vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend.
Uber: currently they recognize 100% of the cost of a UberPool ride as revenue.  The amount the drivers keep is a cost of sales.  Under the new rules, they would only recognize as revenue the amount that goes to Uber (same as on the solo rides).  The net impact is a material reduction in revenue and no impact on profits or cash flow.  Tech.  The accounting rule changes will cause companies to recognize more revenue early on, and less expenses.  Both of these things will increase their accounting profits.  There is no impact on cash flow.
this would make sense assuming debt payments incl. interest to the market for the debt assumed to purchase said boat/yacht is less than the lease payments over the life of both terms. If your lease payments are lower than term loan pmts incl. interest (or a similar debt instrument) then OP would still be right. TVM is irrespective of a competitors (or lessor in this case) Kc.  Although, this goes completely out the window if it's a bond-like debt vehicle since those cash flows are distributed in a completely different manner.
Is it OK to effectively return to the feudal system if it means nobody will ever have one penny taxed from them and given to someone who wasn't born rich? Nobody made you get born poor so there's no force and therefore everything is right and good? Such a shallow view of our moral obligations as members of a society. We live in a society. Extreme individualism will lead only to self-destruction just as fast as extreme collectivism. The only rational view is to analyze the facts, weigh the benefits and consequences to any given policy, and make decisions without any preconceived notion of what the solution should look like. In the case at hand, I, and the vast majority of people, think the minor inconvenience of not being able to make discriminatory hiring decisions is far outweighted by the benefits of not having large segments of the population chronically unemployed and impoverished because their race. The only effective argument against this would be to posit a way in which the benefits of this policy could be achieved (or bettered) without the use of government coercion, and that I haven't seen. &gt;You'd better grow up fast on this one Remember, you are talking to someone who thought and argued exactly the same viewpoint you are now espousing for 10 years. I was even a delegate to the national Libertarian convention once. I was a true believer. I did grow up.
Corporate debt isn't an iou. Large corporations sell bonds and make annual or semiannual payments in those bonds.  Cash is often held in a country with favorable tax condition, like Ireland.. Depending on the industry, this cash is invested in money market funds, fixed income securities, and maybe stocks or other funds.  Because of the low interest rates that have prevailed since the recession, it's most economical to invest most cash and borrow for larger investments. However, the cash that ends up overseas is net of expenses. Internet is paid from operating income.  I'm by no means an expert though, so take this with a grain of salt.
Oh, don't expect us to take sides, we love both our parents the same! As to the pragmatic decision making - simple math. The disagreement is whether to pay off the HELOC or to invest into the mutual fund instead. Well, check the yield of the fund, compare to the costs of keeping the HELOC balance, and see which one makes more sense. Just compare the expected payments and gains for each of the scenarios and you'll get your answer.
At the end of each period, add the interest, in this case an easy 1%, and then subtract the payment. With less than 4 months to payoff, the interest here is about $21.  Instead of trying to find credit card calculators, just use the more common mortgage calculator. The math is the same until the final month, when the credit card may handle accrued interest slightly differently.  Edit - A finance calculator indicates 3.407 payments, or total payment of $1022.12, $22.12 is interest.  (from my initial guess of $21 above)
For this, the internal rate of return is preferred. In short, all cash flows need to be discounted to the present and set equal to 0 so that an implied rate of return can be calculated. You could try to work this out by hand, but it's practically hopeless because of solving for roots of the implied rate of return which are most likely complex. It's better to use a spreadsheet with this capability such as OpenOffice's Calc. The average return on equity is 9%, so anything higher than that is a rational choice. Example Using this simple tool, the formula variables can easily be input. For instance, the first year has a presumed cash inflow of $2,460 because the insurance has a 30% discount from $8,200 that is assumed to be otherwise paid, a cash inflow of $40,000 to finance the sprinklers, a cash outflow of $40,000 to fund the sprinklers, a $400 outflow for inspection, and an outflow in the amount of the first year's interest on the loan. This should be repeated for each year.  They can be input undiscounted, as they are, for each year, and the calculator will do the rest.
