vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The 0.14% is coming out of the assets of the fund itself. The expense ratio can be broken down so that on any given day, a portion of the fund's assets are set aside to cover the administrative cost of running the fund. A fund's total return already includes the expense ratio. This depends a lot on what kind of account in which you hold the fund. If you hold the fund in an IRA then you wouldn't have taxes from the fund itself as the account is sheltered. There may be notes in the prospectus and latest annual and semi-annual report of what past distributions have been as remember the fund isn't paying taxes but rather passing that along in the form of distributions to shareholders. Also, there is something to be said for what kinds of investments the fund holds as if the fund is to hold small-cap stocks then it may have to sell the stock if it gets too big and thus would pass on the capital gains to shareholders. Other funds may not have this issue as they invest in large-cap stocks that don't have this problem. Some funds may invest in municipal bonds which would have tax-exempt interest that may be another strategy for lowering taxes in bond funds. Depending on the fund quite a broad range actually. In the case of the Fidelity fund you link, it is a ""Fund of funds"" and thus has a 0% expense ratio as Fidelity has underlying funds that that fund holds. What level of active management are you expecting, what economies of scale does the fund have to bring down the expense ratio and what expense ratio is typical for that category of fund would come to mind as a few things to consider. That Fidelity link is incorrect as both Morningstar and Fidelity's site list an expense ratio for the fund of funds at .79%. I'd expect an institutional US large-cap index fund to have the lowest expense ratio outside of the fund of fund situation while if I were to pick an actively managed fund that requires a lot of research then the expense ratio may well be much higher though this is where you have to consider what strategy do you want the fund to be employing and how much of a cost are you prepared to accept for that? VTTHX is Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund which has a .14% expense ratio which is using index funds in the fund of funds system."
Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was."
The simplest way is to invest in a few ETFs, depending on your tolerance for risk; assuming you're very short-term risk tolerant you can invest almost all in a stock ETF like VOO or VTI.  Stock market ETFs return close to 10% (unadjusted) over long periods of time, which will out-earn almost any other option and are very easy for a non-finance person to invest in (You don't trade actively - you leave the money there for years).  If you want to hedge some of your risk, you can also invest in Bond funds, which tend to move up in stock market downturns - but if you're looking for the long term, you don't need to put much there. Otherwise, try to make sure you take advantage of tax breaks when you can - IRAs, 401Ks, etc.; most of those will have ETFs (whether Vanguard or similar) available to invest in.  Look for funds that have low expense ratios and are fairly diversified (ie, don't just invest in one small sector of the economy); as long as the economy continues to grow, the ETFs will grow.
like I said to the others do a remind me. I am not trying to hate on you or your views but facebook is not the future not even close they won;t survive because the vision of facebook is heavily flawed.  Also GoPro being worth HALF what is with in 5 years only shows your lack of research into the company and to what I said. I also said that the money I made was essentially a drop in the bucket of what I wanted to invest but I held back heavily because of the type of companies they are and what the stocks show. The fact I made what I did on what little i put in is, well awesome. No I am not a billionaire but I am rather good at picking short and middle to long term well and have done well with it. My only fault is I don't trust my own judgement enough. I am sorry you think Snap Chat is a bad long term investment because in 5 years it will be over 100 a share. I don't expect you to take or trust the advice from a random person online but you talk like you actually know which you don't and that is ok. I just gave my opinion which I have zero doubt will pan out but that is the beauty of it!
"There's no such thing as true ""passive income."" You are being paid the risk free rate to delay consumption (i.e., the super low rate you are getting on savings accounts and CDs) and a higher rate to bear risk. You will not find truly risk-free investments that earn more than the types of investments you have been looking at...most likely you will not keep up with inflation in risk-free investments. For a person who is very risk averse but wants to make a little more money than the risk-free rate, the solution is not to invest completely in slightly risky things.  Instead the best thing you can do is invest partially in a fully diversified portfolio.  A diversified portfolio (containing stocks, bonds, etc) will earn you the most return for the given amount of risk.  If you want very little risk, put very little in that portfolio and keep the rest in your CDs. Put 90% of your money in a CD or something and the other 10% in stocks/bonds.  Or choose a different percentage. You can also buy real assets, like real estate, but you will find yourself taking a different type of risk and doing a different type of work with those assets."
