vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"All life insurance is pretty much the same when it comes to cost. You can run the numbers over certain time period and the actual cost of insurance is about the same. A simplified way to explain life insurance and the differences between them below: The 3 characteristics of life insurance: There are 5 popular types of life insurance and they are: Term Whole Life Universal Life Variable Universal Life Indexed Universal Life But first, one must understand the most basic life insurance which is called Annual Renewable Term: This is a policy that covers 1 year and is renewable every year after. The cost of insurance typically increases each year as the insured ages. So for every year of coverage, your premium increases like in the simplified illustration above. This is the building block of all life insurance, term or permanent. There is no cash value; all premium goes to the cost of insurance. This is an ART that spans over a longer time period than 1 year (say 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years). All the cost is added together then divided by the number of years of coverage to give a level premium payment for the duration of the policy. The longest coverage offered these days is 30 years. There is no cash value; all premium goes to the cost of insurance. The premium is fixed (level) for the term specified. If the policy comes to an end and the owner wishes to renew it, it will be at higher premium. This can be seen in the simplified illustration above for a 15-year term policy. Because life insurance gets very expensive as you reach old age, life insurance companies came up with a way to make it affordable for the consumer wishing to have coverage for their entire lifespan. They allow you to have interest rate crediting on the cash value account inside the policy. To have cash value in the first place, you must pay premiums that are more than the cost of insurance. The idea is: your cash value grows over time to help pay for the cost of insurance in the later stages of the policy, where the cost of insurance is typically higher. This is illustrated above in an overly simplified way. This is a permanent life insurance policy that is designed to cover the lifespan of the insured. There is cash value that is credited on a fixed interest rate specified by the insurance company (typically 3-5%).
There is no need for micropayments, monthly payments, or harassment.  A loan agreement can be drafted that your mom makes one payment annually to you instead of monthly payments. Depending on what she (and you) might be comfortable  with, this payment could be interest only, or partly interest and part repayment  of principal.  Or you can set it up so that there is a balloon payment due when  the loan terminates (say in five years' time) and she pays back the entire  principal and accumulated interest. If you trust her to pay back the money,  you don't need to ask for collateral or security, and you don't need to turn the debt over to a collection agency or send large men with baseball bats to call on Mom. If you just want mom to return the principal when she is ready to so so, and don't really want to charge her interest, then set up the loan to require annual payment of interest only (and the entire principal at  the end of the agreement). Then, each year, a few days before the  interest payment is due, send her a check for the interest due as a gift.  Mom deposits the check in her account and sends back the interest payment to you. So, no harm, no foul: you have  made her a gift (presumably less than the $13K exemption), she has paid you interest, but there is no net transfer of money, and as far as the IRS zebras are concerned, this is a legitimate loan. Do keep copies of the paperwork, though, and be sure to report the interest payment on your income tax returns as income to you. By extension, if you don't really want the money back, set up the loan so that the annual payment is $13K and is part the annual interest due and part the principal until the loan is paid off.
"This summer I used a loan from my 401(k) to help pay for the down payment of a new house. We planned on selling a Condo a few months later, so we only needed the loan for a short period but wanted to keep monthly payments low since we would be paying two mortgages for a few months. I also felt like the market might take a dip in the future, so I liked the idea of trying to cash out high and buy back low (spoiler alert: this didn't happen). So in July 2017 I withdrew $17,000 from my account (Technically $16,850.00 principal and $150 processing fee) at an effective 4.19% APR (4% rate and then the fee), with 240 scheduled payments of $86.00 (2 per month for 10 years). Over the lifetime of the loan the total finance charge was $3,790, but that money would be paid back into my account. I was happy with the terms, and it helped tide things over until the condo was sold a few months later. But then I decided to change jobs, and ended up having to pay back the loan ~20 weeks after it was issued (using the proceeds from the sale of the condo). During this time the market had done well, so when I paid back the funds the net difference in shares that I now owned (including shares purchased with the interest payments) was $538.25 less than today's value of the original count of shares that were sold to fund the loan. Combined with the $150 fee, the overall ""cost"" of the 20 week loan was about 4.05%. That isn't the interest rate (interest was paid back to my account balance), but the value lost due to the principal having been withdrawn. On paper, my account would be worth that much more if I hadn't withdrawn the money. Now if you extrapolate the current market return into 52 weeks, you can think of that loan having an APR ""cost"" of around 10.5% (Probably not valid for a multi year calculation, but seems accurate for a 12 month projection). Again, that is not interest paid back to the account, but instead the value lost due to the money not being in the account.