With an annuity, you invest directly into an annuity with money you have earned as wages/salary/etc. You pay for it, and trade your payments into the annuity for guaranteed payments from the annuity issuer in the future. The more you pay in before the annuity payments begin, the more you will receive for your annuity payment. With a pension, most often you invest implicitly, rather than directly, into the pension. Rather than making a cash contribution on a regular basis, it is likely that your employer has periodically invested into the pension fund for you, using monies that would otherwise have been paid to you if there were no pension system. This is why your pension benefits are often determined based on years of service, your rate of pay, and similar factors.
It looks like the rate on that first loan is 6-2/3%?  When I look at $72000 principal and a $500 payment, I'm seeing a long term, 24 years. Not 60, but not good either.  Yes, as you pay a bit of principal, the next payment has less interest and even more principal.  I hope your degree is in a field that's lucrative. Or that you're able to get a job that qualifies you for loan forgiveness over time. I'm sorry that advice might seem weak, but aside from that, the best I can offer is to live well beneath your means, i.e. continue to live like a student, and make additional payments.  As far as bi-weekly goes, the lender may not accept partial payments. Set aside the money every two weeks and when you have extra money just make an extra payment amount toward principal.  To pay this off as fast as possible, I'd make as high an extra payment as I could each month to the loan with the higher rate. If the rates are the same, pay it off to the one with the lower balance.  With respect to the debt snowballers, followers of The David, say the rates are simply close, say .25% apart, with the lower balance having the lower rate. If you were to pay this one first, it would occur sooner, of course, and free up that monthly payment, helping your cash flow. But, it comes at a cost.  Note - if, as Noah suggests, the rates are the same, I'd advise to make all extra payments toward the lower balance. That will get you to the point where you've freed up that cash flow for other purposes, whether it's to focus on the higher loan, or anything else you need this for.
Another possibility is that a lot of it is bought using borrowed money. Especially if much of your own money is in the stock market, it may be beneficial to take out a loan to buy something compared to selling other assets to raise the same amount of cash. Even going by the likely relatively conservative £200K/year before taxes, you are looking at a very nice house going for perhaps around 3-5 years' worth of pre-tax income. Let's say you have good contacts at the bank and can secure a loan for £500K at 3.5% interest (not at all unreasonable if you make half that before taxes in a single year and purchase something that can be used as collateral for the money borrowed; with a bit of negotiating, I wouldn't be surprised if one could push the interest rate even lower, and stock in a publicly traded company can also trivially be used as collateral). That's less than £1500/month in interest, before any applicable tax effects -- less than 10% of the before-tax income. And like @Victor wrote, I think it's reasonable to say that especially if the company is publicly traded, the CEO makes more than £200K/year. Given an income of £200K/year and assuming 30% taxes on that amount (the marginal tax would likely be higher, and this includes e.g. interest expense deductions), the money left over after taxes and interest payments on a £500K 3.5% debt is still about £10K/month. Even with a pretty rapid amortization schedule and even if the actual tax rate is higher, that leaves quite a bit of money to be socked away in savings and other investments.
"Another thing that insurance companies try to do with these types of vehicles is to promote the ""cash value"" of the policy. The longer you participate in the policy, the more your cash value goes up (assuming the investments perform reasonably well). The selling point is that at any time you can take out part of that cash value without impacting your insurance policy. A lot of people see that benefit as being the same as either putting the money in the bank or investing it, when actually they could do better if they did either of those things themselves. One true advantage of the whole term policy is that if you should fall on hard times and are not able to work, the premium payments can be taken out of the cash value. That way even if you can't make the monthly payments, the insurance policy basically pays for itself. I actually experienced this myself many years ago after I lost my job and had some health issues. I was out of work a long time, but my life insurance never lapsed. That in itself made it worthwhile for me."
"What you're looking at is something called ""Bridge-Financing"".  Essentially, it allows you to borrow your down-payment from the bank, using your old home as collateral.  The interest rate varies, but if you get the bridge from the same institution as your new mortgage, they will often be a bit flexible.   You take possession of the new home, and begin mortgage payments on it normally.  When the old home is sold, the bridge is paid off.   Note that the deposit on signing for the new house will still have to be cash.  All bets are off if you are talking about a NEW new home, as builders usually require advance payments during the build."
