vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Aah... well, then in that case you should actually integrate a monte carlo return scenario with your equity values.  Ultimately it's not going to matter what your RFR is because it's going to be equal in both cases, so you're really just talking about return differences.  Again, it would be impractical for these two options.  Maybe just look at cash outlay - an amortization table of sorts, and that's how you'd calculate the breakeven point.  You could inflate the unspent cash difference by a small margin (perhaps 0.5% to account for something like a CD or an ARS) but the big difference is going to be the interest rate with respect to a mortgage vs. a perpetual cash payment of rent that never attains any real value.
You're paying $850/yr interest, and probably earning close to zero on the $5000 in savings. I don't know why this feels safe in comparison to having both at zero, and depositing the payment you now make to the card into savings. Even if the payment is just $100, you'll have $1200 in a years time.  I don't know of an emergency that can't be handled on a credit card, and I'd go that route until you build up a decent real emergency fund. I wouldn't offer the same advice if the debt were low rate loans such as your mortgage or student loan, but 17% is high enough to do it this way.
The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's.  However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged.  Why?  Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even.  In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer.  However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued.  If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it.  However I would call and check and get their answer in writing.  Why?  Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms.  Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this.  The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero.  The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high.  This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees.  Credit card company wins!  I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them.  I would also require them to have some financial accountability.   Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere.
As usual it depends, but fundamentally, an interest rate is just a function of a party's creditworthiness and the length of time the money is being lent out for.  So, no, if your credit entitles you to a 3% APR on a 60 month term, then it should entitle you to a better interest rate over a 30 month term. Perhaps not double, but better.
"Your math is correct. If you take the same amount of pre-tax wages (assuming that that amount can be fully contributed in both Traditional and Roth cases), and assuming the same flat tax rate when contributing and withdrawing, then the two are the same. However, we don't have a flat tax, and due to the way our tax brackets work, there is often a slight advantage to Traditional accounts. Recall that not every dollar of your income is taxed at the same rate; the tax bracket only describes the rate that the last dollar of your income is taxed at. But some of your income will be taxed at lower brackets. No matter what your income is, your first $x of income will be taxed at 10%, then $y at 15%, etc. So what is the tax rate of the dollars of income that you used to contribute to a retirement account? Is it the first dollars of income? The last dollars of income? or what? Since we are comparing an after-tax contribution (Roth) versus a pre-tax contribution (Traditional) whose income doesn't show up in taxable income, and all other income is equal, the dollars contributed is considered to come from the top in the Roth case. Similarly, when you withdraw in the Traditional case, the withdrawal counts as income; is it the first dollar of income or the last dollar of income? Again, since we are comparing the situation where the withdrawal counts as income (Traditional) with the one where it doesn't (Roth), all other income being equal, the taxable income is considered to be added to the top. The difference is that when you contribute to a retirement account, you contribute a very small percentage of your income every year, probably no more than 5-10%. If we count down from the top, this small percentage of your income probably falls wholly within a bracket (in other words, the taxable income in Traditional and Roth cases are likely in the same bracket), so the entire contribution is at the same rate -- your marginal rate, the rate you cite as your tax bracket. However, when you withdraw in retirement, it is likely that every year, the retirement account withdrawals account for a large percentage of your income, maybe even half or more.
No that is your implicit return if you hold it to maturity per year. That yield is quoted per annum. You will receive semi-annual payments base on the coupon of whatever off the run 10yr you buy. If your coupon is 2% then you will receive $10 bi-yearly. Mind you, buying a 10 year in this environment will yield a negative real return, meaning after inflation over 10 years you will have your entire principal back, but inflation adjusted it will have less purchasing power than today, meaning there isn't enough yield to make the purchase worth it.  Also about your upward slope question, yes the 30 will yield more than the 2,5,7,10. This is because longer time means more risk. Will in the future the USA be perceived as near riskless? There is also interest rate risk, and liquidity risk.
I'll answer but avoiding discussion of M1, M2 etc, too pedantic. I don't believe you are asking about the lifetime of either coins or paper money. I think you are referencing the fractional reserve system, and how a good portion of the total money supply is created by the banks lending out their deposits in effect 'creating' money. My answer to you is that if all loans were simply paid off, no mortgages, no car loans, etc, the total money in the system would collapse to some reasonable fraction of what it is today, 10% or a bit less. This comes from the fact that the reserve requirement for most large banks is 10%.  I'm referencing money, but not bills or coins. Think about what you make in a year. How much do you touch as paper money? For my wife and me, it's no more than a few percent. Most goes from a direct deposit to online payments. So this would be the subject of a different question altogether.  Let me know if this addresses your question.
