vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You can argue that cash dividend is a kind of split as well by this logic. The stock price on ex-dividend gets a hit coincidental with the dividend to be paid, so one can argue that the investor has the same cash value on the day the dividend was paid as if it wouldn't be paid at all. However, for the company to distribute stocks instead of cash may be advantageous if they have low cash reserves but significant amount of treasury stocks, and the stocks are of high liquidity.  It is also a way for the company to release treasury stocks without diluting the current shareholders and creating taxable income to the company, that's an important factor to consider. This is in fact the real answer to your question. The main difference between split and stock dividend is that in split, the stock distributions proportions don't change. With stock dividend - they do. While the outstanding share proportions do not change, total proportions do, because of the treasury stocks being distributed. So company has less stocks in its vaults, but everyone else still has the same proportions of ownership. Compare this to split: company's treasury stocks would be split as well, and it would continue essentially sitting on the same proportion of stocks. That shift of treasury stocks to the outside shareholders - this is what makes it a dividend.
"The simple answer is that what you are doing is an incredible waste of time. The normal process is to charge, say, in January, the bill is cut at month end, and due by the 15th of February. No interest accrues. As long as the credit line is sufficient for your monthly spending, that's it.  Now, if you are watching your score closely, utilization might become an issue, if the statement amount is much over 20%, there's an impact to your score. This is easily addressed with a second monthly payment, made just before the bill is cut.  Keep in mind, the phrase ""carrying a balance"" commonly means not paying the bill in full, and letting interest accumulate. I understand you didn't mean that. The way you are paying your account isn't common, and really serves no value."
"I used Quicken, so this may or may not be helpful. I have a Cash account that I call ""Temporary Assets and Liabilities"" where I track money that I am owed (or that I owe in some cases).  So if I pay for something that is really not my expense, it is transferred to this account (""transferred"" in Quicken terms).  The payment is then not treated as an expense and the reimbursement is not treated as income--the two transactions just balance out."
"If you take a loan, you make a contract with your lender, let's call them ""bank"" (even if it might not be a real bank).  This loan contract contains an agreed-upon way of paying back the loan.  Both sides agreed upon these conditions.  Any change of it (like paying back early) needs the consent of both sides.  So, in general, no, you cannot just pay back everything earlier unless the other side accepts this change of the contract. Consider it from the bank's point of view:  They want to earn money by getting the interest you have to pay when you pay back everything nice and slowly.  It is their business.  They plan on these expected revenues etc. So if, for whatever reason, you have to pay back the whole remaining loan at once, you create a revenue loss for the bank and are liable for this financial damage.  In German the term for this is ""Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung"" which translates to ""prepayment penalty"" or ""acceleration fee"".  You just have to pay it, so in the end you come out like if you were paying back the loan in the agreed-upon fashion. However, many loan contracts contain the option to pay back early at specific points in time in specific amounts and under specific conditions."
Keep in mind that you NEED to have a cash reserve.  Blindly applying all stray cash to debt reduction is a bad idea.  Your lenders do not care about your balance.  All they care about is your NEXT payment.  It is therefore imperative that you have a cash reserve that can carry these payments for several months.  Having zero cash reserves puts you at high risk for such simple things as the payroll clerk at work missing the monthly deposit (Rare, but it happens.) I've also been in situations where a major client had a cash flow issue and delayed payment, and our company had to borrow to meet payroll that month.  Fortunately, we were in good standing with the bank and had low debt, but it could have been catastrophic for any employees living paycheque to paycheque.
You can't buy it outright. You can't take the time to save up. if the remaining choice is between a card that charges from day one, and a card with this kind of grace period, the grace card is the better choice. Plan wisely, pay it in full before that rate starts to be charged. One additional note - There are two groups of people, the pay-in-fullers and the balance carriers. I believe that one should pay in full, and never pay interest.  A zero rate offer can be used by the balance carrier to feel great for 12 months, but have even more debt after the rate kicks in.  As a pay-in-full user, I've used the zero rate to throw $20K at the 5.25% mortgage, and planned a refinance to 3.5% just as it ended. a $750 savings (after the tax effect) well worth the bit of effort.  The fees should be in the fine print. My zero rate had a transfer fee, $50 max, which was nothing in comparison to the savings.
0% bonds are desirable for some individuals. It depends on your situation. 0% bonds are usually sold well below par value (eg a 100$ face value bond for 2020 might sell for 90$ today) Hence, your gains will be CAPITAL GAINS. A similar investment paying interest would be taxed as INCOME, and smaller portion of capital gains. In many countries (US, Canada) Capital gains are taxed at a more favourable rate then income. This is especially true when holding these investments in corporations.
Only reason I can think of is that having a credit card, or several, is handy for buying stuff on-line, or not having to haul around a fat wallet full of cash.    Of course for some of us, getting the cash back and 0% interest periods are nice, too, even if we don't really need the money.  Same as for instance trying to get good mpg when you're driving, even if you could easily afford to fill up a Hummer.  It's a game, really.
"I'm assuming you're operating on the cash basis of accounting, based on your comment ""Cash, I think that's the only way for a sole propriator (sic)"" Consider: There are two distinct but similar-name concepts here: ""paid for"" (in relation to a expense) and ""paid off"" (in relation to a debt).  These both occur in the case you describe: Under the cash basis of accounting, when you can deduct an expense is based on when you paid for the expense, not when you eventually pay off any resulting debt arising from paying for the expense. Admittedly, ""cash basis"" isn't a great name because things don't solely revolve around cash. Rather, it's when money has changed hands – whether in the form of cash, check, credit card, etc.  Perhaps ""monetary transaction basis"" might have been a better name since it would capture the paid-for concept whether using cash or credit.  Unfortunately, we're stuck with the terminology the industry established."
Your brother's debt would fully accrue 5% of interest on the full balance in year 1, so interest in year 1 would be 20k * .05 = 1,000. In year 2, your brother's debt would be cleared half way through the year; interest charged would be [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 * 50% = 250. You would then owe your brother 10k, which you would pay him over the remainder of year 2. His total interest paid to the bank would be 1,000 + 250 = 1,250. Total interest for both of you combined would be 3,250. In a simplified payment example using your numbers, maximum interest savings would be about $1,250 combined. How you allocate those savings would be pretty subjective; assuming a 50:50 split, this yields $625 in savings to each of you. If you aren't able to each save 20k per year, then savings would be greater for snowballing, because otherwise it will take you even longer to pay off your high interest debt. This is similar to your brother loaning you 20k today that you can use to pay off your debts, after which you pay him back so he can pay off his. Because you will owe him 20k for 2 years, but an average of ~10k at any one time [because he slowly advances it to you today, and you slowly pay him back until the end of year 2], at $650 in benefit passed to your brother, this is roughly equivalent to him loaning you money at 6.5% interest."
And this is why we calculate actual yield and not just coupons. Nobody pays par for high yield notes. If the company performs well, the price of your note goes up and you can realize a gain when is called or your sell it.  High yield works exactly like equity, and in a lot of cases it's better because it spits out cash in the meantime.  I'm not even allowed to call the interest I get on my HY notes as interest. All realized gain.
At time = 0, no interest has accrued. That's normal. And the first payment is due after a month, when there's a month's interest and a bit of principal due.  Note - I missed weekly payments. You'd have to account for this manually, add a month's interest, then calculate based on weekly payments.
If this is the case, then shouldn't the difference between their annualized returns be same year on year? In general yes, however there difference has a compounding effect. i.e. if the difference if 5% first year, this money is invested and it would generate more of the said returns. However in reality as the corpus size of direct funds is very small, there difference is not very significant as other factors come into play.
"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."
The DLOM maybe different if the bond is more or less marketable than the equity. However, the ratio itself would be the same. So while this might affect the interest at which you are willing to lend, it would not affect the intrinsic value of the firm.
Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn.
"The question posted was, ""Should I pay off a 0% car loan""? The poster provided a few details: I'm ahead on 0% interest car loan. I don't have to make a payment until October. I currently owe $3,000 and I could pay it all off. Should I do that or leave that money in my savings account that earns 2% interest? The question seems to seek a general rule of thumb for how to behave with smaller debts. And a general rule of thumb could be taken from one of two principles (which seem to be religious camps). The ""free money"" camp believes that you can invest (even small amounts) of money risk-free and receive high returns, tax free, for zero effort. The ""reduce debt"" camp believes that you should pay off debts so that you have the freedom to live your life unfettered. Which religion do you prefer? I tend to prefer paying off debts. The ""free money"" tent wants you to pay the car off over the next 6 months, earning interest. Suppose you can earn 2% interest (.02/12 per month), paying $500 per month for 6 months. So you earn interest on 3000 the first month, 2500, the second month, 2000 the third month, So, are you feeling rich, earning $13.13? How much time did you spending making the 5 additional payments? You could skip coffee once/month and make a bigger difference. The ""reduce debt"" tent would have you pay off the car. Suppose you change your deductible on the car (or drop collision) to save money, and you will also same time by avoid 5 bill payments, But do you still have enough money in your emergency fund, how do you feel about having less insurance coverage, and did you notice the time savings? We really need more information about the poster's situation. The answer should consider the relevant details of the situation to provide an informed response. Here are questions that would enable a response to address the whole situation. Why are these important? Here are a few reasons why the above might be important."
If the $300 due on a credit card is due at the end of the month and you make 2 payments of $150 during the month, the first half way through the month and the second at the end of the month, then yes you will save on interest. Note, if this is a Credit Card with an interest free period and you are paying the total amount due before the due date, then it will not save you anything by paying part of it earlier. Interest on Credit Card is calculated daily, so if you pay $150 half way through the month then you will pay 2.5% x $150 / 365 days x 15 days = $0.15 less in interest than if you paid the full $300 at the end of the month. The higher the interest rate and the more you pay early the higher the savings will be.
As such, I would expect the bond issuer to sell me the bond at a rate that makes it worth my while to keep the money tied up. So basically, the bond issuer is paying me compound interest on the loan. The future value of an investment now at a given rate is given by FV = PV(1+r)t. To gain $1 million in new cash today, and pay a 5% yield over 10 years, a company or municipality would have to issue $1.629 million in bonds. You see the effects of the compounding there; the company is paying 5% a year on the principal each year, plus 5% of each 5% already accrued, adding up to an additional 12% of the principal owed as interest. Instead, bond issuers can offer a ""coupon bond"". A coupon bond has a coupon rate, which is a percentage of the face value of the bond that is paid periodically (often annually, sometimes semi-annually or even quarterly). A coupon rate helps a company in two ways. First, the calculation is very straightforward; if you need a million dollars and are willing to pay 5% over 10 years, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1million worth with a 5% coupon rate and a maturity date 10 years out. A $100 5% coupon bond with a 10-year maturity, if sold at face value, would cost only $150 over its lifetime, making the total cost of capital only 50% of the principal instead of 62%. Now, that sounds like a bad deal; if the company's paying less, then you're getting less, right? Well yes, but you also get money sooner. Remember the fundamental principle here; money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. You do realize a lower overall yield from this investment, but you get returns from it quickly which you can turn around and reinvest to make more money. As such, you're usually willing to tolerate a lower rate of return, because of the faster turnaround and thus the higher present value. The ""Income Yield %"" from your table is also referred to as the ""Flat Yield"".
Their income is from the two sources you mentioned - they charge the merchants for each use, and they make interest money on people who carry a balance. This is one reason a lot of merchants will be willing to give you a discount if you pay cash - they don't have to give a portion to VISA or MasterCard.   I wouldn't be able to speak to the relative proportions between the two income sources, but when many cards are at 30% interest for balances carried, and many people have tens of thousands of dollars owed on their cards, the interest income is not insignificant.  They'll also charge interest immediately on cash advances. A few cards also make money off of annual fees, although I'd suspect this is not very much in the full scheme of things. The way to get the most out of a card, is to always pay it off fully at the end of each month.