I think three things are happening right now:  1) The stock market is one of the only sensible places to get a return on your money. Bond rates are very low and real estate is a little trickier.   2) There are fewer publicly traded companies now than there have been in the past. It's easier to invest in public companies than private companies, so more money is going into fewer companies, inflating the prices.  3) Wealth inequality is higher now than it has been in decades. If you give poor people more money, they just spend it to lead more comfortable lives. They won't invest in the stock market. If you give a rich person more money, they just invest more of it, since they are already spending as much as they reasonably can. In this economy, for the past few decades, we've been giving the rich more and more money.  So, with these 3 factors, more money is pouring into the fewer companies of the stock market, inflating their prices.   (At least, this is the idea put forward by a Fidelity analyst I heard a talk from recently, and it makes sense to me).
"Defining risk tolerance is often aided with a series of questions. Such as - You are 30 and have saved 3 years salary in your 401(k). The market drops 33% and since you are 100% S&P, you are down the same. How do you respond?  (a) move to cash - I don't want to lose more money. (b) ride it out. Keep my deposits to the maximum each year. Sleep like a baby.  A pro will have a series of this type of question. In the end, the question resolves to ""what keeps you up at night?"" I recall a conversation with a coworker who was so risk averse, that CDs were the only right investment for her. I had to explain in painstaking detail, that our company short term bond fund (sub 1 year government paper) was a safe place to invest while getting our deposits matched dollar for dollar. In our conversations, I realized that long term expectations (of 8% or more) came with too high a risk for her, at any level of her allocation. Zero it was."
You commenters in this post seem to disagree with what this guy is saying because he turned down a Trump post and took shots at him? Do you sincerely feel that all type of regulation hurts this country? What of the religious right taking a hold on education? Will that help America in the generations to come in competing against the world? Think for a sec before you type in more of the same as I've read here.
Gold since the ancient time ( at least when it was founded) has kept its value. for example the french franc currency was considered valuable in the years 1400~ but in 1641 lost its value. However who owned Gold back then still got value.  The advantage of having gold is you can convert it to cash easily in the world. it hedges against inflation: it is value rise when inflation happend. Gold has no income,no earnings. its not like a stock or a bond. its an alternative way to store value the Disadvantages of investing in Gold  Gold doesnt return income , needs physical storage and insurance, Capital gains tax rates are higher on most gold investments. the best way to invest gold when there is inflation is expected. source
To identify a bubble you have to figure out what will go on in the minds of a horde of other people, and when. It seems safest for individual investors to just assume commodities are always in a bubble and stay away. The one arguable reason to own commodities is to treat them as a random bouncing number, which may enhance returns (as long as you rebalance) even if on average commodities don't make money over inflation. This is what people are saying when they suggest owning a small slice of commodities as part of an asset allocation. If you do this you have to be careful not to expect to make money on the commodities themselves, i.e. they are just something to sell some of (rebalance out of) whenever they've happened to go up a lot.
"It is legal.  They're probably going to give you a 1099-MISC, which is required of businesses for many cash payments over $600 in value to all sorts of counterparties.  (Probably box 3 of 1099-MISC as is typical in ""cash for keys"" situations where one is paid to vacate early)   A 1099-MISC is not necessarily pure income, but in this case, you do have money coming in.  This money isn't a return of your security deposit or a gift. The payment could possibly be construed by you as a payment to make you whole, but the accounting for this would be on you.  This is not a typical situation for IRS reporting.   However, if you are uncomfortable with potentially explaining to the IRS how you implemented advice from strangers over the internet, the safest course is to report it all as income.  Look at it this way: you did enter into a mutual contract, where you were paid consideration to release your leasehold interests in the property."
"First, I'd like to congratulate you on your financial discipline in paying off your loans and living well within your means. I have friends who make more than twice your salary with similar debt obligations, and they barely scrape by month to month. If we combine your student loan debt and unallocated income each month, we get about $1,350. You say that $378 per month is the minimum payment for your loans, which have an average interest rate of about 3.5%. Thus, you have about $1,350 a month to ""invest."" Making your loan payments is basically the same as investing with the same return as the loan interest rate, when it comes down to it. An interest rate of 3.5% is...not great, all things considered, and barely above inflation. However, that's a guaranteed return of 3.5%, more or less like a bond. As noted previously, the stock market historically averages 10% before inflation over the long run. The US stock market is right around its historic high at this point (DJIA is at 20,700 today, April 6th, 2017 - historic high hit just over 21,000 on March 1, 2017). Obviously, no one can predict the future, but I get the feeling that a market correction may be in order, especially depending on how things go in Washington in the next weeks or months. If that's the case (again, we have no way of knowing if it is), you'd be foolish to invest heavily in any stocks at this point. What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a ""portfolio"" that's 50/50 stocks and ""bonds,"" where the bonds here are your student loans. Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time). I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others. Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one.
The readily available Aloe Vera drinking juice or gel is the best way to give your body the needed amount of the plant in the best, easiest and safest manner. Just go and buy it from a reputed source like Sanita Wellbeing!!
Probably the easiest way to invest in hotel rooms in the U.S. is to invest in a Real Estate Investment Trust, or REIT.  REITs are securities that invest in real estate and trade like a stock.  There are different REITs that invest in different things: some own office buildings, some residential rentals, some hold mortgages, and some are diversified in lots of different types of real estate.  There are also REITs that are exclusively invested in hotels. REITs are required to pay out at least 90% of their profits as dividends, and there are tax advantages to investing in REITs.   You can search for a REIT on REIT.com's Searchable Directory.  You can select a type (Lodging/Resorts), a stock exchange (NYSE), investment sector (equity), and a listing status (public), and you'll see lots of investments for you to consider.
But you also want to sell your portfolio, so let's also call it a 'fund'. Then you sell half of your 'fund' to a friend. So your friend (let's call him Maurice) pays you $4,000, to invest in your 'Fund'. Maurice gives you $4k, and in return, you given him a note that says ""Maurice owns 40% of atp9's Fund"". The following month, IBM pays you $100 in dividends. But, Maurice owns 40% of those dividends. So you give him a cheque for $40 (some funds automatically reinvest dividends for their clients instead of paying them out immediately). Then you sell your Apple shares for $6,000 (a gain of $1,000 since you bought them). But Maurice owns 40% of that 6k, so you give him $2,400 (or perhaps, instead of giving him the money immediately, you reinvest it within the fund, and buy $6k of Microsoft shares). Why would you set up this Fund? Because Maurice will pay you a fee equal to, let's say, 1% of his total investment. Your job is now to invest the money in the Fund, in a way that aligns with what you told Maurice when he signed the contract. ie: maybe it's a tech fund, and you can only invest in big Tech companies. Maybe it's an Index fund, and your investment needs to exactly match a specific portion of the New York Stock Exchange. Maybe it's a bond fund, and you can only invest in corporate bonds. So to reiterate, a portfolio is a collection of investments (think of an artist's portfolio, being a collection of their work). Usually, people refer to their own 'portfolio', of personal investments. A fund is someone's portfolio, that other people can invest in. This allows an individual investor to give some of their decision making over to a Fund manager. In addition to relying on expertise of others, this allows the investor to save on transaction costs, because they can have a well-diversified portfolio (see what I did there?) while only buying into one or a few funds."
The meaning is quite literal - a representative stock list is a list of stocks that would reasonably be expected to have about the same results as the whole market, i.e. be representative of an investment that invests in all those stocks. Of course, you don't want to invest in all stocks individually, that would be impractical, but you can either choose a diverse array of stocks that are (should be) representative, as the article recommends, or alternatively choose to invest in an index fund which offers a practical way to invest in all the stocks in the index at once.
"An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a ""safe rate of withdrawal""? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US, though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used. Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking. Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control.
"It appears that the company in question is raising money to invest in expanding its operations (specifically lithium production but that is off topic for here). The stock price was rising on the back of (perceived) increases in demand for the company's products but in order to fulfil demand they need to either invest in higher production or increase prices. They chose to increase production by investing. To invest they needed to raise capital and so are going through the motions to do that. The key question as to what will happen with their stock price after this is broken down into two parts: short term and long term: In the short term the price is driven by the expectation of future profits (see below) and the behavioural expectations from an increase in interest in the stock caused by the fact that it is in the news. People who had never heard of the stock or thought of investing in the company have suddenly discovered it and been told that it is doing well and so ""want a piece of it"". This will exacerbate the effect of the news (broadly positive or negative) and will drive the price in the short run. The effect of extra leverage (assuming that they raise capital by writing bonds) also immediately increases the total value of the company so will increase the price somewhat. The short term price changes usually pare back after a few months as the shine goes off and people take profits. For investing in the long run you need to consider how the increase in capital will be used and how demand and supply will change. Since the company is using the money to invest in factors of production (i.e. making more product) it is the return on capital (or investment) employed (ROCE) that will inform the fundamentals underlying the stock price. The higher the ROCE, the more valuable the capital raised is in the future and the more profits and the company as a whole will grow. A questing to ask yourself is whether they can employ the extra capital at the same ROCE as they currently produce. It is possible that by investing in new, more productive equipment they can raise their ROCE but also possible that, because the lithium mines (or whatever) can only get so big and can only get so much access to the seams extra capital will not be as productive as existing capital so ROCE will fall for the new capital."
I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible.  The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher.  Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals.
"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest.  From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the   interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not   secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be   deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used   for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered   personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you.  Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C.  In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product.  Putting the facts aside, I often use the line ""don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog."" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story."