"littleadv's first comment - check the note - is really the answer. But your issue is twofold -  Every mortgage I've had (over 10 in my lifetime) allows early principal payments. The extra principal can only be applied at the same time as the regular payment. Think of it this way - only at that moment is there no interest owed. If a week later you try to pay toward only principal, the system will not handle it. Pretty simple - extra principal with the payment due. In fact, any mortgage I've had that offered a monthly bill or coupon book will have that very line ""extra principal."" By coincidence, I just did this for a mortgage on my rental. I make these payments through my bank's billpay service. I noted the extra principal in the 'notes' section of the virtual check. But again, the note will explicitly state if there's an issue with prepayments of principal. The larger issue is that your friend wishes to treat the mortgage like a bi-weekly. The bank expects the full amount as a payment and likely, has no obligation to accept anything less than the full amount. Given my first comment above here is the plan for your friend to do 99% of what she wishes: Tell her, there's nothing magic about bi-weekly, it's a budget-clever way to send the money, but over a year, it's simply paying 108% of the normal payment. If she wants to burn the mortgage faster, tell her to add what she wishes every month, even $10, it all adds up.  Final note - There are two schools of thought to either extreme, (a) pay the mortgage off as fast as you can, no debt is the goal and (b) the mortgage is the lowest rate you'll ever have on borrowed money, pay it as slow as you can, and invest any extra money. I accept and respect both views. For your friend, and first group, I'm compelled to add - Be sure to deposit to your retirement account's matched funds to gain the entire match. $1 can pay toward your 6% mortgage or be doubled on deposit to $2 in your 401(k), if available. And pay off all high interest debt first. This should stand to reason, but I've seen people keep their 18% card debt while prepaying their mortgage."
By law, the minimum required payment is all interest charged for that month($0) PLUS all service fees charged during that month ($150) PLUS 1% of the rest ($50). Well, actually the law says something like ""a sufficient fraction of the balance to ensure that a person making the required minimum payment each month can pay off the debt in a reasonable time"" and most credit card companies choose 1% as the sufficient fraction and 108 months as a reasonable time. OK, so you pay the $200 and feel that you have paid off the service fee and $50 of that 0% interest loan. Not so! If you make the required minimum payment, the law allows that amount to be be applied to any part of the balance owing. It is only the excess over the minimum payment that the law says must be applied to the balance being charged the highest rate. So, you have paid off $200 of that $5K loan and still owe the service fee. The following month's statement will include interest on that unpaid $150. In short, to leave only the 0% balance owing, you have to pay $350 that first month so that next month's statement balance will be $4800 at 0%. The next month's required minimum payment will be $48, and so on. In short, you really need to keep on top of things and understand how credit-card payments really work in order to pull off your scheme successfully. Note also that the remaining part of that 0% interest balance must be paid off by the end of the period or else a humongous rate of interest will be applied retroactively from Day One, more than enough to blow away all that FD interest. So make sure that you have the cash handy to pay it off in timely fashion when it comes due."
I'm a debt guy, hence the bias, I guess ;)  Kitchenace's answer is relevant.  As for considering alternatives in a given situation, it sometimes happen. M&amp;amp;A is often done through a combination of equity and debt for example.   Mostly, issuing equity dilutes control and potential dividend returns, while debt pushes your interest charges up and adds pressure to delever or refinance later. Balancing the two will depend on the company's intentions, it's capacities (servicing debt requires a more stable cash flow generation capacity, while equity is more rewarded by strong growth potential) and a host of other factors.
But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial.
To put it simply interest is the fee you get for loaning money to the bank / government / company / person or whomever you lend it to. A dividend is the money that a company pays out to its owners. For some cooperatives (may or may not apply to your credit union) you become an owner through using it, such that they'll pay you a dividend instead of or as well as interest. Which could explain them using the term interchangeably .
That's pretty typical for introductory problems.  It's leading you into an NPV question.  They're keeping the cash flows the same to illustrate the time value of money to show you that even though the free cash flow is the same in year 1 and year 4 or whatever when you discount it to present value today's stream is worth more than tomorrow's
There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.
"With the scenario that you laid out (ie. 5% and 10% loans), it makes no sense at all. The problem is, when you're in trouble the rates are never 5% or 10%. Getting behind on credit cards sucks and is really hard to recover from. The problem with multiple accounts is that as the banks tack on fees and raise your interest rate to the default rate (usually 30%) when you give them any excuse (late payment, over the limit, etc). The banks will also cut your credit lines as you make payments, making it more likely that you will bump over the limit and be back in ""default"" status. One payment, even at a slightly higher rate is preferable when you're deep in the hole because you can actually pay enough to hit principal. If you have assets like a house, you'll get a much better rate as well. In a scenario where you're paying 22-25% interest, your minimum payment will be $150-200 a month, and that is mostly interest and penalty. ""One big loan"" will usually result in a smaller payment, and you don't end up in a situation where the banks are jockeying for position so they get paid first. The danger of consolidation is that you'll stop triggering defaults and keep making your payments, so your credit score will improve. Then the vultures will start circling and offering you more credit cards. EDIT: Mea Culpa. I wrote this based on experiences of close friends whom I've helped out over the years, not realizing how the law changed in 2009. Back around 2004, a single late payment would trigger universal default on most cards, jacking all rates up to 30% and slashing credit lines, resulting in over the limit and other fees. Credit card banks generally apply payments (in order, to interest on penalties, penalties, interest on principal, principal) in a way that makes it very difficult to pay down principal for people deep in debt. They would also offer ""payment plans"" to entice you to pay Bank B vs. Bank A, which would trigger overlimit fees from Bank A. Another change is that minimum payments were generally 2% of statement balance, which often didn't cover the monthly finance charge.
The matched funds may not be yours immediately. Companies are allowed to have a vesting schedule which means your right to this money may be tiered, at say, 20%/year from year 2-6, for example. It's a good idea to check how your plan handles this. On further reflection, the comments of David Wallace need to be understood. At zero return, the matched money will lag the 18% payment after 4 years. The reason my chart doesn't reflect that is the match from the deposits younger than 4 years is still making up for that potential loss. I'd maintain my advice, to grab the match regardless, as there are other factors involved, the more likely return of ~8%, the tax differential should one lose their job, and the hope that one would get their act together and pay the debt off faster."
"If there is any fee at all on the cash advance, and zero interest on the student loans (for now), it's not worth it mathematically.  And for only 8 months of ""free"" money, it's rare for it to be worth it overall. You need to save a significant amount either by having a good net interest rate (e.g., saving 20% on another card and not paying any interest on the new loan) or by saving a lot on principal (e.g., paying off $100k now and not paying the interest on that for the next 8 months). I wouldn't worry about it hurting your credit score unless your credit is going to be evaluated during the time you're maxing your card. Part of your score (20-30% IIRC) is your credit utilization ratio, which is how much you have available vs. how much you're using. It's separate from the part that accounts for history, so it's only relevant at the time you're looked up."
the cash is not penalty free. if you take up loans from the policy to pay for retirement growth essentially stops and the interest will eat away policy value over time. so instead of gaining 7-8 % per year and taking withdrawals, you would be taking loans and losing whatever the interest rate is.  Dividends are just the profits made from the company which is why its tax free. its considered a return of premium. you are just overpaying for the policy by its dividend rate.   whole life is a great vehicle for some situations, but it always comes after a 401k or other retirement savings. whole life doesnt even begin to make sense imo until you are making a few hundred thousand a year and need it for a business buy sell agreement or legacy money to leave children/grandchildren.  it doesnt scale well to lower incomes.
"After looking at the comments, and your replies it seems that your mind is made up: ""You will always be able to obtain 0% credit, and nothing bad will ever happen"". Credit cards that offer 0% on balance transfers are very rare.  Most have a transfer fee of some kind, which acts like an interest rate.  This is a change that probably happened 10 years ago without much fanfare.  From this you can draw a lesson: what changes will come in the future? This site and others a full of ""tales of woe"" where people were playing musical chairs with credit, and when the music stopped, there was no chairs in sight.  Job loss, medical expenses, unexpected taxes, natural disasters can all effect one's ability to make payments on time and happen.  Once payments start being missed or are late, things tend to avalanche from there.  It has happened to me, and loved ones. The pain and suffering is not worth it.  Get out of debt. You claim that you are investing the money instead of paying on the debt, and you are making the delta between your prevailing investment rate 7%.  Did you include the balance transfer fee in your calculations?    First off your investments could lose money.  While 2015 was mostly flat, we have not had a correction in a long time.  Some say we are long overdue.   Secondly, how much money are we really talking about here?  Say there is not a balance transfer fee, you could be guaranteed 7%, and you are floating $10K.  Congratulations in this mythical scenario you just made $700. If $700 changes your life dramatically perhaps it is time for a second job.  This way you can earn that every two weeks (working part time) rather than every year.  Now that will really change your life.  By applying this amount of mental energy to make $700, what opportunities are you missing?   Pay off the debt, you will be much better off in the long run."
Much money is made by creditors on the transaction value of a client in addition to interest value.  Knowing that, I pay off all my cards every month, have never made a late payment, and get a number of offers every year for reward type cards. Don't ever be worried about paying off your card in full, just be sure you're using your card and that you pay on time, every time.
The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate.