vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
That gives you returns of $960 for the Roth and TIA cases and a return of $1280 for the Trad case. Pay no annual taxes on the Roth or Trad cases. Pay 25% marginal tax on the TIA case, that's $240. Balances after one year: Roth: $12,960 Trad: $17,280 TIA: $12,720 Inflation decreases the value of the Roth and TIA cases by $360 in the Roth and TIA cases. And by $480 in the Trad case. Ten years of inflationary gains (cumulative): Roth: $5354 Trad: $7138 TIA: $4872 Net buildup (including inflationary gains): Roth: $25,907 Trad: $34,543 TIA: $23,168 Real value (minus inflation to maintain spending power): Roth: $20,554 Trad: $27,405 TIA: $18,109 Now take out $3000 per year, after taxes. That's $3000 in the the Roth and TIA cases, as you already paid the taxes. In the Trad case, that's $4000 because you have to pay 25% tax which will cost $1000. Do that for five years and the new balances are Roth: $9931 Trad: $13,241 TIA: $5973 The TIA will run out in the 8th year. The Roth and Trad will both run out in the 9th year. So to summarize. The Traditional IRA initially grows the most. The TIA grows the least. The TIA is tax-advantaged over the Traditional IRA at that point, but it still runs out first. The Roth IRA grows about the same as the Traditional after taxes are included. Note that I left out the matching contribution from a 401k. That would help both those options. I assumed that the marginal tax rate would be 25% on the Traditional IRA distributions. It might be only 15%, which would increase the advantage of the Traditional IRA. I assumed that the 15% rate on capital returns would still be true for the entire period. If that is increased, the TIA option gets a lot worse. Inflation could be higher or lower.
"Shem - I recommend looking into online banks or credit unions. I know ally has around ~0.8% rate on their savings accounts NOT MMS. Meaning you don't need a ~$2,500 minimum balance so your money is COMPLETELY liquid. CD's and MMC/S are worth next to nothing, and if you ask me are pointless with the minimum balances they require. Ally also reimburses you for all ATM withdrawal fees, meaning you have complete access to all your money, with next to no minimum, with at least some % back that is comparable to CD rates currently offered. CD's are around ~1.8-2% with tens of thousands of dollars (50-75k+) which isn't worth keeping ""liquid"",if you would consider CD's liquid (because you can withdraw on a penalty or have laddered CD's), unless you're rich and that's your emergency fund. If I were you I would look into a retirement account, and saving what you need to in an Emergency Fund. Check out a 401(k), Traditional IRA or Roth IRA. They each have their benefits and you need to assess your financial situation before picking one. I would recommend spending a great deal of time researching this before making your decision, because switching from one to another could cost you, depending on your choice. This is, of course, if you live in the U.S."
I can think of three things you might do: Talk to a fee-only adviser. As the comments suggest, this would only be one or two sessions to lay out what all you have, establish what you want it to do, and write a plan that you are comfortable carrying out yourself. What do your 401k and Roth IRA look like? If you mean for this money to be long-term, then your retirement portfolio might be a good place to start. I don't currently own them, but one of my personally hobby horses is I-Series Savings Bonds, commonly called I Bonds. Even in the current low interest rate environment, they are a good deal relative to everything else out there. I summarized this more fully in my answer to another question. You can invest up to $10,000 per SSN per year, and the interest rate is the sum of a fixed rate plus a floating rate based on CPI. Currently the fixed rate is 0%, but the floating rate is better than what you can get from most other cash-like instruments.
There are multiple reasons why this may have happened: 1.) I couldn't tell in your question whether or not you had already paid off the loan before requesting the rollover. But if the loan was defaulted - then the $9k left in your account is not distributable, but is there to pay back the remaining balance on your loan. The $9k will be treated as income, and will be taxed - you will receive  a 1099-R detailing the taxes you'll owe. I don't know why this wasn't done when they did your rollover distribution. Typically it all happens at the same time - but it can vary depending on the administrator. 2.) Do you get some type of safe harbor discretionary match, or profit sharing contribution? If so - perhaps this contribution was made after your account was liquidated. So now there is residual money in your account and it is treated as a new distribution, which incurs a new $60 distribution fee. 3.) Stock - if some of your investments were in stock - these take a few extra days to liquidate. Typically a TPA/Recordkeeper would wait until ALL of the funds are liquidated before issuing the rollover. But some companies may be shady and do it separately - incurring an additional $60 distribution fee. If this was the case - I would go to your former employer's HR and tell them whats happening and to start looking for a new 401(k) administrator! I hope this helps :-) Good luck!
"Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the ""regular"" 401(k) no matter which one you contribute to.  The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k). So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account. Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side."
There is no Roth 401(k) match. Or to be clear, when an employee deposits to a Roth 401(k), the company match goes into the traditional, pre-tax 401(k) account.  That money is subject to both tax and 10% penalty on early withdrawal.
If you have kids, there are also 529 funds to consider. They aren't pre-tax, but do have tax advantages. If your employer doesn't have a 401k, chances are they don't offer Health Savings Accounts, but that is another thing to look at.
Both are close, but two notes - amiable or not, I'd rather have a deal that ends now, and nothing is hanging over my head to get or pay money on a future sale.  401(k) money is usually pre-tax, so releasing me from $10K of home equity is of more value than the $10K in a 401(k) that would net me $7K or so.  As I commented to Joe, I'd focus on valuation. If your house is similar to those in the neighborhood, you might easily value it. If unique, the valuation may be tough. I'd spend a bit on an appraiser or two.
If you're maxing out your 401k, just save in tax-efficient investments like stocks and tax efficient funds.  If you live in a state with income taxes, look at municipal bond funds for some tax-free income. In 2011, be careful with bond funds and look for short duration funds.
"Investopedia probably should change the wording to ""tax free"" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. ""Tax advantaged"" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases."
Roth IRAs divide your withdrawal into 3 categories: Contributions, Conversions, and Earnings. This is significant, because each have different tax consequences and the order of withdrawal is dictated by tax law. You can withdraw your contributions in less than 5 years for any reason (home buyer or not). You cannot withdraw your conversions or earnings without waiting 5 years unless you pay the 10% penalty.  The home buyer exemption is only after the 5 years are met. Further detail found on the motley fool: home purchase exemption, distributions, early withdrawals.
So in your case it was a 35% overall ""tax"" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage."
"If you dig deeper and look at the original study, what's being measured is ""retirement-plan participation"": specifically, money in 401(k) plans and IRAs.  This omits every other possible source of retirement money: things such as general savings, non-retirement investments, property ownership, pensions, etc. As an extreme example, I know someone who's retired with property worth a million dollars, another million dollars in stock, a pension providing thousands of dollars a month plus health insurance, and not one penny of what the study would consider ""retirement savings"". Yes, the average American family is under-prepared for retirement.  But it's nowhere near as bad as the article makes it sound."
Broadly speaking, a traditional account is better if you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement (see for instance here).  When you put the money in now, you pay no taxes on it at your current (high) rate; when you take it out, you will pay taxes at your future (low) rate.  You push the taxes onto your future, lower-rate self. This is, crucially, assuming you can deduct the contribution on the traditional IRA.  If you can't (e.g., because you have an employer-sponsored plan and make too much money), the traditional IRA doesn't really gain you anything (see here). That is the basic story, but there are some other differences to consider as well.  For instance, if your income is too high, you cannot contribute to a Roth at all.  Also, with a traditional IRA you're required to start taking money out at a certain age, whereas with a Roth you never have to; this can make a difference if you have other retirement income and want to leave the money in the Roth (e.g., to pass on to your heirs without having to pay an intermediate tax at withdrawal). On a more speculative level, there is the possibility that tax rates may change between now and your retirement; some people try to hedge against this possibility by strategically allocating their retirement assets based on whether they think tax rates will rise or fall.
I would wait, and invest that money in a Roth IRA. Because taxes are paid on the contributions to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time, tax and penalty-free. In addition, you can withdraw contributions and earning to purchase your first home.
IBM is famous for spending lots of money on stock buyback to keep the stock price higher. The technique works, and investors in growth stocks generally prefer a high market prices to a taxable dividend payment. Dividends are ways to return shareholder value when a company generates a lot of cash, but doesn't have alot of growth. Electric and gas companies are a classic example of high-dividend companies.
This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-weekahead-idUSKCN1AY25X) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Such a decline may be good news for investors worried that stock prices have risen too far.  &gt; The expected earnings in that valuation are adjusted, not GAAP. To the extent that companies use non-GAAP accounting less this year than in recent years, investors may feel more comfortable paying higher valuations for their stocks.  &gt; Still, that 10-percent difference between GAAP net income and the net income companies and many investors focus on is much smaller than in 2015, when the difference was 33 percent, the largest gap since at least 2009.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6up3p2/shift_from_nongaap_bottom_lines_could_be_good_for/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~194462 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **company**^#1 **Investors**^#2 **GAAP**^#3 **more**^#4 **income**^#5"
One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends.  For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.
It's safe to say that for mature companies, with profits that have been steady, and steadily growing, that a multiple of earnings can come into play. It's not identical between companies or even industries, but for consumer staples, for instance, you'll see a clustering around a certain P/E.  On the other hand, there are companies like FaceBook, 18 months ago, trading at 20, now at 70 with a 110 P/E. Did the guys valuing the stock simply get it wrong then or is it wrong now?  Contrast this with KO (Coca-cola) a 20 P/E and 3.2% dividend, PG (Proctor and Gamble) 21 P/E, 3% dividend.  Funny though, a $1M valuation for $50K in profit may be Shark ridiculous, but a $1B valuation on a $50M company with great prospects, i.e. a pipeline of new products in growing markets, is a steal.  Disclosure I have no positions in the mentioned stocks.
This site has the best information I could find, other than a Bloomberg terminal:    Quantumonline.com QUANTUMONLINE.COM SECURITY DESCRIPTION:  SCANA Corp., 2009 Series A, 7.70% Enhanced Junior Subordinated Notes, issued in $25 denominations, redeemable at the issuer's option on or after 1/30/2015 at $25 per share plus accrued and unpaid interest, and maturing 1/30/2065 which may be extended to 1/30/2080. Interest distributions of 7.70% ($1.925) per annum are paid quarterly on 1/30, 4/30, 7/30 & 10/30 to holders of record on the record date which is the business day prior to the payment date (NOTE: the ex-dividend date is at least 2 business days prior to the record date). Distributions paid by these debt securities are interest and as such are NOT eligible for the preferential 15% to 20% tax rate on dividends and are also NOT eligible for the dividend received deduction for corporate holders. Units are expected to trade flat, which means accrued interest will be reflected in the trading price and the purchasers will not pay and the sellers will not receive any accrued and unpaid interest. The Notes are unsecured and subordinated obligations of the company and will rank equally with all existing and future unsecured and subordinated indebtedness of the company. See the IPO prospectus for further information on the debt securities by clicking on the ‘Link to IPO Prospectus’ provided below.
"The company was paying ""only"" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be ""too high,"" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out ""most"" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being ""stingy,"" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10."
"You've described the process fairly well.  It's tough to answer a question that ultimately is 'how is this fair?' It's fair in that it's part of the known risk. And for the fact that it applies to all, pretty equally. In general, this is not very common. (No, I don't have percents handy, I'm just suggesting from decades of trading it's probably occurring less than 10% of the time). Why? Because there's usually more value to the buyer in simply selling the option and using the proceeds to buy the stock. The option will have 2 components,  its intrinsic value (""in the money"") and the time premium. It takes the odd combination of low-to-no time premium, but desire of the buyer to own the stock that makes the exercise desirable."
First, the earnings are per year, not per quarter.  Why would you expect to get a 100% per year return on your money? The earnings can go one of two ways. They can be retained, reinvested in the company, or they can be distributed as a dividend. So, the 'return' on this share is just over 5%, which is competitive with the rate you'd get on fixed investments. It's higher, in fact, as there's the risk that comes with holding the stock.
About 3.87% annualized, actually. But hey, let's get a head start and since the DOW is a price-weighted average, we could swap out the lowest priced stocks on the DOW (i.e. Pfizer and Cisco) with Berkshire Hathaway A shares and Amazon. Presto! The DOW is dumb.
A company generally sells a portion of its ownership in an IPO, with  existing investors retaining some ownership.  In your example, they believe that the entire company is worth $25MM, so in order to raise $3MM it is issuing stock representing 12% of the ownership stake (3/25), which dilutes some or all of the existing stockholders' claims.
Stock Keeping Unit. An inventory item. In this case, an item on the menu. The commentor is saying that they have too many different dishes available. No one can be great at all things. When you have a lot of different dishes, one of two things have to happen: either you have a larger kitchen staff to handle the greater variety or the quality of your overall food declines. Applebees has chosen the second option.
"This makes sense  If a common item is in stock at a local retailer, I will buy it  If it is out of stock, or uncommon..I always buy online  I find it funny when the dude behind the counter says..""we don't have it, but I can order it for you""  I say ""I can order it myself"""
"You seem to prefer to trade like I do: ""Buy low, sell high."" But there are some people that prefer a different way: ""Buy high, sell higher."" A stock that has ""just appreciated"" is ""in motion."" That is a ""promise"" (not always kept) that it will continue to go higher. Some people want stocks that not only go higher, but also SOON. The disadvantage of ""buy low, sell high"" is that the stock can stay low for some time. So that's a strategy for patient investors like you and me."
Anti-Facebook circlejerk continues. Where were these articles before it went public ? It makes it seem like bad for common investors when in reality they couldn't even get in on the stock. It was the institutional funds and connected investors who bought the stock at 38. The common market actually was the one that didn't support the stock once it went public.   If anyone, it's the institutional funds that got screwed.
This security looks like it will require patience for it to pay off. The 200 day moving average looks as if it will soon cross over the 20 day moving average. When that happens the security can be said to be in a bull run.  http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=UWTI&p=D&yr=1&mn=6&dy=0&id=p10888728027 However, this is just speculation... trying to make money via 'buy low, sell high' as I have stated previously, you have about a 25% chance of buying at the low and selling at the high. Better to buy into a fund that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Such as: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/uncategorized/other/pgf-invesco-powershares-financial-preferred-portfolio/ http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=PGF&p=D&yr=1&mn=6&dy=0&id=p59773821284
Other than being reduced to clear as others have suggested quite a few get sold to large motor stores. You can often go in and find last years model with around delivery mileage at a very knocked down rate because most people would prefer the latest model direct from the dealer. Doing this allows dealers to clear old stock incredibly quickly so they can promote the newest model exclusively.
December, 7, 2011 ( 01:40 pm) :- Reliance industries buy which is chain by Mr. Mukesh Ambani, company planes to offer 4 G services as a low Cost by which they help the growth of Indians.  Company plans to launch their tab around Rs 3500 &amp; with data download or uploading facility for 10 Rs of every 1 GB.  If company able to provided all there technology, Reliance will be the next year favorite stock for many investors.  But now, Reliance have strong resistance at Rs XXX &amp; support at Rs XXX above this trend bullish side.
Yes you can do that and it it wise to do so. However, you should make sure that the general trend of the stock is upwards and you buy during a trought in the uptrend. So basically if the stock is making higher highs and higher lows on the daily or weekly charts, then you would want to buy around one of the higher lows before the ex-dividend date. If the stock is making lower lows and lower highs, then it is in a downtrend, so never buy in this instance. It is better to miss out on a dividend of $1 rather than to buy just for this $1 dividend and lose $5 or more when the price continues to drop further.
I don't care for this solution. I would prefer a tiny tax per transactions. Should keep the churn down, be almost unnoticeable to aggregate returns and still allow people with legitimate reason to split trades to do so and still liquidate quickly
Stock acquired through a (non-taxable) stock dividend has the same holding period as the stock on which the dividend was paid.