"There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity. Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds. Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a ""Tesla Bond"", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company. Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen.
"A dividend is a cash disbursement from the company. The value of the company goes down the same amount of the dividend, so it is analogous to having money in a savings account and taking a withdrawal every month. Obviously you are going to have less in the end than if you just kept the money in the account. suppose that I own 10 different stocks, and don't reinvest dividends, but keep them on account, and each month or two, as I add more money to invest, either in one of my existing stocks, or perhaps something new, I add whichever dividend amount is currently available in cash to my new purchase, would this strategy provide the same results? Roughly, yes. Reinvesting dividends is essentially buying more stock at the lower price, which is a net zero effect in total balance. So if you invested in the same stocks, yes you'd be in the same place. If you invested in different stocks, then you would have a performance difference depending on what you invested in. The risk is the temptation to take the cash dividend and not reinvest it, but take it in cash, thereby reducing your earning power. That is, is there some particular reason that the brokers are recommending automatically reinvesting dividends as opposed to reinvesting them manually, perhaps not always in the same item? I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends. £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me. I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the ""UK market"" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%. Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math.
"The fundamental question I'd have to ask here is - when will the interest you owe on the loan on your house be capitalized?  I think thats a fancy way of saying - how is your bank calculating the amount of interest on the loan? Is it based purely on the principal, or on the principal + existing interest?  Your situation is similar to that of having a student loan - it sounds like your loan is in deferment, but is equivalent to being ""unsubsidized"" - that is, you still are being charged interest on the loan. The question really boils down to - will you be paying interest on only the principal of the loan or both the principal and the interest of the loan?  Here are some helpful steps: If the interest is capitalized immediately, I believe it is correct to say it doesn't matter if you pay the principal or the interest of your loan first. If the interest is NOT capitalized until your deferment period is over, then its definitely best to pay off the principal first.  Hope this helps."
The Reserve Bank of Australia's role in monetary policy has three objectives: currency stability (primarily keeping inflation within a narrow band); full employment; and improved prosperity and welfare. Its primary weapon in this, is its setting of a target for the cash rate - the overnight money-market interest rate charged between financial intermediaries. Short-term market rates closely track this cash rate target, because the Reserve Bank controls the supply of funds that banks use to settle the transactions that use the overnight money-market interest rates. Australian capital markets are liquid, with many deposits / loans being on variable-rate or short-term rates; hence changes to the cash rate quickly propagate throughout the market. NB that the changes propagate, but not all interest rates are at the same level: the absolute values don't propagate. Different interest rates will reflect different loan periods, and different (perceptions of) risks. Banks are profit-maximisers. So they won't loan at a lower rate to one borrower, if they can loan the same money to someone else at a higher interest rate (and the same or lower risk). And they won't lend money out, unless they can cover the cost of their own borrowing, plus overheads, plus a reward for the risk of the loan. Hence the home loan rates of all banks will tend to move in the same direction, by broadly the same amount, at the same time.
"There are five main drivers to real estate returns: Income (cash flow from rental payments); Depreciation (as an expense that can be used to reduce taxes); Equity (the gradual paydown of the mortgage the increases underlying equity in the property); Appreciation (any increase in the overall value of the property); Leverage (the impact of debt financing on the deal, increasing the effective ""cash-on-cash"" return). (Asset Rover has a detailed walk-through of the components, and a useful comparison to stocks) So interest rates are certainly a component (as they increase the expenses), but they are just one factor. Depending on a particular market's conditions, appreciation or rent increases could offset or (exceed) any increase in the interest expense. My own experience is mostly with non-listed REITs (including Reg A+ investments like the ones from Fundrise) and commercial syndicates, and for right now in both cases there's plenty of capital chasing yield to go around (and in fact competition among new funding sources like Reg D and Reg A+ platforms seems to be driving down borrowing rates as platforms compete both for borrowers and for investors). Personally I pay more attention to where each local market (and the broader national market) is along the ~18-year real estate cycle (spoiler: the last trough was 2008...). Dividend Capital puts out a quarterly report that's super useful."
As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk. You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered. There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance. The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss. Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy. A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around. The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong. You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group. Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses. They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts. This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs.