input
stringlengths 14
166
| output
stringlengths 3
17k
| instruction
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
Get interest on $100K by spending only $2K using FOREX rollovers? | I'm smart enough to know that the answer to your questions is 'no'. There is no arbitrage scenario where you can trade currencies and be guaranteed a return. If there were, the thousands of PhD's and quants at hedge funds like DEShaw and Bridgewater would have already figured it out. You're basically trying to come up with a scenario that is risk free yet yields you better than market interest rates. Impossible. I'm not smart enough to know why, but my guess is that your statement "I only need $2k margin" is incorrect. You only need $2k as capital, but you are 'borrowing' on margin the other 98k and you'll need to pay interest on that borrowed amount, every day. You also run the risk of your investment turning sour and the trading firm requiring a higher margin. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Get interest on $100K by spending only $2K using FOREX rollovers? | No free lunch You cannot receive risk-free interest on more money than you actually put down. The construct you are proposing is called 'Carry Trade', and will yield you the interest-difference in exchange for assuming currency risk. Negative expectation In the long run one would expect the higher-yielding currency to devalue faster, at a rate that exactly negates the difference in interest. Net profit is therefore zero in the long run. Now factor in the premium that a (forex) broker charges, and now you may expect losses the size of which depends on the leverage chosen. If there was any way that this could reliably produce a profit even without friction (i.e. roll-over, transaction costs, spread), quants would have already arbitraged it away. Intransparancy Additionaly, in my experience true long-term roll-over costs in relation to interest are a lot harder to compute than, for example, the cost of a stock transaction. This makes the whole deal very intransparant. As to the idea of artificially constructing a USD/USD pair: I regret to tell you that such a construct is not possible. For further info, see this question on Carry Trade: Why does Currency Carry Trade work? | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Get interest on $100K by spending only $2K using FOREX rollovers? | I work at a FOREX broker, and can tell you that what you want to do is NOT possible. If someone is telling you it is, they're lying. You could (in theory) make money from the SWAP (the interest you speak of is called SWAP) if you go both short and long on the same currency, but there are various reasons why this never works. Furthermore, I don't know of any brokers that are paying positive SWAP (the interest you speak of is called SWAP) on any currency right now. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Get interest on $100K by spending only $2K using FOREX rollovers? | Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Make your money work for you | First of all, never is too late to develop good habits. So, you know what you want to do and you are going about the how now... First, you should pay off any consumer debt except from mortgage which should be planned for. Prioritize your consumer debt (credit cards, consumer loans, etc) according to the interest rates, starting with the one with the highest interest and going to the one with the lowest one. Because you should make quite the investments to pay off this interest debt and still make a profit. Second, you should start saving some money. The 10% rule of thumb is a good one and for starters having aside the money you need to get by for at least 3 months is quite okay. As they say, cash is king. Now, that you actually realize the amount you can spare each month to start investing (assuming you had to do something of the aforementioned) it's time to see the risk you are comfortable taking. Different risk-taking views lead to different investing routes. So, assuming once again that you are risk averse (having a newborn baby and all) and that you want something more than just a savings account, you can start looking for things that don't require much attention (even more so if you are going on you own about it) such as low risk mutual funds, ETF (Exchange Traded Funds) and index funds to track indexes like FTSE and S&P500 (you could get an average annual return of 10-12%, just google "top safe etfs" for example and you could take a quick look at credible sites like forbes etc). Also, you can take a look at fixed income options such as government bonds. Last but not least, you can always get your pick at some value companies stocks (usually big companies that have proven track record, check warren buffet on this). You should look for stocks that pay dividends since you are in for the long run and not just to make a quick buck. I hope I helped a bit and as always be cautious about investing since they have some inherent risks. If you don't feel comfortable with making your own investment choices you should contact a specialist like a financial planner or advisor. No matter what the case may be on this, you should still educate yourself on this... just to get a grasp on this. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Make your money work for you | In addition to the other excellent answers here, check out Mr. Money Mustache's site, it's based in the US but the basics still hold here in the UK. Another great site is the Monevator which is UK based and gives some great information on passive investing. Well done on getting to this point at your age - you've got plenty of time for the miracle of compound interest to work for you. EDIT: Once you have any existing debts paid off, take a look at passive/index investing. This could be a good way to make your £150 work for you by capturing the gains of the stock market. Invest it long-term (buy and hold) to make the most of the compound interested effect and over time that money will become something substantial - especially if you can increase payments over time as your income increases. You could also look at reducing your outgoings as recommended on the Mustache site linked above so you can increase your monthly investment amount. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Make your money work for you | Thats a very open question, Depends on the risk you are willing to take with the money, or the length of time you are willing sit on it, or if you have a specific goal like buying a house. Some banks offer high(ish) rate savings accounts http://www.bankaccountsavings.co.uk/calculator with a switching bonus that could be a good start. (combining the nationwide flexdirect and regular saver) if you want something more long term - safe option is bonds, medium risk option is Index funds (kind of covers all 3 risks really), risky option is Stocks & shares. For these probably a S&S ISA for a tax efficient option. Also LISA or HtB ISA are worth considering if you want to buy a house in the future. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Should I pay off my student loans or keep it in the bank? [duplicate] | Many years ago I heard a multi-level marketing pitch that pointed out how many doctors don't get out of debt until they are well into their 50's. The selling point was that you can get rich quick, as rich as a doctor, with nothing more then a bit of elbow grease. Of course the pitch failed to mention that most doctors, buy the things doctors buy, when they get that first big job. The big house, expensive cars nerf the income that they receive and they are probably stuck with years of student loan payments. I assume that you are one of the "lucky" ones that have graduated college with a well paying job. By lucky I mean you concentrated on obtaining a skill for which the marketplace has a need. Why not continue to live like a college student for a few more months and pay off all of your student loans ASAP? Get rid of them like you were purging the phone number of that high maintenance girl you dated during a short time of insanity. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Should I pay off my student loans or keep it in the bank? [duplicate] | Basically you have 4 options: Use your cash to pay off the student loans. Put your cash in an interest-bearing savings account. Invest your cash, for example in the stock market. Spend your cash on fun stuff you want right now. The more you can avoid #4 the better it will be for you in the long term. But you're apparently wise enough that that wasn't included as an option in your question. To decide between 1, 2, and 3, the key questions are: What interest are you paying on the loan versus what return could you get on savings or investment? How much risk are you willing to take? How much cash do you need to keep on hand for unexpected expenses? What are the tax implications? Basically, if you are paying 2% interest on a loan, and you can get 3% interest on a savings account, then it makes sense to put the cash in a savings account rather than pay off the loan. You'll make more on the interest from the savings account than you'll pay on interest on the loan. If the best return you can get on a savings account is less than 2%, then you are better off to pay off the loan. However, you probably want to keep some cash reserve in case your car breaks down or you have a sudden large medical bill, etc. How much cash you keep depends on your lifestyle and how much risk you are comfortable with. I don't know what country you live in. At least here in the U.S., a savings account is extremely safe: even the bank goes bankrupt your money should be insured. You can probably get a much better return on your money by investing in the stock market, but then your returns are not guaranteed. You may even lose money. Personally I don't have a savings account. I put all my savings into fairly safe stocks, because savings accounts around here tend to pay about 1%, which is hardly worth even bothering. You also should consider tax implications. If you're a new grad maybe your income is low enough that your tax rates are low and this is a minor factor. But if you are in, say, a 25% marginal tax bracket, then the effective interest rate on the student loan would be more like 1.5%. That is, if you pay $20 in interest, the government will then take 25% of that off your taxes, so it's the equivalent of paying $15 in interest. Similarly a place to put your money that gives non-taxable interest -- like municipal bonds -- gives a better real rate of return than something with the same nominal rate but where the interest is taxable. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
ETFs are a type of mutual fund, correct? | For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you "want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you "wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
ETFs are a type of mutual fund, correct? | Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say "An ETF is a mutual fund that..." and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. "A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors." As a matter of practice, when people say "mutual fund" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