"You can use the 6900 to make an investment. Or to buy something. That's why people keep reminding you that you could make interest. Because most people think of either 7200 now or paying the same 7200 over time. So you could just be storing the 7200 under the mattress until you pay it out. Obviously in that case, inflation doesn't matter (""is not applicable""). You've given up the use of the 7200 from the beginning. Think of it instead as 7200 now and twenty-three payments of 300 each. So 14,100 total. Then you can spend 6900 on something else at the beginning or spend 300 a month on other things. The difference between spending 6900 now and 300 in each of twenty-three months would be measured in inflation. Of course, this requires you to have both 7200 now and an income stream producing at least 300 a month. Another way of doing things is to take 6900 and invest it. Each month you remove 300 and use it to make a payment. We're now back to just one 7200, plus the interest over time. I would argue that this is still an inflation advantage. It's just that instead of spending the money, you invested it. And that of course is your prerogative. The point being that you would not have that opportunity if you paid up front. Now to calculate the difference in monthly payments of 300 euro using the above webpage what should I do? As already said, you would have to calculate twenty-three values and then sum them with the 300 you pay up front in the monthly. There are other ways to calculate it, if you are not using that particular tool. For example, there are formulas to calculate the net present value of an annuity. E.g. see Investopedia. Where: P = the present value of an annuity stream PMT = the dollar amount of each annuity payment r = the inflation rate n = the number of periods in which payments will be made Investopedia talks about interest rates, but you can put inflation there for this purpose. In that case, r might better be called the ""discount rate"".
Let's break this into two parts, the future value of the initial deposit, and the future value of the payments: D(1 + i)n For the future value of the payments A((1+i)n-1) / i) Adding those two formulas together will give you the amount of money that should be in your account at the end.  Remember to make the appropriate adjustments to interest rate and the number of payments.  Divide the interest rate by the number of periods in a year (four for quarterly, twelve for monthly), and multiply the number of periods (p) by the same number.  Of course the monthly deposit amount will need to be in the same terms. See also: Annuity (finance theory) - Wikipedia
Long story short, we are currently in a set of asset and credit bubbles across many financial asset categories, driven by the tremendous amount of liquidity created by central banks with 0 interest rates and quantitative easing since 2008. The bitcoin bubble is pure financial speculation, a price increase in the thousands of percents is unsustainable. And the stock bubbles are enormous and exist across all major US indices, and indices abroad like the Nikkei 225.
Depending on the the requirements of the annuity you might be able to pull back to part time for  a semester, thus reducing the bill for that semester. During that semester either get a job that will allow you to save money, or get an internship related to your major. Some of these programs alternate between work semesters and schools semesters.  Many colleges have an installment plan, where the payments are due every month, they usually spread them out over a 10 month period. Most only charge a nominal fee to set up the plan. This would reduce the amount of money needed to bridge the gap to only a portion of the tuition payments for the spring semester. You could also live off campus to save money. There is no guarantee it will be cheaper, but because the costs aren't fixed and due at the start of the semester, you might be able to stretch your budget.
The point of what you heard is likely that gold is thought by some to hold its value well, when the money market would provide negative interest rates. These negative interest rates are a sign of deflation, where cash money is worth more in the future than it is today.  Normally, under inflation, cash money is worth less in the future than it is today. Under 'normal' circumstances where inflation exists, interest paid by the bank on money held there generally keeps up with inflation + a little bit extra. Now, we are seeing many banks offering interest rates in the negatives, which is an acknowledgement of the fact that money will be worth more in the future than it is today. So in that sense, holding physical gold 'fights' deflation [or, negative interest rates], in the same way that holding physical cash does [because if you hold onto a $10k bundle of bills, in 10 years you can walk into a bank and it will be worth $10k in future dollars - which in a deflationary market would be more than it is worth today]. Some view gold as being better at doing this than just holding cash, but that discussion gets into an analysis of the value of paper money as a currency, which is outside the scope of this answer.  Suffice to say, I do not personally like the idea of buying gold as an investment, but some do, and partly for this reason.
