, and I have an 800 credit score. To even question that I could not make payments is ludicrous. Whenever I put my resume on monster.com (just one web site), I receive about 20 phone calls daily -- and I am not exaggerating even slightly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac", "text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a403d7de68675f08817c02e9104ea567", "text": "If you're correct that it's not taxable because it's non-taxable reimbursement (which is supported by your W-2), then it should not go on your 1040 at all. If it is taxable, then it really should have appeared on your W-2 and would probably end up on Line 7 of your Form 1040.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16581677e644eac47253d3d85e446f77", "text": "I suggest you have a professional assist you with this audit, if the issue comes into questioning. It might be that it wouldn't. There are several different options to deal with such situation, and each can be attacked by the IRS. You'll need to figure out the following: Have you paid taxes on the reimbursement? Most likely you haven't, but if you had - it simplifies the issue for you. Is the program qualified under the employers' plan, and the only reason you're not qualified for reimbursement is that you decided to quit your job? If so, you might not be able to deduct it at all, because you can't take tax benefits on something you can be reimbursed for, but chose not to. IRS might claim that you quitting your job is choosing not to get reimbursement you would otherwise get. I couldn't find from my brief search any examples of what happened after such a decision. You can claim it was a loan, but I doubt the IRS will agree. The employer most likely reported it as an expense. If the IRS don't contest based on what I described in #2, and you haven't paid taxes on the reimbursement (#1), I'd say what you did was reasonable and should be accepted (assuming of course you otherwise qualify for all the benefits you're asking for). I would suggest getting a professional advice. Talk to a EA or a a CPA in your area. This answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97cbde3c965690a53a5b344eaf7ebe19", "text": "Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e0ae1e5e3f2fc011f870fc4b608327e", "text": "\"You can list it as other income reported on line 21 of form 1040. In TurboTax, enter at: - Federal Taxes tab (Personal in Home & Business) - Wages & Income -“I’ll choose what I work on” Button Scroll down to: -Less Common Income -Misc Income, 1099-A, 1099-C. -The next screen will give you several choices. Choose \"\"Other reportable Income\"\". You will reach a screen where you can type a description of the income and the amount. Type in the amount of income and categorize as Tutoring.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5bb48681b5df3512b1d651714b729d6", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b3d85e0259ff79c5fcce5e2a24ff6c", "text": "I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income tax was not withheld. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns. My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash) would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?) and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your 2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the value of the rental during those years as additional income, and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture, but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather than in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64ff7d85368c789defd8b35ea3d24c03", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f60760cdf7ae4938f7de3f0c56f80baf", "text": "Based on the statement in your question you think it should have been on the 2014 W-2 but it was included on the 2015 W-2. If you are correct, then you are asking them to correct two w-2 forms: the 2014 form and the 2015 form. You will also have to file form 1040-x for 2014 to correct last years tax forms. You will have to pay additional tax with that filing, and there could be penalties and interest. But if you directed them on the last day of the year, it is likely that the transaction actually took place the next year. You will have to look at the paperwork for the account to see what is the expected delay. You should also be able to see from the account history when it actually took place, and when the funds were credited to your account. or you could just pay the tax this year. This might be the best if there is no real difference in the result. Now if you added the sale to your taxes lat year without a corresponding tax statement from your account, that is a much more complex situation. The IRS could eventually flag the discrepancy, so you may have to adjust last year filing anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "177452e08f5bcd1a5ccb6fada4720bcd", "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.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1f2d8917962642ae2d7796f3b84add0b	What is the effect of a high dollar on the Canadian economy, investors, and consumers?	[ { "docid": "c433c5229079ff503c87b81663f42d17", "text": "It depends primarily on how the Canadian economy is designed i.e export oriented or import oriented. If you look at this, it shows more or less equal amount of exports and imports. For the specific case of Canada, the exports would become costlier, because of a costlier dollar, but at the same time imports would become cheaper. This is only a generalization, not specific goodswise, which would require a more detailed ananlysis. But investors have a different dilemma. Canadian investors would find it cheaper to invest abroad so may channel their investments abroad because they may find it costlier to invest in Canada. While foreign investors would find it costlier to invest in Canada and may wait for later or invest somehwre else. Then government may try to boost up investment and start lowering the interest rates, if it sees the rising dollar as detrimental for the Canadian economy and investments flowing abroad instead of Canada. But what would be the final outcome of the whole rigmarole is little difficult to predict, because something is arriving and something is departing and above all goverment is doing something or is going to do. But the basic gist is Canadian exporters will be sad and Canadian importers will be happy, but vice versa for foreign investors intending to invest in Canada.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492", "text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d9444595e7e45564762ff58a6c29bc5", "text": "\"While this figure is a giant flashing-red beacon of inflation, it should be noted that this has been happening during a period of unprecedented writedowns and deleveraging of \"\"hypothetical\"\" assets -- assets that exist on paper only. The result, given the way QE funds have been injected into the market (eg TAF), is that people who should've lost money get to tread water, and the inflation is not apparent in the rest of the economy (unless you are actually aware of the severe repercussions which should've happened but didn't). Also, and separately, I'm not so sure another round of QE is coming.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2cb477959dec39a9ffffc1413e15915", "text": "The monetary supply isn't a fixed number like in the old days of the [gold standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard) is part of the answer. Also, the actual spending of that one thousand dollars -- where the money is spent and on what -- does make a significant difference on how the overall economy is effected: People spending it on food, transportation and housing isn't going to drive up the costs of a Porshe 911.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f40189b9cd717786307791d9cf438e9", "text": "\"I'd like to see a credible source for \"\"the highest\"\", but it's certainly fairly high. Household debt could be broadly categorized as debt for housing and debt for consumption. Housing prices seem very high compared to equivalent rental income. This is generating a great deal of debt. Keynes(?) said that \"\"if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.\"\" Just when it will stop, and whether it will stop suddenly or gradually is a matter of great interest. Obviously there are huge vested interests, including the large fraction of the population who already own property and do not wish to see it fall. Nobody really knows; my guess would be on a very-long-term plateau in nominal prices and decline in real prices. The Australian stock market is unlike the US: since it's a small country, a lot of the big companies are export-driven, either by directly exporting physical goods (miners, agriculture) or by FDI (property trusts, banks). So a local recession will hurt the stock market, but not across the board. A decline in the value of the Australian dollar would be very good news for some of these companies. Debt for consumption I think is the smaller fraction. Arguably it's driven by a wealth effect of Australia having had a reasonably good crisis with low unemployment and increasing international purchasing power. If this tops out, you'd expect to see reduced earnings for consumer discretionary companies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18a54dd18f7dc41f99e82c01202555e2", "text": "You do realize that the stock market is at all time highs because of QE, right? And that the article isn't even disputing that, it is saying that a vast majority of people is not getting into a better standard of living, with the exception of the very rich, which also happen to be the ones that hold most of the stocks. Funny how that works, isn't it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6a3340c925cebe9771d4f0abb64fb8b", "text": "When you want to invest in an asset denominated by a foreign currency, your investment is going to have some currency risk to it. You need to worry not just about what happens to your own currency, but also the foreign currency. Lets say you want to invest $10000 in US Stocks as a Canadian. Today that will cost you $13252, since USDCAD just hit 1.3252. You now have two ways you can make money. One is if USDCAD goes up, two is if the stocks go up. The former may not be obvious, but remember, you are holding US denominated assets currently, with the intention of one day converting those assets back into CAD. Essentially, you are long USDCAD (long USD short CAD). Since you are short CAD, if CAD goes up it hurts you It may seem odd to think about this as a currency trade, but it opens up a possibility. If you want a foreign investment to be currency neutral, you just make the opposite currency trade, in addition to your original investment. So in this case, you would buy $10,000 in US stocks, and then short USDCAD (ie long CAD, short USD $10,000). This is kind of savvy and may not be something you would do. But its worth mentioning. And there are also some currency hedged ETFs out there that do this for you http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact However most are hedged relative to USD, and are meant to hedge the target countries currency, not your own.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "876a088a1162f7d5208a47308138c52f", "text": "Well as you can guess economic growth has a positive effect on the economy as a whole and tends to be measured in the change of a countries GDP ([Gross Domestic Product](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product)) [Unemployment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment) is the rate of people unemployed who should be working currently. High unemployment is bad as it shows there are people who could be making money (who would then spend it thus boosting GDP and inflation) and adding to a countries economy. [Inflation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) is an increase in the price of goods and is measured by a standardized 'basket' of goods. As people spend more and the economy heats up prices rise. You want a low but positive level of inflation, target rate in most developed countries is about 2% per year. At this level demand for goods is high and people are spending but too much higher and prices will pass the level people are willing to pay for the goods and the economy could overheat and have a downturn. Read the wikipedia articles I linked, they'll help a lot. Feel free to ask any more questions you have!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28fed650e9e4cc59a4dba20e8648f303", "text": "Typically, the higher interest rates in local currency cover about the potential gain from the currency exchange rate change - if not, people would make money out of it. However, you only know this after the fact, so either way you are taking a risk. Depending on where the local economy goes, it is more secure to go with US$, or more risky. Your guess is as good as anyone. If you see a chance for a serious meltdown of the local economy, with 100+% inflation ratios and possibly new money, you are probably better off with US$. On the other hand, if the economy develops better than expected, you might have lost some percentage of gain. Generally, investing in a more stable currency gets you slightly less, but for less risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dadb1ef3c8442737c33426429ca37dd1", "text": "Are you trying to get someone to do your homework for you? This question has been answered repeatedly in the negative by everyone who actually studies the economy. Read Mundell-Flemming model, and learn this stuff. You can see why currency regimes like the Euro make sense from a theoretical stand point, but where flexible exchange rates are a welcome release valve for pressures. You obviously have never studied economics. Hyper inflation doesn't happen becuase of floating exhange rates. Hyperinflation happens when people lose faith in the governing body, regardless of who that is. You think political regimes won't change just because there is one currency? No, they will still spent 1.05 for every dollar they bring in taxes. Hyperinflation is not a problem of floating exchange rates, it doesn't follow from any causal relationship.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7542bd7f9f2297ba5a327c11f55c391c", "text": "The only reason inflation has yet to show in the CPI is because the dollar is the global reserve currency and is the best house in a bad neighborhood, but that just means the rest of the world is becoming poorer at the same time as the U.S. - QE was 4 trillion. That's a debasement of the currency even if, for the reason I've already stated, it's not reflected in CPI.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d2c16b059b978b071a59d1a5e39ef67", "text": "\"Need to be very careful with this kind of discussion. The dollar has been a \"\"fraud\"\" since it went off of the gold standard. If you get people thinking too much about their currency, then could start a panic. Should really just leave it alone. -- Especially with the increasing US debt; and Trump saying something earlier about defaulting on it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9672df5746088d1e8434c744744841d7", "text": "\"You may be missing how countries like Canada may have oil be more of the GDP than countries like the US. In Canada, the lower oil prices may mean more of an economic slowdown with oil companies laying off staff, canceling projects and some companies probably going under as some provinces like Alberta are highly dependent on oil prices to drive most of the economy. In contrast, the US isn't quite as rich in Energy sources and thus may not have the same issues would be my guess. Context matters here. If the rate change helps everybody, doesn't that include the oil producing companies? I'd like to think so using basic logic. What if the main reason for lowering rates was the economic fallout of the decrease in oil prices? Consider that the there would be the question of, \"\"Why do this now?\"\" that has to be answered and the only main change is lower oil prices on a macroeconomic level.