vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The 25% limit for a tax-free lump sum applies to the total you are taking out at that point: if you have £200K and are taking out £100K, you can take out £25K as a tax-free lump sum and use £75K for the annuity. The other £100K stays in your pension. Many people see annuity rates as very low and will want to take on more risk (and reward) by using ""Drawdown"" for at least part of their pension. Essentially, you can designate part of your pension for drawdown, and at that point BCE 1 applies to the money you designate. Once designated, you can start drawing the money out as income, which will be taxed at your normal income tax rate at the time you receive it. Again, you can take 25% as a lump sum at this point which will be subject to BCE 6. There's also an alternative route where you put everything into ""flexi-access drawdown"" without taking any lump sum immediately, and then as you actually withdraw income, 25% is tax-free and the rest is taxed as income. The overall effect is the same, but it gives you more control over when you get the tax-free bit. However, because with drawdown you can actually leave the money in your pension and growing tax-free, there's a further test against the LTA at age 75 under BCE 5A. To avoid double-counting (""prevention of overlap""), the amount left in the drawdown fund at that point is reduced by whatever was previously tested against BCE 1. So if you put £150K into drawdown initially, and it's grown to £200K by age 75, then another £50K will crystallise under BCE 5A. I think that if you put £150K into drawdown initially and it grows by £50K, but you take that out as income so that only £150K (or less) remains at age 75, then the amount crystallising under BCE 5A is nil. Also, when money is in drawdown, you can choose to use it to buy an annuity.
Can you wait until you retire before needing the money? Will you buy your first house sometime in the future? If yes, then favour an RRSP. Remember that you are rewarded by paying less tax for having the foresight and commitment to defer income taxes until your retirement, when you are presumably earning less income. Are your household expenses higher than 28% of your gross income? 35% of your net income? Does making your mortgage payments stress you? Are interest rates lower than their historical norm and an increase would cause you difficulty? If yes, then favour your mortgage. Do you need this money before your retire? Does your TFSA earn more interest than your mortgage costs your? If yes, then favour a TFSA. Does an alternative investment earn more than your TFSA? Can you handle an uptick in your mortgage interest rate? If yes, then favour the alternative investment and not your RRSP, mortgage or TFSA.
No you will not be taxed for the money in account 2. You have already paid for the tax on the money saved. There is no interest earned on the amount and hence it is not taxed. In UK the interest on ISA [Individual Savings Account] is not taxable as well. Hence you may even transfer the money to account 2 that is an ISA and not a current account.
I like Health Savings Accounts.  If you don't spend all the money, it rolls over, and you can withdraw from it tax free after retirement.
But money invested in the retirement plan pays only 15% tax, and so if the investment returns 3.75% / .85 = 4.4% it would give the same effective return. So if you can invest in something that gives returns of at least 4.4% per year, you're better off putting into the retirement plan than paying off the mortgage. There may be other Scottish tax implications I don't know about. As to ""Substantially less paperwork"", I have no idea how much paperwork is involved in putting money into a retirement account in Scotland. Here in the U.S., you basically call a financial management company of one sort or another and say ""hey, I want to open a retirement account with your company"", and they'll prepare most of the forms for you and you just sign them. It could be done with half an hour of your time. Of course the more you research different investment options, etc, the more time it will take. ""More flexible e.g. if I want to retire early"" If there are restrictions on when you can withdraw money from a retirement account and receive that 25% freebie you mentioned, yes, this could be a factor. Again, I don't know Scottish tax law, there may be other considerations. Here in the U.S., there's a 10% tax penalty if you withdraw money from a retirement account before the legal retirement age. Realistically that's a minor issue, if you have money in there for several years the tax benefits will be more than 10%. But yeah, it would be stupid to put money in in December and then take it out the following January and have to pay the 10% penalty. ""Doesn't incur the risk that the government will change the pension rules between now and when I retire"" Maybe. But then laws might change in your favor, too. And as you indicated that your mortgage interest rate could change, there could be risk on that side too. That all comes down to what you think the risks are all around."
Yeah, I agree with you.  He seems to be saying he has no faith in any sector or business at all.  I'm not too sure I'd want someone with that attitude to be a leader, unless it's of my investment club. :)  Good thing everyone doesn't follow his lead - that would pretty much guarantee the collapse.