I think we can both agree to these two assertions:  1) Utterly nonesensical amounts of waste exist in the federal government.  2) The postal service will never be closed or privatized. The government is going to keep funding it until mail volume diminishes to 0, and even then they will fight and clamour to justify its existence.  The question is not where does government waste exist. I could punch out of work right now and fill your screen with example after example of feel good government projects that do more harm than good, and we both know it. The question is why. Why is government waste created and why does it persist?
Yes there is an inverse relationship but that's how it's meant to work.  Debt creates money. Banks do lend out customers savings for return interest as the bank can make a profit rather than the cash just sitting there. The process of Lending pumps money into the economy that wouldn't be there otherwise so it creates money. The banks will either have a cash deficit or surplus at end of each day and either need to borrow from other banks to balance their books or if in surplus lend to other banks to make interest because that's more profitable than holding the cash surplus. The overnight cash rate then determines interest rates we pay.    High private debt occurs when lots of people are investing &amp; buying things so there is stimulation and growth in the economy. A lot more tax is being paid in these periods so government debt is lower because they are getting lots of tax money. Also To stimulate the economy into this growth period the government usually sells off large cash bonds (lowering their debt) to release cash into the economy, the more cash available the less banks have to borrow to cover deficits on overnight cash market and the lower interest rates will be. Lower interest rates = more borrowing and higher Private debt.   The government can't let growth get out of control as they don't want high inflation so they do the opposite to slow down growth, I.e buy up cash bonds and take money out of economy causing higher interest rates and less borrowing = More debt for government less for private.
The bank number is part of the IBAN number, so the SWIFT code is actually redundant. It is still required for international payments because every country has its own payment infrastructure. The SWIFT code helps to route it to the correct region without having to know every single bank in that region. It is usually not needed for national payments, but banks ask for it anyway so that both national and international payments follow the same process.  When you enter a wrong SWIFT, then this is what will happen: When the SWIFT code does exist, then: In the internet age, it should be possible for all of this to happen within seconds, but it will still take a few days because... reasons. IBAN numbers are globally unique, so when you entered the correct IBAN there is no chance that the money will arrive on a different account than you intended to (Also, the first two digits after the country code are a checksum, so when you accidently make a typo while entering an IBAN, there is a 99% chance that this will be detected automatically).
The purpose of this spammy Motley Fool video ad is to sell their paid newsletter products.  Although the beginning of the video promises to tell you this secret trick for obtaining additional Social Security payments, it fails to do so.  (Luckily, I found a transcript of the video, so I didn't have to watch it.) What they are talking about is the Social Security File and Suspend strategy.  Under this strategy, one spouse files for social security benefits early (say age 66).  This allows the other spouse to claim spousal benefits.  Immediately after that is claimed, the first spouse suspends his social security benefits, allowing them to grow until age 70, but the other spouse is allowed to continue to receive spousal benefits.   Congress has ended this loophole, and it will no longer be available after May 1, 2016.
There are many situations where injecting a certain amount of cash at the right time may reap rewards far in excess of the value of the cash injected. For example, if someone who needs a car to get to work gets in a wreck and that person does not have ready money to make it driveable may have no choice but to secure very expensive financing.  Receipt of $1000 in ready money to repair the car may thus save the person from having to take out a loan that would cost $1200 or more to repay. While the insurance business has sufficient overhead that it is unlikely that insurance would generally have a positive net expectation even considering such factors, it is at least theoretically possible that insurance could have a positive expected value for both the insurer and the insured (and in some cases it may have positive expected values for both parties in practice as well).
At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low.  For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question.  Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up.  So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement.  A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap.  Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it.  They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses.  That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require.  That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly.  If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible.
"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called ""Dealer Cash"" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked.
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. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris mentioned. There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity. It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment.
It is considered a powerful antioxidant that prevents damage to the DNA of cells, always exposed to free radicals and solar radiation. Another function of vitamin c benefits against skin aging is the ability to increase the synthesis of collagen, a very abundant protein in the skin that decreases over the years. It is also non-irritating bleach that at the same time reduces fine lines and wrinkles, minimizes redness and restores flexibility.