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e424bb3b0e7f90e3c589ee4b3890f1e", "text": "\"When you hold units of the DLR/DLR.U (TSX) ETF, you are indirectly holding U.S. dollars cash or cash equivalents. The ETF can be thought of as a container. The container gives you the convenience of holding USD in, say, CAD-denominated accounts that don't normally provide for USD cash balances. The ETF price ($12.33 and $12.12, in your example) simply reflects the CAD price of those USD, and the change is because the currencies moved with respect to each other. And so, necessarily, given how the ETF is made up, when the value of the U.S. dollar declines vs. the Canadian dollar, it follows that the value of your units of DLR declines as quoted in Canadian dollar terms. Currencies move all the time. Similarly, if you held the same amount of value in U.S. dollars, directly, instead of using the ETF, you would still experience a loss when quoted in Canadian dollar terms. In other words, whether or not your U.S. dollars are tied up either in DLR/DLR.U or else sitting in a U.S. dollar cash balance in your brokerage account, there's not much of a difference: You \"\"lose\"\" Canadian dollar equivalent when the value of USD declines with respect to CAD. Selling, more quickly, your DLR.U units in a USD-denominated account to yield U.S. dollars that you then directly hold does not insulate you from the same currency risk. What it does is reduce your exposure to other cost/risk factors inherent with ETFs: liquidity, spreads, and fees. However, I doubt that any of those played a significant part in the change of value from $12.33 to $12.12 that you described.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be5a343ff06889ca387adaed1aed3f15", "text": "From an investor's standpoint, if the value of crude oil increases, economies that are oil dependent become more favourable (oil companies will be more profitable). Therefore, investors will find that country's currency more attractive in the foreign exchange market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2be48d370930b6b5a2b1b9f265e806d", "text": "While it is true that if the Federal reserve bank makes a change in their rate there is not an immediate change in the other rates that impact consumers; there is some linkage between the federal rate, and the costs of banks and other lenders regarding borrowing money. Of course the cost of borrowing money does impact the costs for businesses looking to expand, which does impact their ability to hire more workers and expand capacity. A change in business expansion does impact employment and unemployment... Then changes in employment can cause a change in raises, which can cause changes in prices which is inflation... Plus the lenders that lend to business see the flow of new loans change as the employment outlook change. If the costs of doing business for the bank changes or the flow of loans change, they do adjust the rates they pay depositors and the rates they charge borrowers... How long it will take to change the cost of an auto loan? No way to tell. Keep in mind that in complex systems, change can be delayed, and won't move in lock step. For example the price of gas\\s doesn't always move the same way a price of a barrel of oil does.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3dc6a773e07f2db915d28fad7ad61657	How should residents of smaller economies allocate their portfolio between domestic and foreign assets?	[ { "docid": "e5edb2b7684003ea4f01ab69a4c02e39", "text": "why should I have any bias in favour of my local economy? The main reason is because your expenses are in the local currency. If you are planning on spending most of your money on foreign travel, that's one thing. But for most of us, the bulk of our expenses are incurred locally. So it makes sense for us to invest in things where the investment return is local. You might argue that you can always exchange foreign results into local currency, and that's true. But then you have two risks. One risk you'll have anywhere: your investments may go down. The other risk with a foreign investment is that the currency may lose value relative to your currency. If that happens, even a good performing investment can go down in terms of what it can return to you. That fund denominated in your currency is really doing these conversions behind the scenes. Unless the bulk of your purchases are from imports and have prices that fluctuate with your currency, you will probably be better off in local investments. As a rough rule of thumb, your country's import percentage is a good estimate of how much you should invest globally. That looks to be about 20% for Australia. So consider something like 50% local stocks, 20% local bonds, 15% foreign stocks, 5% foreign bonds, and 10% local cash. That will insulate you a bit from a weak local currency while not leaving you out to dry with a strong local currency. It's possible that your particular expenses might be more (or less) vulnerable to foreign price fluctuations than the typical. But hopefully this gives you a starting point until you can come up with a way of estimating your personal vulnerability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bb3abcd14a58afbb8f891284510f413", "text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6c3402dd0d189413abfe4f770d824778", "text": "So far we have a case for yes and no. I believe the correct answer is... maybe. You mention that most of your expenses are in dollars which is definitely correct, but there is an important complication that I will try to simplify greatly here. Many of the goods you buy are priced on the international market (a good example is oil) or are made from combinations of these goods. When the dollar is strong the price of oil is low but when the dollar is weak the price of oil is high. However, when you buy stuff like services (think a back massage) then you pay the person in dollars and the person you are paying just wants dollars so the strength of the dollar doesn't really matter. Most people's expenses are a mix of things that are priced internationally and locally with a bias toward local expenses. If they also have a mix of investments some of which are international and depend on the strength of the dollar and some are domestic and do not, then they don't have to worry much about the strength/weakness of the dollar later when they sell their investments and buy what they want. If the dollar is weak than the international goods will be more expensive, but at the same time international part of their portfolio will be worth more. If you plan on retiring in a different country or have 100% of your investments in emerging market stocks than it is worth thinking about either currency hedging or changing your investment mix. However, for many people a good mix of domestic and international investments covers much of the risk that their currency will weaken while offering the benefits of diversification. The best part is you don't need to guess if the dollar will get stronger or weaker. tl;dr: If you want your portfolio to not depend on currency moves then hedge. If you want your retirement to not depend on currency moves then have a good mix of local and unhedged international investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85e308f5578c0e21d72ce7e1102351cf", "text": "You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO. If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "148655328c8d30bc3d0e2bb245e2a408", "text": "I think a greater problem would be the protection of your property right. China hasn't shown much respect for the property rights of its own citizens - moving people off subsistence farms in order to build high-rise apartments - so I'm not certain that a foreigner could expect much protection. A first consideration in any asset purchase should always be consideration of the strength of local property law. By all accounts, China fails.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df91c47eafc6397732ede7d8f2fe2602", "text": "\"You are mixing issues here. And it's tough for members to answer without more detail, the current mortgage rate in your country, for one. It's also interesting to parse out your question. \"\"I wish to safely invest money. Should I invest in real estate.\"\" But then the text offers that it's not an investment, it's a home to live in. This is where the trouble is. And it effectively creates 2 questions to address. The real question - Buy vs Rent. I know you mentioned Euros. Fortunately, mortgages aren't going to be too different, lower/higher, and tax consequence, but all can be adjusted. The New York Times offered a beautiful infographing calculator Is It Better to Rent or Buy? For those not interested in viewing it, they run the math, and the simple punchline is this - The home/rent ratio can have an incredibly wide range. I've read real estate blogs that say the rent should be 2% of the home value. That's a 4 to 1 home/rent (per year). A neighbor rented his higher end home, and the ratio was over 25 to 1. i.e. the rent for the year was about 4% the value of the home. It's this range that makes the choice less than obvious. The second part of your question is how to stay safely invested if you fear your own currency will collapse. That quickly morphs into too speculative a question. Some will quickly say \"\"gold\"\" and others would point out that a stockpile of weapons, ammo, and food would be the best choice to survive that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "296b7a2e96d632ad86e69f69b97d10fe", "text": "It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here. A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments. My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities. Government bonds earn way too little. The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity. I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it. My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people. If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap. If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "135a2e56bf522c48f2db3566edca2a69", "text": "A foreign stock mutual fund definitely belongs in stocks. It's composed of stocks. Your self occupied house is definitely real estate. You don have to keep in mind,however that selling it would create costs such as rent. I wouldn't leave it out, if doing that would cause you to buy more real estate. This would cause you to be overweighted in the real estate area. I would tend to think if a CD as cash. While it could be considered a bond, as you said the principal doesn't go down. The REIT is the toughest one. I would really like to see a graph showing how correlated it is to the real estate market. That would determine where I would put it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a", "text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2de9276a87b1cfd4b291753649b1e2a3", "text": "There's a few different types of investments you could do. As poolie mentioned, you could split your money between the Vanguard All World ex-US and Vanguard Total Stock Market index. A similar approach would be to invest in the Vanguard Total World Stock ETF. You wouldn't have to track separate fund performances, at the downside of not being able to allocate differential amounts to the US and non-US markets (Vanguard will allocate them by market cap). You could consider investing in country-specific broad market indices like the S&P 500 and FTSE 100. While not as diversified as the world indices, they are more correlated with the country's economic outlook. Other common investing paradigms are investing in companies which have historically paid out high dividends and companies that are under-valued by the market but have good prospects for future growth. This gets in the domain of value investing, which an entire field by itself. Like Andrew mentioned, investing in a mutual fund is hassle-free. However, mutual fees/commissions and taxes can be higher (somewhere in the range 1%-5%) than index funds/ETF expense ratios (typically <0.50%), so they would have to outperform the market by a bit to break-even. There are quite a few good books out there to read up about investing. I'd recommend The Intelligent Investor and Millionaire Teacher to understand the basics of long-term investing, but of course, there are many other equally good books too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18592d5b1726ea3a530fbe0804392bad", "text": "Do developing country equities have a higher return and/or lower risk than emerging market equities? Generally in finance you get payed more for taking risk. Riskier stocks over the long run return more than less risky bonds, for instance. Developing market equity is expected to give less return over the long run as it is generally less risky than emerging market equity. One way to see that is the amount you pay for one rupee/lira/dollar/euro worth of company earnings is fewer rupees/lira and more dollars/euros. when measured in the emerging market's currency? This makes this question interesting. Risky emerging currencies like the rupee tend to devalue over time against less risky currencies euro/dollars/yen like where most international investment ends up, but the results are rather wild. Think how badly Brazil has done recently and how relatively well the rupee has been doing. This adds to the returns (roughly based on interest rates) of foreign stocks from the point of view of a emerging market investor on average but has really wild variations. Do you have data for this over a long timeframe (decades), ideally for multiple countries? Not really, unfortunately. Good data for emerging markets is a fairly new phenomenon and even where it does exist decades ago it would have been very hard to invest like we can now so it likely is not comparable. Does foreign equity pay more or less when measured in rupees (or other emerging market currency)? Probably less on average (theoretically and empirically) all things included though the evidence is not strong, but there is a massive amount of risk in a portfolio that is 85% in a single emerging market currency. Think about if you were a Brazilian and needed to retire now and 85% of your portfolio was in the Real. International goods like gas would be really expensive and your local currency portfolio would seem paltry right now. If you want to bet on emerging markets in the long run I would suggest that you at least spread the risk over many emerging markets and add a good chunk developed to the mix. As for investing goals, it's just to maximize my return in INR, or maximize my risk-adjusted return. That is up to you, but the goal I generally recommend is making sure you are comfortable in retirement. This usually involves looking for returns are high in the long run, but not having a ton of risk in a single currency or a single market. There are reasons to believe a little bias toward your homeland is good as fees tend to be lower on local investments and local investments tend to track closer to your retirement costs, but too much can be very dangerous even for countries with stronger currencies, say Greece.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59f54cbaa67b1798e28fbcb031da4510", "text": "\"The term \"\"stock\"\" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument. Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons. Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fc3014e53ce66c2041906e87955ae2e", "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).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5e0d911af62091f18a6573283d3b230", "text": "would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? This is primarily opinion based. Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup There is no way to predict what will happen in such large events. For example if one keeps funds outside on UK in say Germany in Euro's. The UK may bring in a regulation and clamp down all funds held outside of UK as belonging to Government or tax these at 90% or anything absurd that negates the purpose of keeping funds outside. There are example of developing / under developed economics putting absurd capital controls. Whether UK will do or not is a speculation. If you are going to spend your live in a country, it is best to invest in country. As normal diversification, you can look at keep a small amount invested outside of country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a60e5b4f3373df169d9c71b7bff93859", "text": "It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term. The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss. If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce. It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce9537c51f2349ef3b2921eeeec8a658", "text": "It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f86975dd87e90730ed4af18e94a1174", "text": "I think part of the confusion is due to the age of the term and how money has changed over time relative to being backed by precious metals vs using central banks etc. Historically: Because historically the coin itself was precious metal, if a change occurred between the 'face value' of the coin and value of the precious metal itself, the holder of the coin was less affected since they have the precious metal already in hand. They could always trade it based on the metal value instead of the face value. OTOH if you buy a note worth an the current price of ounce of gold, and the price of gold goes up, and then the holder wants to redeem the note, they end up with less than an ounce of gold. In the more modern age The main concern is the cost to borrow funds to put money into circulation, or the gain when it goes out of circulation. The big difference between the two is that bills tend stay in circulation until they wear out, have to be bought back and replaced. Coins on the other hand last longer, but have a tendency to drop out of circulation due to collectors (especially with 'collectible series' coins that the mint seems to love to issue lately). This means that bills issued tend to stay in circulation, while only a percentage of coins stays in circulation. So the net effect on the money supply is different for the two, and since modern 'seigniorage' is all about the cost to put money in circulation, it is different in the case of coins where some percentage will not remain circulating.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
506b00c7c87c93b5f717d95be09fc321	What implications does having the highest household debt to disposable income ratio have on Australia?	[ { "docid": "d6506e6099741d08690d3de3cfc592ce", "text": "Stock market Tends to follow the DJIA and FTSE, so unlikely to see an Australia-only crash, especially while resources are doing so well. If China's growth slows before other ailing sectors improve, a downturn becomes more likely and the potential severity of the downturn increases. Economy A huge question to which I would refer you to Steve Keen: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ See A Fork in the Road. Housing Market It's a bubble, stupid! Seriously, it's as though the Aussies waited for the US to get done and then simply borrowed the copy book. There are a multitude of articles out there about likely outcomes from where the housing market is and where it's going. See this for a sample of what's out there: http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/07/26/aussie-housing-bubble-gets-popped-with-chinese-credit-crash/ Note: All three of the areas you raise - economy, stock mkt, housing - are so intertwined that it's tricky separating them out. A lot of reading on Steve Keen's site can help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f40189b9cd717786307791d9cf438e9", "text": "\"I'd like to see a credible source for \"\"the highest\"\", but it's certainly fairly high. Household debt could be broadly categorized as debt for housing and debt for consumption. Housing prices seem very high compared to equivalent rental income. This is generating a great deal of debt. Keynes(?) said that \"\"if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.\"\" Just when it will stop, and whether it will stop suddenly or gradually is a matter of great interest. Obviously there are huge vested interests, including the large fraction of the population who already own property and do not wish to see it fall. Nobody really knows; my guess would be on a very-long-term plateau in nominal prices and decline in real prices. The Australian stock market is unlike the US: since it's a small country, a lot of the big companies are export-driven, either by directly exporting physical goods (miners, agriculture) or by FDI (property trusts, banks). So a local recession will hurt the stock market, but not across the board. A decline in the value of the Australian dollar would be very good news for some of these companies. Debt for consumption I think is the smaller fraction. Arguably it's driven by a wealth effect of Australia having had a reasonably good crisis with low unemployment and increasing international purchasing power. If this tops out, you'd expect to see reduced earnings for consumer discretionary companies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d84e43ee6c967d39ae7bba2a20a472b", "text": "It is basically the same situation what US was when the crash happened. People took on debt without the means to pay, even with awful credit records. But the problem isn't the debt people take on themselves, but with the limited disposable income they have how efficiently can their debts be serviced. And how do banks who lend out money can recover their money. When banks lend money to all and sundry, they have to take care of defaults and that is when financial wizardry comes into play. In US people have the option to default on their debt and refinance it, so banks assumed default and tried to hedge their risks. If this is an option in Australia, be ready for a crash else not to worry about much. If banks continue lending expect higher inflation rates, higher interest rates and maybe a downgrade of bonds issued by the Australian government. Higher import costs and a boom in exports because of devalued Australian dollar.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "313e4455b15be5c37b5a14948b7f379b", "text": "We are the richest nation in the history of the world. We produce and consume more now than at any point in history. Credit card debt is nowhere near historical levels. Delinquency rates on credit card loans is near the lowest it has ever been. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DRCCLACBS It may seem wild and not make a lot of sense that data does not fit your worldview, but let yourself be open to information that conflicts with your own. otherwise you are just held hostage by your own misconceptions. You are going to wait a lifetime for that riot pal and you may learn to capitalize proper nouns while you are at it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75056fd07d30862bad206916f2cc6322", "text": "\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \"\"tax havens\"\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8aaf167eb2c41d5f96cc799f1d14288", "text": "First of all debt is a technology that allows borrower to bring forward their spending; it's a financial time machine. From borrowers point of view debt is good when it increases overall economic utility. A young person wants to bring up a family but cannot afford the house. Had they waited for 30 years they would have reached the level of income and savings to buy the house for cash. By the time it might be too late to raise a family, sure they'd enjoy the house for the last 20 years of their life. But they would loose 30 years of utility - they could have enjoyed the house for 50 years! So, for a reasonable fee, they can bring the spending forward. Another young person might want to enjoy a life of luxury, using the magical debt time machine and bringing forward their future earnings. They might spend 10 years worth of future earnings on entertainment within a year and have a blast. Due to the law of diminishing marginal utility - all that utility is pretty much wasted, but they'll still will need to make sacrifices in the future. The trick is to roughly match the period of debt repayment to the economic life of the purchase. Buying a house means paying over 30 years for an asset that has an economic life of 80 years+, given that the interest fee is reasonable and the house won't loose it's value overnight that's a good debt. Buying a used car with a remaining life of 5 years and financing its with a seven years loan - is not a good idea. Buying a luxurious holiday that lasts a fortnight with 2 years of repayments, i.e. financing non-essential short term need with medium term debt is insane. The other question is could the required utility be achieved through a substitute at a lower cost without having to bring the spending forward or paying the associated fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d705f9393e7eb4d9507c24e6edaa7e59", "text": "\"I'm not intimately familiar with the situation in Australia, but in the US the powers that be have adopted an interventionist philosophy. The Federal Reserve (Central Bank) is \"\"buying back\"\" US Gov't debt to keep rates low, and the government is keeping mortgage rates low buy buying mortgages with the proceeds of the cheap bond sales. While this isn't directly related to Australia, it is relevant because the largest capital markets are in the US and influence the markets in Australia. In the US, the CPI is a survey of all urban consumers. If you're a younger, middle class consumer with income growth ahead of you, your costs are going to shift more rapidly than an elderly or poor person who already owns or is in subsidized housing, and doesn't spend as much on transportation. For example, my parents are in their early 60's and are living in the house that I grew up in, which they own free and clear. There are alot of people like them, and they aren't affected by the swing in housing prices that we've seen in the last decade.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa54fda0a92cf027e4c6bb162493e245", "text": "The higher the debt, the higher inflation needs to be to wash the debt away. This is why the debt and US equities move upward hand in hand. The same goes for US housing. Just as homeowners borrow money through mortgages so that house prices rise, the banks borrow the money for mortgages through the central banks. Thus, the cycle circulates. The more debt, the higher the prices! Everybody makes money from debt. That is why the US has the highest external debt on the globe, yet they are considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e758473b1265a4258993587b6d485ba", "text": "It could be a a way to preserve the value of your money, but depends upon various factors. If a country defaults, and it leads to hyper-inflation, by definition that means that money loses its purchasing power. In even simpler terms, it cannot buy as much tomorrow as I could today. Therefore people can be incented to either hoard physical goods, or other non-perishable items. Real-estate may well be such an item. If you are resident in the country, you have to live somewhere. It is possible that a landlord might try to raise rent beyond what your job is willing to pay. Of course, in a house, you might have a similar situation with utilities like electricity... Assuming some kind of re-stabilization of the economy and currency, even with several more zeros on the end, it is conceivable that the house would subsequently sell for an appropriately inflation adjusted amount, as other in-demand physical goods may. Lots of variables. Good Luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c50349d81e83649bace2f0cd8b6eb62b", "text": "\"[More Details](http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/heavydebt.htm) . . . * http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/heavydebt.htm Here Are The Studies . . . * \"\"[Were Consumer Mistakes Related to Changes in Financial Obligations Burdens?](http://www.consumerinterests.org/pdffiles/2012-conference/2012-55%20Were%20Consumer%20Mistakes%20Related%20to%20Changes%20in%20Financial%20Obligations%20Burdens.pdf)\"\" by Sherman D. Hanna, Yoonkyung Yuh, and Swarn Chatterjee: http://www.consumerinterests.org/pdffiles/2012-conference/2012-55%20Were%20Consumer%20Mistakes%20Related%20to%20Changes%20in%20Financial%20Obligations%20Burdens.pdf Via: http://www.consumerinterests.org/2012-Conference-papers.html * \"\"[Increasing financial obligations of US households: Who is affected?](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2012.01125.x/abstract)\"\" by Sherman D. Hanna, Yoonkyung Yuh, and Swarn Chatterjee: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2012.01125.x/abstract\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d9b714554609920f47430c4bc01b60a", "text": "Could it be done? Yes, it could, subject to local law. A variant of such an approach has been suggested for those countries experiencing collapse of demand. One might consider whether whether it applied to secured loans (such as mortgages), unsecured loans, or both; whether it would be capped at a certain absolute (say £100k) or proportional (first 50%) of each mortgage; whether it would cover first homes only, or all homes; and so on. These details would radically change the feasibility and consequences of any such intervention. See the related question: https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/146/104 Such a policy of debt cancellation would have several consequences beyond initial stimulation of demand, that would need additional policies to deal with them. Inflation The resultant surge in demand would, in the absence of any other intervention, result in a massive surge in inflation. There are some interesting questions about whether this burst of inflation would be a one-off, or not. One could make an argument that as housing has become much more affordable (at least for home-owners), it would increase the downward pressure on wages, which would be in itself counter-inflationary in the medium-long term. Nevertheless, it would be injecting much more money into the economy than has been seen in QE to date, so the risks would be of extraordinarily high inflation, which might or might not get entrenched. In order to manage the short-term risk, and long-term inflation expectations, it might be necessary to incorporate a lot of tightening, either fiscal (higher taxes and/or lower public spending), or monetary: (higher interest rates, unwinding QE, new requirements for higher core capital for banks) Moral hazard There are risks of moral hazard for individuals: however, as a society, we were prepared to accept the moral hazard for financial institutions and their staff, so that may or may not be an issue: it is likely to be a question of long-term expectations. If the expectation is that this is at most a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, then the consequential risk from moral hazard ought to be lower. Excess profits to lenders Lenders will typically work on the basis of a certain proportion of defaults, so paying off all loans effectively gives them an artificial boost to their profits. Worsening balance of payments There is to a degree a prisoners' dilemma facing nations here. Pressing the reset-button on personal debt across many of the countries experiencing demand-collapse would benefit all of them. However, if just one such country were to do it alone, they alone would increase domestic demand, resulting in a large increase in imports, but no significant increase in exports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd7d96383a07ed17787eb0485ff922ba", "text": "Excellent summary. I'm going to steal the analogy as it is related to how I discuss the problems of austerity to people convinced it is fiscally conservative and the right thing to do when in a poor income generating situation. (I usually explain the difference as going into debt to fund better education or skills in well-researched high-demand areas, and thereby improve your earning potential, versus cutting spending until you are living in a box eating cat food thereby making it harder to get back on your feet.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2636ee8056c4b4d5e04a8ef2f3cc8782", "text": "One super-profligate man generates several orders of magnitude less economic activity than if 100,000 families had, say $100,000 each; less than he managed to spend. 100,000 families with that much more money would all be able to eat at restaurants, buy clothes (I don't care how big his, his wives, and his 18 kids closets are; we're talking something like a thousand orders of magnitude here) buy cars, and just generally create a thousand orders of extra economic activity here; their economic activity of buying would give further jobs to the sellers of all this stuff; which would in turn be able to buy stuff, and an economy recovers. *edit spelling, grammar", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35409688081f5bdd4b825de0cdea4373", "text": "Correct me if I am wrong (and I know you will), but in an economy where most consumers have more debt than savings, I fail to see how moderate inflation is a bad thing. Higher wages negate higher prices, and lower debt burdens free consumer demand. Why are there always people in freak out mode if it looks like inflation may occur even slightly?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4d01c772c24800876671b6bce4ed6e4", "text": "When over the long term housing costs in a area rise faster than wages rise, the demographic of who lives in the area changes. The size and income parameters change. A region that was full of young singles is now populated with couples with adult children, that means that the businesses and amenities have to change. At a national level it isn't sustainable unless other items change. The portion of monthly income that can be safely allocated to housing would have to change. One adjustment could be the the lengthening of home loan periods, thus dropping the monthly payment. This has been seen with car loans, over the last few decades the length of loans has increased. In interesting related event could be the change in deduction of mortgage interest and property tax. If this was to change abruptly, there could be an abrupt change the estimated value of housing, because the calculus of affordability would change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a9478eb389207bfb7d974ef114821da", "text": "Note: I am in the UK. I don't know specifically about australia but I expect the general principles will be much the same everywhere. What banks want is to be reasonablly confident that you have a steady income stream that will continue to pay the mortgate until it completes. In general employed are fairly easy to assess. Most employed people will have a steady basic pay that increases through their career. Payslips will usually seperate-out basic pay, overtime and bonuses. There is little opertunity to cook the books. The self-employed are harder to assess. Income can be bursty and there are far more opertunities for cooking the books to make it look like you are earning more than you really are. So banks are likely to be far more careful about lending to the self-employed, they will likely want to see multiple years of buisness records so that any bursts, whether natural due to the ebbs and flows of buisness or deliberatly created to cook the books average out and they can see the overall pattern. A large deposit will help because it reduces the risk to the bank in the event of a default. Similarly not being anywhere near your limit of affordability will help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f7dad9c76b1420514b4a3edc0246e6f", "text": "The debt doesn't have to and never should be paid off. The fed could print $20T tomorrow and swap all outstanding US govt debt for cash and it would be net neutral in terms of financial assets outstanding. The result would be a massive removal of income paying assets, and near total loss of control and influence over interest rates however.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f0d259305893efee065306911adb1f5", "text": "\"A quick online search for \"\"disadvantages of defence housing australia investment properties\"\" turns up a several articles that list a few possible disadvantages. I can't vouch for these personally because I'm not familiar with the Australian rental market, but they may all be things to keep in mind. I quote verbatim where indicated.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4d301e474c825b6db7257418009b8d8e	Why can't poor countries just print more money?	[ { "docid": "77f0ede04c8339640fe85ae19c8c9c49", "text": "Printing money doesn't mean that their wealth increases. It just devalues the money they already have. So it will just take more money to buy goods from another country. Printing money will also lead to over inflation which has its own set of problems such as:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "caad56ea6624dac4ebfb566becb8285e", "text": "When the market isn't allowed to favor one currency (provider) over another, there must be a central authority with the power to regulate, provide, and insure it. People don't learn the dangers of fractional reserve banking and the resulting expansions and contractions of the money supply when the providers of the currency aren't allowed to fall, taking the savings of depositors with them. Insuring people against the dangers of mismanaged money guarantees the mismanagement of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c4b8111a06c166734d39353af973e28", "text": "\"If the government prints money recklessly and causes inflation, people will come to expect inflation, and the value of the currency will plummet, and you'll end up like Zimbabwe where a trillion dollars won't buy a loaf of bread. If the government actually pays people for the money they borrow, they don't have this problem - and as it turns out, the US government can get pretty good rates on borrowing in general, in part because they're extraordinarily good about paying them back. (Also, inflation expectations are low, so people will accept 1-2% interest rates. If you expected inflation of 10%, you'd see people demanding something more like 12% interest rates.) (The downside of too much of this sort of borrowing is that it \"\"crowds out\"\" other borrowing, which may harm the economy. Who would lend money to / invest in a small business, if the government is paying good money and there's almost no risk at all?) Now, inflation can come into play afterward, if the Fed decides it needs to maintain \"\"easy money\"\" policies to stimulate the economy (because taxes are too high because we're paying off the debt, or because we've crowded out smaller borrowers, or something). -- In general, you can count on the the principle that if you, as the government, try to play too many games with people's money... well, people aren't stupid; they will eventually catch on, and adjust their behavior to compensate, and then you're right back where you started, but with less trust.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1111a10783218d5f296a11a5194599b7", "text": "Who says they don't? In the United Kingdom the Bank of England and the Bank of Scotland print the money. In some other countries (like Hong Kong, Israel, and the US) commercial banks were issuing the currency at some point of time, but now the governments do that. The problem with commercial banks issuing currency is the control. If a bank is allowed to print money - how can the amount of currency be controlled? If it is controlled by the government then the bank will be just a printing press, so what's the point? And since governments now want to control the monetary policy, banks have no reason to just be printing presses for the government, the governments have their own. edit Apparently in Hong Kong it is still the case, as I'm sure it is in some other places in the world as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d08eab8b6e109031cb05a2eb09f12c54", "text": "The real problem is the international bubble. China for one pegs their currency against the dollar and it's banks use even more leverage than ours do. There is no safe haven for money, because everyone is printing the shit out of their money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b3e7446fd01d40d7513b4640655a667", "text": "The way it actually works is that low-but-steady inflation (ie: printing of new dollars without any debt behind them) keeps the debts serviceable. In real life, unfortunately, too little of the money supply is printed rather than lent into existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1afaad1d37619f8dfb7d29cf7f2d6372", "text": "Oh, thank god. They can just print their way out! That will solve all their economic problems! Oh wait. That would just cause basic food and energy costs to skyrocket while destroying savings even more. Sure, maybe exporters would get a boon, but Japan kind of has to import a lot too. All printing money would do is make 5% of the people richer while making 95% of them poorer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "382ff86e0a2e64b85a2ea9b159e7acb3", "text": "\"This chart summarizes the FED's balance sheet (things the FED has purchased - US treasuries, mortgage backed securities, etc.) nicely. It shows the massive level of \"\"printing\"\" the FED has done in the past two years. The FED \"\"prints\"\" new money to buy these assets. As lucius has pointed out the fractional reserve banking process also expands the money supply. When the FED buys something from Bank A, then Bank A can take the money and start lending it out. This process continues as the recipients of the money deposit the newly printed money in other fractional reserve banks. FYI....it took 95 years for the FED to print the first $900 billion. It took one year to print the next $900 billion.