How can I figure out how much to bid on a parking space? | If the cash flow information is complete, the valuation can be determined with relative accuracy and precision. Assuming the monthly rent is correct, the annual revenue is $1,600 per year, $250/mo * 12 months - $1,400/year in taxes. Real estate is best valued as a perpetuity where P is the price, i is the income, and r is the rate of interest. Theoreticians would suggest that the best available rate of interest would be the risk free rate, a 30 year Treasury rate ~3.5%, but the competition can't get these rates, so it is probably unrealistic. Anways, aassuming no expenses, the value of the property is $1,600 / 0.035 at most, $45,714.29. This is the general formula, and it should definitely be adjusted for expenses and a more realistic interest rate. Now, with a better understanding of interest rates and expenses, this will predict the most likely market value; however, it should be known that whatever interest rate is applied to the formula will be the most likely rate of return received from the investment. A Graham-Buffett value investor would suggest using a valuation no less than 15% since to a value investor, there's no point in bidding unless if the profits can be above average, ~7.5%. With a 15% interest rate and no expenses, $1,600 / .15, is $10,666.67. On average, it is unlikely that a bid this low will be successful; nevertheless, if multiple bids are placed using this similar methodology, by the law of small numbers, it is likely to hit the lottery on at most one bid. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
How can I figure out how much to bid on a parking space? | Scenario 1: Assume that you plan to keep the parking space for the rest of your life and collect the income from the rental. You say these spaces rent for $250 per month and there are fees of $1400 per year. Are there any other costs? Like would you be responsible for the cost of repaving at some point? But assuming that's covered in the $1400, the net profit is 250 x 12 - 1400 = $1600 per year. So now the question becomes, what other things could you invest your money in, and what sort of returns do those give? If, say, you have investments in the stock market that are generating a 10% annual return and you expect that rate of return to continue indefinitely, than if you pay a price that gives you a return of less than 10%, i.e. if you pay more than $16,000, then you would be better off to put the money in the stock market. That is, you should calculate the fair price "backwards": What return on investment is acceptable, and then what price would I have to pay to get that ROI? Oh, you should also consider what the "occupancy rate" on such parking spaces is. Is there enough demand that you can realistically expect to have it rented out 100% of the time? When one renter leaves, how long does it take to find another? And do you have any information on how often renters fail to pay the rent? I own a house that I rent out and I had two tenants in a row who failed to pay the rent, and the legal process to get them evicted takes months. I don't know what it takes to "evict" someone from a parking space. Scenario 2: You expect to collect rent on this space for some period of time, and then someday sell it. In that case, there's an additional piece of information you need: How much can you expect to get for this property when you sell it? This is almost surely highly speculative. But you could certainly look at past pricing trends. If you see that the value of a parking space in your area has been going up by, whatever, say 4% per year for the past 20 years, it's reasonable to plan on the assumption that this trend will continue. If it's been up and down and all over the place, you could be taking a real gamble. If you pay $30,000 for it today and when the time comes to sell the best you can get is $15,000, that's not so good. But if there is some reasonable consistent average rate of growth in value, you can add this to the expected rents. Like if you can expect it to grow in value by $1000 per year, then the return on your investment is the $1600 in rent plus $1000 in capital growth equals $2600. Then again do an ROI calculation based on potential returns from other investments. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about "the fiscal cliff" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | The simplest explanation is that a traditional IRA is a method of deferring taxes. That is, normally you pay taxes on money you earn at the ordinary rate then invest the rest and only pay the capital gains rate. However, with a traditional IRA you don't pay taxes on the money when you earn it, you defer the payment of those taxes until you retire. So in the end it ends up being treated the same. That said, if you are strategic about it you can wind up paying less taxes with this type of account. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | This is actually (to me) an interesting point to note. While the answer is "that's what Congress wrote," there are implications to note. First, for many, the goal of tax deferral is to shift 25% or 28% income to 15% income at retirement. With long term gains at 15%, simply investing long term post tax can accomplish a similar goal, where all gain is taxed at 15%. Looking at this from another angle, an IRA (or 401(k) for that matter) effectively turns long term gains into ordinary income. It's a good observation, and shouldn't be ignored. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This "tax deferral" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term "carrot"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a "post-tax deduction") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | It would be fairer to the average person if we paid our normal tax rate on the amount we contributed to the IRA and paid at the capital gains rate for the difference. The same as people that invest outside of the IRA. Most IRAs aren't that large and most people are going to have a rough time living on the reduced social security. It seems like we are taxing the average Joe at a higher rate than the rich. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Are distributions from an S corp taxable as long term capital gains? | If you have an S-Corp with several shareholders - you probably also have a tax adviser who suggested using S-Corp to begin with. You're probably best off asking that adviser about this issue. If you decided to use S-Corp for multiple shareholders without a professional guiding you, you should probably start looking for such a professional, or you may get yourself into trouble. That said, and reminding you that: 1. Free advice on the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, and 2. I'm not a tax professional or tax adviser, you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, here's this: Generally S-Corps are disregarded entities for tax purposes and their income flows to their shareholders individual tax returns through K-1 forms distributed by the S-Corp yearly. The shareholders don't have to actually withdraw the profits, but if not withdrawing - they're added to their cost bases in the shares. I'm guessing your corp doesn't distribute the net income, but keeps it on the corporate account, only distributing enough to cover the shareholders' taxes on their respective income portion. In this case - the amount not distributed is added to their basis, the amount distributed has already been taxed through K-1. If the corporation distributes more than the shareholder's portion of net income, then there can be several different choices, depending on the circumstances: The extra distribution will be treated as salary to the shareholder and a deduction to the corporation (i.e.: increasing the net income for the rest of the shareholders). The extra distribution will be treated as return of investment, reducing that shareholder's basis in the shares, but not affecting the other shareholders. If the basis is 0 then it is treated as income to the shareholder and taxed at ordinary rates. The extra distribution will be treated as "buy-back" - reducing that shareholder's ownership stake in the company and reallocating the "bought-back" portion among the rest of the shareholders. In this case it is treated as a sale of stock, and the gain is calculated as with any other stock sale, including short-term vs. long-term taxation (there's also Sec. 1244 that can come in handy here). The extra distribution will be treated as dividend. This is very rare for S-Corp, but can happen if it was a C-Corp before. In that case it will be taxed as dividends. Note that options #2, #3 and #4 subject the shareholder to the NIIT, while option #1 subjects the shareholder to FICA/Self Employment tax (and subjects the company to payroll taxes). There might be other options. Your licensed tax adviser will go with you through all the facts and circumstances and will suggest the best way to proceed. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Individual Investor Safe Reinvest Gains Strategy? | Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy? | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Investing Superannuation Australia | You can make a start to learn how to make better investing decisions by learning and understanding what your current super funds are invested in. Does the super fund give you choices of where you can invest your funds, and how often does it allow you to change your investment choices each year? If you are interested in one area of investing over others, eg property or shares, then you should learn more on this subject, as you can also start investing outside of superannuation. Your funds in superannuation are taxed less but you are unable to touch them for another 30 to 35 years. You also need to consider investing outside super to help meet your more medium term goals and grow your wealth outside of super as well. If you are interested in shares then I believe you should learn about both fundamental and technical analysis, they can help you to make wiser decisions about what to invest in and when to invest. Above is a chart of the ASX200 over the last 20 years until January 2015. It shows the Rate Of Change (ROC) indicator below the chart. This can be used to make medium to long term decisions in the stock market by investing when the ROC is above zero and getting out of the market when the ROC is below zero. Regarding your aggressiveness in your investments, most would say that yes because you are still young you should be aggressive because you have time on your side, so if there is a downturn in your investments then you still have plenty of time for them to recover. I have a different view, and I will use the stock market as an example. Refer back to the chart above, I would be more aggressive when the ROC is above zero and less aggressive when the ROC is below zero. How can you relate this to your super fund? If it does provide you to change your investment choices, then I would be