"It doesn't matter if you give the check to the dealer or your friend. But under NO circumstances should you co-sign your friend's car loan. Since the money you are giving is a loan, I highly, highly recommend you do the following: Requiring a signed promissory note shows you are serious about getting paid back, and gives you some legal protections if you are not paid back. If you go to a random small claims court on any given day, you will witness at least a few cases where one person says, ""it was a gift!"" and the other says, ""it was a loan!"". With a promissory note, it's a loan, period. Prepare not to get paid back, even with the note. It happens all the time. Think about what you will do if your friend misses a payment to you or never repays the loan. Will you forgive or get legal and try to collect? Again, do NOT co-sign the loan.If you do, and your friend does not make car payments, you will be 100% responsible and the lender will take legal action against you to collect."
Either approach will put a strain on your friendship, unless you are willing to treat it as a gift which may or may not be returned rather than a loan. I agree that paying it direct to the dealer (or giving her a check that is made out to the dealer) avoids the risk of the money getting sidetracked.
"There are at least a couple problems:   Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account.  Check bounces.  They get charged a fee.  You get charged a fee.  You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid.  The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee.   Your ""friend"" may really be a crook.  The check is no good.  Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check.  You cash it.  They take the money and disappear.  You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case).   My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks.   In general, I would view this the same as a loan.  When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose.  Note that an actual loan would be safer.  If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50.  If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal.  You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police.  If they don't believe you, they could charge you.  A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail."
"If the cheque is not crossed, then your friend can write ""payable to [your name]"" above his signature when he endorses it. If it is crossed, you'll have to deposit it into his account. Given that one can deposit cheques at ATMs, this shouldn't require his presence. Just make sure he endorses it before you leave! It also might take a few more days to clear."
What would happen if you was to cash a check, didn’t realize it was   to you and your finance company, take it to a local business that has   a money center, they cash the check without even having you sign let   alone having the finance companies endorsement on it . The money   cleared my account like a couple months ago and it was just brought up   now .. ? The reason why the check was made out the owner and the lender is to make sure the repairs were done on the car. The lender wants to make sure that their investment is protected.  For example: you get a six year loan on a new car. In the second year you get hit by another driver. The damage estimate is $1,000, and you decide it doesn't look that bad, so you decide to skip the repair and spend the money on paying off debts. What you don't know is that if they had done the repair they would have found hidden damage and the repair would have cost $3,000 and would have been covered by the other persons insurance.  Jump ahead 2 years, the rust from the skipped repair causes other issues. Now it will cost $5,000 to fix. The insurance won't cover it, and now a car with an outstanding loan balance of $4,000 and a value of $10,000 if the damage didn't exist needs $5,000 to fix.  The lender wants the repairs done. They would have not signed the check before seeing the proof the repairs were done to their satisfaction. But because the check was cashed without their involvement they will be looking for a detailed receipt showing that all the work was done. They may require that the repair be done at a certified repair shop with manufacturer parts.  If you don't have a detailed bill ask the repair shop for a copy of the original one.
The victim never actually receives the money, so that is not an option. The scammer generates the transaction using a fraudulent check. Once the check is found to be fraudulent the chain of involved banks claw the money back (which is the bank's money, not the scammer's). So, what happens is the victim sees a deposit in their account, but it is not real, it is a conditional deposit by the bank made on the assumption that the payment is good (which it is not). When the victim endorses a check, they are guaranteeing to the bank that they consider the check good and vouching for the check. That is why the bank credits the victim's account, because the victim has vouched for the check. When the check later turns out to be fraudulent, the victim owes the bank money. In theory, people who endorse a fraudulent check could be criminally prosecuted, but that does not happen normally.