vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I actually don't have a finance/accounting background but a much more technical background within my sector and had some general finance knowledge. However, most have finance/accounting degrees I work with, and then learn their sector.  Many (a third?) straight out of school, most associates with just a few years of experience in finance/accounting related jobs, not necessarily equity research.  Don't fret about not having much luck so far, keep looking for a good opening and understand that a lot of jobs in finance/accounting fields can lead you to other positions.
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.
"Read ""Stop Acting Rich"" by Dr Thomas Stanley. I'm concerned that even before you've earned your first paycheck you want a flashy car. $4800/yr on $63K/yr income is just about half what I'd recommend to someone who starts working. 10% is the minimum, if and only if, the employer matches 5, for a total 15% saved. Do it in a pretax account and when you go back to grad school convert to Roth."
I see, I want to make it clear that I respect your reply so you don't misinterpret my response but on the other hand, I feel that finance is filled with people who don't know what the heck they're doing.  I think half these people were lucky enough to get into the finance world, if that's the case, then grooming at an early age isn't really necessary.  Just that you have a nice smile, handsome mug, and are a natural charmer.  I think those assets go a long way in talking yourself into a job...  what do you think?
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.
"Companies normally do not give you X% of shares, but in effect give you a fixed ""N"" number of shares. The ""N"" may translate initially to X%, but this can go down. If say we began with 100 shares, A holding 50 shares and B holding 50 shares. As the startup grows, there is need for more money. Create 50 more shares and sell it at an arranged price to investor C. Now the percentage of each investor is 33.33%. The money that comes in will go to the company and not to A & B.   From here on, A & C together can decide to slowly cut out B by, for example: After any of the above the % of shares held by B would definitely go down."
In my experience of doing software development for a little longer than I care to remember, salaries are always assumed to be negotiable. I know you said you don't like haggling (a lot of people don't) but you'll have to get used to that and you might have to be a little more flexible. Being able to negotiate something as important as your salary is a very important skill. That said, there might be several reasons why they're not willing to offer more: Here's what I would do:
That's an important number when considering rent vs home ownership. If you own a home, you are much less likely to move for a better job, because of all the material and emotional investment into the house. So that 50% of salary difference (about $2000 a month if we take average salary of $48k), should be added to the monthly mortgage bill when comparing it to the rent.
There are more companies in the S&amp;P500 that are tech enabled services companies, and a few are software as a service (salesforce, cerner, etc.). As a result profit margins used here have expanded. If wages increase, margins should shrink but there is likely going to be growing revenue as we still have a huge output gap because of all the unemployed people who would have income. Not sure there is a mean to regress to
I think that MFin is best suited for more technical roles in banks (I assume when you say IB you mean sell/buy side M&amp;A), HF, AM, and PM roles. I don't view PE, CF, or IB as technically challenging as most of the analysis is done on the areas outside of finance.
I had the same experience as Jeremy: made investments in both Prosper and Lending Club and got a much better returns with Lending Club, although in my cases both investments were ok: after 18 months i made 4-5% on prosper and 11-12% on Lending Club. I think they just have better underwriting standards.
"In addition to the two options in your question - pay off the entire loan, depleting your emergency fund; or continue as you are today - there is a third, middle-ground option that might be worth considering. Since you currently have an emergency fund, zero credit card debt, and you stated ""we can afford these expenses"", I think I'd be correct to assume that you're currently making regular contributions to either the emergency fund itself, or to another savings account, etc. Temporarily stop making those contributions, and divert those funds to make larger payments towards the upside-down loan. The additional amount will all be applied to the loan principal, reducing the interest you'll have to pay, but you'll avoid the risk of depleting the emergency fund. Additionally, the insurance premium may possibly be avoided, as in many places in the world it's possible to de-register the car (for example, in California, USA, you can submit an affidavit of Non-Use) then terminate the insurance on it. However, the car will likely have to be parked off-street (or in a location such as a private road governed by rules that do not include legal registration requirements)."
I used to work for Ally Auto (formerly known as GMAC) and I'd advise not to pay off the account unless you need to free up some debt in your credit report since until the account is paid off it will show that you owe your financial institution the original loan amount. The reason why I am saying not to pay-off the account is because good/bad payments are sent to the credit bureau 30 days after the due date of the payment, and if you want to increase your credit score then its best to pay it on a monthly basis, the negative side to this is you will pay more interest by doing this.  If ever you decide to leave $1.00 in loan, I am pretty much sure that the financial institution will absorb the remaining balance and consider the account paid off.  What exactly is your goal here? Do you plan to increase your credit score? Do you need to free up some debt?