Good for lazy investors, time-restricted investors, investors with little knowledge, investors who want a hybrid of advice and tools without paying the crazy fees of mutual funds or an advisor. The biggest advantage, is that it is easy, quick and convenient If you have the time and knowledge, this might not be for you
"Once again, this depends entirely on your definition of ""rational"" as it comes to money. The idea that the ""rational"" thing to do with more money than you can spend is to maximize the amount of money you make that you still can't spend is arbitrary, and really comes down an expression of personal values rather than any kind of rationality.  It's not at all inconsistent for Mayweather to feel that the value of making good investments is to demonstrate his ability to make good investments. Again, not about some utility function to maximize value, but about power, success, and telling the world to fuck itself.  Look at the top-voted comment in this thread.   &gt; I have a feeling its because he doesn't know what he's supposed to do with checks.  Then look at this one, down in the middle somewhere below yours:  &gt; Like most fighters, before 2006, he fought under a promo company, Top Rank. He would get his guaranteed purse for fights and that was that. Instead of taking an $8M payday, he decided to cut out the middle man (Bob Arum) and bought out his contract for ~$750K and decided to promote the fights himself (Mayweather promotions). Instead of just getting his purse, he now got a cut of every revenue stream involved in a fight (PPV, Tickets, broadcasting rights, etc.).  Mayweather is saying to the world: ""You look at me and you see some guy who can't even read a cheque. But the joke's on you. I know what I'm doing so much that I can throw away more money than you'll ever make just by not cashing a cheque, and I don't give a fuck.""  He's also a woman-beating asshole, of course."
Womack Investment Advisers is Edmond's premier financial planning service. Offering a full suite of wealth management services, Womack Investment Advisers has you covered for the strategies you need to grow and protect your investments. Call or stop by the website today!
The important followup is what KIND of financial analyst do you want to be? Unless you're doing VaR or advanced quant trading/risk analysis, Excel and VBA will be much more useful for making you excel at the day to day.
CreditKarma review I don't personally use HelloWallet, but I have also heard very good things about it. Independence from financial products is a HUGE thing in the field because so many investment advisers place the firm before the customer (c.f. Too Big To Fail), so having an independent resource is a huge benefit.
“Was it luck? I don’t know, maybe, I’m not sure it really matters,” said Mike Rosen, chief investment officer at Angeles Investment Advisors, who has put money into Och-Ziff’s credit-opportunities fund. “I do want to invest in lucky people -- that’s better than investing with unlucky people.”  OK.
The Motley Fool's How to Invest How To Invest Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor The Intelligent Investor If you like The Intelligent Investor then try Benjamin's Security Analysis.  But that one is not a beginner book.
"NEW &amp; FORTHCOMING  The Death of King Arthur SIMON ARMITAGE  King Arthur comes to vivid life in this gripping poetic translation by the renowned poet and translator.MORE A Random Walk Down Wall Street BURTON G. MALKIEL  ""Almost every list of must-read investment books . . . includes Malkiel's Random Walk."" -BooklistMORE The Rotation Diet MARTIN KATAHN  Lose those unwanted pounds and keep them off once and for all with an easy three-week diet.MORE NORTON CLASSICS  The Feminine Mystique BETTY FRIEDAN, ANNA QUINDLEN  The book that changed the consciousness of a country-and the world.MORE Helter Skelter VINCENT BUGLIOSI, CURT GENTRY  A national bestseller-over 7 million copies sold. ""[A] social document of rare importance.""-The New RepublicMORE The Norton Anthology of English Literature STEPHEN GREENBLATT, M. H. ABRAMS, ALFRED DAVID, ET AL.  Read by millions of students over seven editions, The Norton Anthology of English Literature remains the most trusted undergraduate survey of English literature available and one of the most successful college texts ever published.MORE"
A couple points, first you don't point out what investors you want to invest with, and second BRK.B does not track anything; it is just a very small slice of his entire holdings BRK.A minus the voting rights. One solid way to go would be to buy BRK.B and also a tech ETF like QQQ, or XLK, ..or both.
I recall at the time that people on investment boards were circulating lists of companies audited by AA, as a - quite reliable - indication that they were fraudulent.   I have had a lot of dealings with their offshoot AA Consulting, now known as Accenture. These dealings have not, to put it mildly, given me any reason to think that AA's culture was very ethical. And if you cannot trust an auditor, they are worthless.
"Rod Kagy is a corporate Vice Chairman, and Chairman overseeing five private organizations &amp; has been recognized by a company as one of the ""Top 50 Business Intellectuals in the World""; by Harvard Business Press as one of the ""Top 200 Business Gurus""; by American Express as one of the ""Top Six Business Leaders in the World"" to coach its entrepreneurial clients."
There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.
Lots of bloomberg vids posted on dailymotion.com have interviews with Blackrock analysts.   Looked Blackrock up in wiki. Amazing size:  The company acquired Barclays Global Investors in December 2009, solidifying its position as the largest investment manager in the world.[3] As of June 2011, ***the company has over $3.65 trillion in assets under management.***
he invested in goog.  hes a couple of appl shares away from being a mod on /r/wallstreetbets.    a billionaire investing in an S&amp;P500 company is literally the most mundane shit you can think of.  if thats proof hes (((up to no good))) then i dont know what to even say to that.
Pro tip (I'm a financial advisor): some people aren't lucky enough to have rich parents or relatives who will pay for their education. Those who aren't poor or wealthy are caught in the middle, unable to pay their way and unable to get enough grants to pay their way. Scholarships are never a given. Using debt to increase your intrinsic value is a wise investment.
Linear Title has demonstrated a commitment to philanthropy, both on a corporate and on an individual level. Linear Title believes very strongly in contributing to the community, and that an investment in today’s society is an investment in the future of our nation.Linear Title is pleased to announce that its chief financial officer, Todd Costa, will be joining the board of House of Hope, an organization that works with and advocates for homeless individuals and families.
I would echo @Victor's comments. One book and 1000 web pages doesnt make you a good investor/trader. There are some basic things you should be aware of and read up on There are a few books that I would recommend I have been trading for over 10 years, my dad for over 30 years and we are both continually learning new things. Don't read one book and assume you know it all. Bear in mind that there are always new indicators being thought up and new ways of using and interpreting the same information, so keep reading and educating yourself.
Oh woohooo . . .and its all a great investment AAA . .you have to buy  and when we do . .it goes straight down  because we find the biggest seller was Morgan and Stanley  Yah. . .we know that game really well now . .always buy the good news  Build some fucking public toilets
Here's a few:
The problem with the cash value is that it's really slow to accumulate. For the first many years you'll just be paying premiums which are front loaded until the insurance company gets their money back. Whole life is NOT an investment, regardless of what your 'advisor' says. It's insurance, and expensive insurance at that.
Thank you so much, that means a lot to hear. My uncle I am close with is the CEO of an investment banking company and I have some ambition to try and get into that field.  I just know it is so competitive. But I am also interested in other fields such as financial planning or asset management. But I don't even know yet, I haven't even started my degree and I'm not looking at going back to school until next fall. I'll get in where I fit in I guess.
I feel I should respond to you, if not only for our yin/yang similarity in names. I'm also in finance, or rather, a recent grad, and I can't help but picture you as someone who feels investment banking is the end-all career and doesn't really enjoy the industry that much in the first place. As many people mentioned before, attitude goes a long way, but I think you need to reassess whether you actually like finance or if you're in it just for the money. In either case, the motivation should already be there for you to achieve, so what's stopping you?
You’re missing the point it’s also an investment. People buy them and never sell them. People also lose them. Reducing supply. The fbi seizes them. Pretty sure the ceo of overstock said they will long term hold. If it’s true they turned thousands into hundreds of millions.
If you just buy a few lotto tickets normally, then no, it's not going to be a good investment, as @Jasper has shown. However, there are certain scenarios where you can get a positive expected value from a lottery. In 2012, it was revealed that some MIT students found a scheme to game the Massachusetts state lottery.  The game, called Cash WinFall, had a quirk in the rules: the jackpot prize was capped at $2 million.  Any money in the jackpot beyond $2 million would increase the payout of the consolation prizes.  Thus, the game would sometimes have a positive expected value.  The return on investment was 15% to 20% — enough for the participants to quit their jobs. This specific loophole is no longer available: a cap was placed on the number of tickets sold per store, then the game was discontinued altogether. Another possible strategy is to buy enough tickets to nearly assure a win, as one investment group did in 1992.  Given a large enough jackpot, this strategy can yield a positive expected value, but not a guaranteed profit. Caveats include: Or, you might be a genius and exploit a flaw in the lottery's pseudorandom number generator, as one statistician did in an Ontario scratch-off lottery in 2011.
The most likely explanation is, as you say, that the letter was automatically generated a day or two before you met with your advisor. Assuming that your advisor is competent, they will probably execute the instructions you gave them at the meeting. The letter said you had ten days to change the investment, and your advisor should be able to do it in that time. To be on the safe side, since people have been known to forget things, I would call your advisor and tell them you got the letter, and check they are going to do what you decided. I would then follow it with a polite email, just saying that you both decided at your meeting on such-and-such a date to go with the three month plan. If that doesn't happen you can point to the email as evidence. Don't panic about this. Even though the bank says you are 'locked in' to the decision, if an advisor makes a mistakes these decisions are in fact reversible, with the advisor paying any penalty.
On a lighter note, when I take the S&P data for 1871-2012 (I know, no S&P back then, but it's Schiller's data) I get average 40 year returns of 44X, similar to the author's conclusion, $1K growing to $44K. But, the Standard deviation is 28. So the high end of +1 STDEV is $72K, not the author's $166K. Although, the low end 44-28=16 comes close to his $14K figure. $16K is a 7.18% long term return which today doesn't look bad. When the article was written, the author was looking at a 6% short term risk free rate."
"The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to ""private"" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, ""gross,"" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the ""net"" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the ""just under 3% a year"" GDP growth during that time."
It only makes sense to try to beat the average if you are really excited about stocks (it is your job or it is your primary hobby) and you have enough capital where getting that extra +3% return over the average is significant (otherwise, just work more on your day job and you'll make more money through wages). I really cannot stress the last point enough, I know some people who are very smart and they do a lot of research on the market, and they get pretty good percentage returns. So you have to be cheap as hell or rich as hell before it makes sense to invest your own money. Otherwise, you'll spend 20-30 hours a week researching to make a few thousand dollars more than the index over a year (which consequently gets spent on celebratory drinking or something, so it never compounds). Not a wise way to spend your time."
Short answer: Not likely. Long answer: As a rule of thumb, over the long run if you are generating 20% compounded returns on your money consistently, you are doing very good.  Since in the average case your 10k would compound to $61.4k YoY, you are very unlikely to be rich in a decade starting with 10k.
&gt; Indeed, the most popular of the funds, the Barclays iPath fund, known broadly by its ticker symbol VXX, has since its inception averaged a yearly return of negative 58 percent, according to FactSet.  &gt; Or look at it this way: If an investor bought VXX when it came to market in 2009 and held onto it until now, that investor would have lost 99 percent of his investment.  perfect for /r/wallstreetbets !
"One common rule of thumb: you can probably get 4% or better returns on your investments ('""typical market rate of return is 8%, derate to allow for inflation and off years). Figure out what kind of income you will want in retirement and divide by 0.04 to get the savings you need to accumulate to support that.   This doesn't allow for the fact that your needs are also going to increase with inflation; you can make a guess at that and use an inflated needs estimate.  Not sophisticated,  not precise, but it's a quick and dirty ballpark estimate. And sometimes it's surprisingly close to what a proper model would say."
"Yes. The definition of unreasonable shows as ""not guided by or based on good sense."" 100% years require a high risk. Can your one stock double, or even go up three fold? Sure, but that would likely be a small part of your portfolio. Overall, long term, you are not likely to beat the market by such high numbers.  That said, I had 2 years of returns well over 100%. 1998, and 1999. The S&P was up 26.7% and 19.5%, and I was very leverage in high tech stock options. As others mentioned, leverage was key. (Mark used the term 'gearing' which I think is leverage). When 2000 started crashing, I had taken enough off the table to end the year down 12% vs the S&P -10%, but this was down from a near 50% gain in Q1 of that year. As the crash continued, I was no longer leveraged and haven't been since. The last 12 years or so, I've happily lagged the S&P by a few basis points (.04-.02%).  Also note, Buffet has returned an amazing 15.9%/yr on average for the last 30 years (vs the S&P 11.4%). 16% is far from 100%. The last 10 year, however, his return was a modest 8.6%, just .1% above the S&P."
Factoring in the odds of winning (1 in 292.2 million), the expected return on a $2 ticket is between $1.79 at the high end, and $1.35 at the low end.  Your odds of winning are drastically reduced if you don't play (/s), and your expected return depends on what your choose to do with that $2.
The sum of the dividend yield plus capital growth is called total return. In your examples, you get to a total return of 7% through several different (and theoretically equivalent) paths. That is the right way of thinking.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://erikrood.com/Posts/college_roi_.html) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The main financial benefit of attending college is the earnings differential received by a college graduate over a high school graduate; Payscale provides 20-year return on investment figures for exactly that.  &gt; Below I&amp;#039;ll compare the ROI of college to the return generated from simply joining the workforce after high school, but investing college tuition costs* into the stock market.  &gt; As shown, on average, forgoing college costs, investing that money in equities, and beginning work would generate significantly higher returns than going to college.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ffhf6/youd_make_more_money_skipping_college_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~136971 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **college**^#1 **high**^#2 **return**^#3 **ROI**^#4 **tuition**^#5"
It depends how much risk you're prepared to accept. The short-term risk-free rate of return at present is something in the vicinity of 0.1% (three month US treasuries are currently yielding 0.08%), so anything paying a higher rate on money that's accessible quickly will involve some degree of risk -- the higher the rate then the higher the risk.