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84a6262853386e90c69b02ca944501be", "text": "> The issue I have with your use of Japan is that Japan has very strong exports of superior quality and low cost, we do not. That has no bearing on their sovereign debt situation though. Japan's debt is yen-denominated. Does Japan rely on the rest of the world to supply it with yen via exports? No. Japan issues the yen. >And what about South and Central American Pesos? Where you saw actual debt crises, it was countries that owed US dollars. Peg your peso to the US dollar and/or borrow US dollars and you are on the hook for US dollars which you can run out of. Let's just apply this as a general rule: any example of actual sovereign debt crisis you want to offer, before you do... look for where they're on the hook for foreign currency. You'll find it. >What about Keynes, Minsky, and the trilemma? Their central banks were completely overridden by foreign speculators. We can only choose two out of three options, peg our currency, spend to help the economy, and/or maintain free trade, not all three What I'm describing is consistent with the trilemma [triangle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity#mediaviewer/File:Impossible_trinity_diagram.svg). I'm saying the sovereign monetary policy with a floating rate currency is the one which allows a country the most policy space for responding to crisis and funding its domestic economy in general up to its own real capacity limits. I want to emphasize here that the printing press isn't some magic fountain of real wealth. Your potential real wealth is limited by what you have the real resources to produce. The idea is to fund yourself to the point where you're producing up to your own real limits of output capacity at full employment. Maximize your own potential. As opposed to adopting voluntary financial constraints which force you to leave some of that potential idle, making you poorer in real terms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f1668dd635d8fe7ec115f9818beee7c", "text": "It's ultimately limited by how much debt people are good for, which is limited by the worth of labor. You are correct, that the fractional reserve system does not limit how much money can be created, and with just that an no requirement for new debt to be good debt, infinite money could be created.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "119a3ad16226b55f87fc67344cc171f8", "text": "\"> but the buying power of that money can be significantly reduced to the point where it's fundamentally useless, i.e. inter-war Germany and many countries in South and Central America. That's true, but how does that come about? The effect on buying power stems from the level of spending in the present period. Too little leaves you anywhere from outright deflation and contraction to weaker growth falling short of capacity. Too much reaches capacity and keeps spending, bidding up prices and driving down purchasing power. It has nothing to do with debt:GDP or interest payments. > Germany managed to skate by by creating a new Deutschmark in a confidence trick, and it worked because Germany is a solid, iron clad manufacturing powerhouse of a lot of stuff. There are two important differences between inter-war Germany and the US. First is that inter-war Germany lost a war. This real shock is kind of important. When you're talking about buying power of money, one side of it is the amount of money in circulation but the other side of it is how much real output there is to buy and German real output capacity collapsed after the war. Their most productive regions were occupied territory and they were no longer a powerhouse manufacturing a lot of stuff, driving down the value of their currency. So lesson number one from Germany: real output collapse harms your currency. The second problem is that losing a war left Germany saddled with war reparations denominated in foreign currency. When you're on the hook for something you don't print you're in a situation where you can run out of money and that's exactly what happened to them. They tried printing more of their own currency to buy the foreign stuff with but that quickly drove down the value of German currency. So lesson number two from Germany is you don't want to be on the hook for a currency you don't issue. Put the two together and you have a real supply shock + foreign-denominated debt eviscerating the buying power of German currency. It wasn't debt:GDP but the real basis for their economy collapsing out from under them pushed along by a need for foreign currency. >My question is, at what point do we engage Washington's unlimited money printing presses until we reach that point? In answer to your question, the printing presses are what funds the real economy. The worry in terms of avoiding \"\"that point\"\" is in making sure we keep that real economy productive and fully funded. Ironically, taking our eye off the ball to focus on budget balance at the expense of real output pushes the economy in the direction you're afraid of going. See also: the euro zone today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7542bd7f9f2297ba5a327c11f55c391c", "text": "The only reason inflation has yet to show in the CPI is because the dollar is the global reserve currency and is the best house in a bad neighborhood, but that just means the rest of the world is becoming poorer at the same time as the U.S. - QE was 4 trillion. That's a debasement of the currency even if, for the reason I've already stated, it's not reflected in CPI.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39430e9e2b7e42a65b94a9ad0d7d55bf", "text": "\"Correct! But this is only true when a central bank is involved. So if there's a single institution that has a territorial monopoly on the production of money (and competing currencies aren't allowed via \"\"legal tender laws\"\"), then the debt-based money system OP describes isn't actually the system being used. That's the problem with his post: he's trying to make it seem like our current system of fiat currencies is somehow natural or emergent. It's not. What we have now is the result of a legal monopoly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67bbe62ea130330005b4bf89e9a8e012", "text": "So the Japanese are better at the circle jerk. An amusing note, if you pay attention to this stuff at all, you will notice that Japan can't actually just print the money. The process you refer to is considered inflating the debt away. When Japan prints money now, their currency gains value. So they are actually pretty fucked. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-30/when-¥11-trillion-not-enough-japans-qe-9-disappoints-halflife-zero-time-qe10 edit:spelling/grammar sorry", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b33cbf727f004a084bf7f74b3a932a74", "text": "\"Bingo, great question. I'm not the original poster, \"\"otherwiseyep\"\", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker). I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money. To answer your question: the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency. This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down. Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency. These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial \"\"root demand\"\" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value. We don't just decide that green paper has value. We are forced to accumulate it by the government. Fiat currencies are not money. We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives. Let me explain: A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market. When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money. The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds. The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky. The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments. They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens. That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt). So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments). If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a \"\"credit event\"\" and investors sell their bonds and freak out. Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle. If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates. This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on. Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain. In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks. So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies. Real money has ZERO counterparty risk. What is counterparty risk? It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt. Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's. So they can be real money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dddecdb06519cda8ee142e88c3b1476b", "text": "\"This might sound absurd, but Japan has a lot of debt held by itself. In other words, when people say a country is \"\"just printing money\"\" it's rarely true. It's often some kind of beyond being issued and sold to the public or to institutions. But in Japan's case they actually did \"\"print money\"\" and have done so for 30 years. Yet they've had a deflation almost every year since. This shows that expanding the money supply doesn't always result in inflation, it depends a lot on the country and its people and means of production. I guess Japan's move to cut the debt is a step into unknown territory, and we can't really know what will happen.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.