First of all, congratulations on paying off $40k in debt in one year. Mathematically, you'd be better off making the standard car loan payments and putting your extra money toward the student loan. However, there are a few other things that you might want to consider. Over the last year, you've knocked out a whole bunch of different debts.  Feels pretty good, doesn't it?  At your current rate, you could knock out your new car loan in 6 months.  Then you'd only have one debt left.  If it sounds to you like it would be nice to only have one debt left, then it might be worth the mathematical disadvantage you would get by paying off the car early instead of putting the money toward the last student loan. The car loan is 0%, but if you are late on a single payment, they will take that opportunity to raise your interest rate to something probably higher than the interest rate of your student loan.  For this reason, you may decide it is not worth the hassle, and you'd rather just eliminate the car loan as quickly as possible. Either choice is fine, in my opinion, as long as you have a purpose behind the choice and you are committed to eliminating both debts as quickly as possible. As an aside, it is important to remember that even a 0% loan is not really free money, and needs to be paid back.  You know this, of course, but sometimes you see a 0% loan advertized and it feels like free money.  It's not.  You have probably already paid for the loan by forfeiting a rebate.  So although, at this point having already taken this loan and paying for it, you will come out ahead by dragging out your car loan for the full term, in the future do not think that you can make money by buying something at 0% interest.
Your goal of wanting to eliminate your debts early is great. Generally, you can save more money by paying off loans with higher interest rates first. However, it sounds like you are excited about the idea of eliminating one of your car loans in two months.  There is nothing wrong with that; it is good to be excited about eliminating debt.  I like your plan. Pay off the $14.6k loan first, then apply the $635 monthly payment to the $19.4k loan.  You'll have that loan paid off almost 3 years early.  Perhaps you'll find some additional money to apply to it and get rid of it even earlier. After you've eliminated both car loans, save up that $1000/month for your next car.  That will allow you to pay cash for it, which will allow you to negotiate the best price and save interest.  0% loans are not free money. Other answers will tell you to wait as long as possible to pay off your 0% loan, but I think there can be good reasons to eliminate smaller loans first, regardless of interest.
Paying off your loan in full will most likely not help your credit score, and could potentially even hurt it. Because car loans are installment loans (and thus differ from consumer credit), lenders really only like seeing that you responsibly pay off your loans on time. They don't really care if you pay it off early--lenders like seeing open lines of credit as long as you manage them well. The hard inquiry will simply lower your credit score a few points for up to two years. So, from a credit score perspective, you're really not going to help yourself in this scenario (although it's not like you're going to be plummeting yourself either).
"Loan officer here. Yes. You pay the per diem. I'd recommend not paying it off for like 6 months. You can pay it down to basically nothing and then hold it for six months and pay it off. Better for credit. If it's a simple interest rate, most car loans are, multiply the current principal balance by the interest rate and divide it by 365. That's the per diem or daily interest. For example, ""10,000 dollar auto loan at 3%. 10000*0.03= 300. 300/365= 0.82. So each day the balance is 10k the loan cost 82 cents. So in a month, your first payment is 100 dollars, 24.65 goes to interest 75.35 goes to principal. Then the new principal is 9924.65. So the next month, another 30 days with the new per diem of 0.815, the 100 payment is 75.50 in principal 24.50 in interest and so on."
While, from a money-saving standpoint, the obviously-right course of action is to make only the minimum payment on the 0% loan, there are potentially legal reasons to try to pay off a car loan early. With a mortgage, you are the legal owner of the property and any action by the lender beyond imposing fees (e.g. foreclosure) requires going through the proper legal channels. On the other hand, in most jurisdictions, you are not the legal owner of a car purchased on a loan, and a missed or even lost payment can result in repossession without the lender even having to go to court. So from a risk-aversion standpoint, there's something to be said for getting rid of car loans as soon as you can.
The hard and fast rule is to pay off high interest loans first, but each individual's situation is different so there are some things to consider. Student loan interest is tax deductible up to $2,500.  Will your student loan interest exceed $2,500 for the year?  If so I would try to pay down the student loan first to bring down the total interest for the year so that you get as much interest back as possible on your tax return.  Also, it may be beneficial to pay off the car first to close that account so that you are only left with the 1 loan.  Once you have the car loan payment out of the way you can dedicate that amount to paying off the student loan. I'm in almost the same situation as you.  I currently have a mortgage and car payment.  In 6 months my grace period will be over, and my student loan payments will start.  I have $100k in student loan debt.  So I will have a $1,100 mortgage payment, $1,100 student loan payment, and $700 car payment (car loan is 0%).  I don't want to have 3 loans active so I will pay off my car loan in a 2-3 months to get that out of the way.  Then I will pay down my student loan by paying $700 extra every month.
If your payment schedule would have you pay the car off after 11 months then you might be best served by leaving a small final payment for July.  The loan will appear on your credit for 7 years but the bump to your score will be reduced more after 2 years if you pay it off in less than 12 months.   If you would have several payment left after you have the ability to pay it off then just pay it off.  The reduction is not severe or worth the price of interest unless you have <1%. Unused credit has an attrition factor.  If you continue to use your credit in a healthy way (>0 <20% balance, no late payments, long term accounts) then you should not even realize much of a negative change.
Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it."
Without knowing actual numbers it's tough to say.  Personally, I would pay off the car then, going forward, use the money that would have been paid on your car note toward your mortgage.  I always think of things in the worst possible scenario.  It's easier, and faster, to repossess a car than to foreclose on real estate.  Also, in an emergency situation, depleting your fund for your car loan and your mortgage would be significantly more detrimental than only paying a mortgage with a car owned outright.  Fewer obligations means fewer things to draw down your funds in an emergency. Whether the tax deductability of the mortgage interest outweighs the lower rate on your car loan will depend on a lot of factors that haven't been shared.  I think it's safe to assume with only 1% of separation the real difference isn't significant.  I think when determining which credit cards to pay off, choosing the one with the highest rate is smart.  But that's not the situation you're in. If you don't have foreclosure concerns I'd still pay off the car then start investing.
If the car loan has 0% interest for 5 years, then paying off the student loan is cheaper. No matter when you pay off the car, you will pay the exact same amount (as long as its within 5 years). You could spend $20,000 right now to pay off the car loan or slowly spend $20,000 over the next 5 years. The gross amount paid for the car loan does not change. On the contrary, the longer you wait to pay off the student loans, the more you will end up paying for them. So why not get the student loans out of the way before they rack up more interest and pay the car loan over time? Update: I forgot to add, as Ben Miller said, congratulations on paying off the $40,000!
This depends on what the alternative is. Your loan of .99% is very favorable rate. If you have the 15,000 right now but only hold it in your checking account or cash then you might as well just pay it all off(assuming you have an adequate emergency fund). Paying the debt off sooner will save you on interest. Currently if you pay the minimum you will pay a total of $15,230 by the end of the loan, a $230 premium to $15,000. - Math credit goes to  Joe If you have an investment vehicle you feel can successfully yield more then .99%, you might want to consider investing that money instead, while paying the minimum on your car loan. Also be sure to check the .99% is not an introductory rate which increases later on. It comes down to whether you can get a better return then .99% investing that money or whether you rather just pay off the debt and not worry about it. If you don't want to bother investing the money, than just pay it off... I also assumed you have no other revolving debt with a higher APR. If you do, first pay off the higher APR debt.
"My husband made a similar car loan decision when he was younger and didn't have an established credit history / favourable credit rating.  As a result, he ended up paying triple what the car was worth, because of the interest. When we consolidated our finances, this ugly loan was first on our list of priorities to change, convert, eliminate, but unfortunately, in our case, the terms of the loan were such that only the lender benefited.  There was no incentive to pay off the loan early, in fact, we would have to have paid all the future interest at once, without saving a penny. So check the terms of your loan - hopefully you're better off than we were.  In our case, the only upside we could figure was the lesson of ""live and learn""!"
Use the $11k to pay down either car loan (your choice). You should be able to clear one loan very quickly after that lump sum. After that, continue to aggressively pay down the other car loan until it is clear. Lastly, pay off the mortgage while making sure you are financially stable in other areas (cash-on-hand, retirement, etc) Reasoning: The car loans are very close in value, making it a wash as far as payoff speed. The 2.54% interest is not a large factor here. As a percentage of all these numbers, the few bucks a month isn't going to change your financial situation. This is assuming you will pay off both loans well ahead of schedule, making the interest rate negligible in the answer. Paying off the mortgage last is due to the risk associated with the car loans. The cars are guaranteed to lose value at an alarming rate. While a house certainly may lose value, it is far from an expectation. It is likely that your house will maintain and/or increase in value, unless you have specific circumstances not disclosed here. This makes the mortgage a lower risk loan in your financial world. You can probably sell the house to clear the loan balance if necessary. The cars are far more likely to depreciate beyond the loan balance.
"Thanks for your question. Definitely pay the car down as soon as possible (reasoning to follow). In fact, I would go even further and recommend the following: Why? 1) Make money risk free - the key here is RISK FREE. By paying down the loan now, you can avoid paying interest on the additional amount paid toward principal risk free. Imagine this scenario: if you walked into a bank and they said, ""If you give us $100, we'll give you $103 back today"", would you do it? That is exactly what you get to do by not paying interest on the remaining loan principal. 2) The spread you might make by investing is not as large as you may think. Let's assume that by investing, you can make a market return of 10%. However, these are future cash flows, so let's discount this for inflation to a ""real"" 8% return. Then let's assume that after fees and taxes this would be a 7% real after-tax return. You also have to remember that this money is at risk in the market and may not get this return in some years. Assuming that your friend's average tax rate on earned income is 25%, this means that he'd need to earn $400 pre-tax to pay the after-tax payment of $300. So this is a 4% risk-free return after tax compared to a 7% average after tax return from the market, but one where the return is at risk. The equivalent after-tax risk-free return from the market (think T-Bills) is much lower than 7%. You are also reducing risk by paying the car loan off first in a few other ways, which is a great way to increase peace of mind. First, since cars decline in value over time, you are minimizing the possibility that you will eventually end up ""under water"" on the loan, where the loan balance is greater than the value of the car. This also gives you more flexibility in terms of being able to sell the car at any point if desired.