invested in more aggressive investments like shares when the ROC crosses above zero, and then when the ROC moves below zero take a less aggressive approach by moving your investments in the super fund to a more balanced or capital guaranteed strategy where less of your funds are invested in shares and more are invested in bonds and cash. You can also have a similar approach with property. Learn about the property cycles (remember super funds usually invest in commercial and industrial property rather than houses, so you would need to learn about the commercial and industrial property cycles which would be different to the residential property cycle). Regarding your question about SMSFs, if you can increase your knowledge and skills in investing, then yes switching to a SMSF will give you more control and possibly better returns. However, I would avoid switching your funds to a SMSF right now. Two reasons, firstly you would want to increase your knowledge as mentioned above, and secondly you would want to have at least $300,000 in funds before switching to a SMSF or else the setup and compliance costs would be too high as a percentage of your funds at the moment ($70,000). You do have time on your side, so whilst you are increasing your funds you can use that time to educate yourself in your areas of interest. And remember a SMSF is not only an investment vehicle whilst you are building your funds during your working life, but it is also an investment vehicle when you are retired and it becomes totally tax free during this phase, where any investment returns are tax free and any income you take out is also tax free. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Probablity of touching In the money vs expiring in the money for an american option | Conceptually, yes, you need to worry about it. As a practical matter, it's less likely to be exercised until expiry or shortly prior. The way to think about paying a European option is: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike is in the money at expiry] Whereas the American option can be thought of as: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike price is in the money at expiry] + ( [odds that strike price is in the money prior to expiry] * [odds that other party will exercise early] ). This is just a heuristic, not a formal financial tool. But the point is that you need to consider the odds that it will go into the money early, for how long (maybe over multiple periods), and how likely the counterparty is to exercise early. Important considerations for whether they will exercise early are the strategy of the other side (long, straddle, quick turnaround), the length of time the option is in the money early, and the anticipated future movement. A quick buck strategy might exercise immediately before the stock turns around. But that could leave further gains on the table, so it's usually best to wait unless the expectation is that the stock will quickly reverse its movement. This sort of counter-market strategy is generally unlikely from someone who bought the option at a certain strike, and is equivalent to betting against their original purchase of the option. So most of these people will wait because they expect the possibility of a bigger payoff. A long strategy is usually in no hurry to exercise, and in fact they would prefer to wait until the end to hold the time value of the option (the choice to get out of the option, if it goes back to being unprofitable). So it usually makes little sense for these people to exercise early. The same goes for a straddle, if someone is buying an option for insurance or to economically exit a position. So you're really just concerned that people will exercise early and forgo the time value of the American option. That may include people who really want to close a position, take their money, and move on. In some cases, it may include people who have become overextended or need liquidity, so they close positions. But for the most part, it's less likely to happen until the expiration approaches because it leaves potential value on the table. The time value of an option dwindles at the end because the implicit option becomes less likely, especially if the option is fairly deep in the money (the implicit option is then fairly deep out of the money). So early exercise becomes more meaningful concern as the expiration approaches. Otherwise, it's usually less worrisome but more than a nonzero proposition. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
How does AMT/state taxes work for stock options in California? | Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)? Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Should I sell the home in 2014 or continue to rent it out? | You need to get the current tax software, the 2013 filing software is out already, even though it needs to update itself before filing, as the final forms aren't ready yet. Then you will look carefully at Schedule E to understand what gets written off. I see you are looking at the $2200 rent vs your own rent of $2100, but of course, the tax form doesn't care about your rent. You offset the expenses of that house against the income. The expenses are the usual suspects, mortgage interest, property tax, repairs, etc. But there's one big thing new landlords are prone to forgetting. Depreciation. It's not optional. Say the house cost you $400K. This is your basis. You need to separate the value of land which is not depreciated. For a condo with no land it can be as little as 10%, when we bought our house, for insurance purposes, the land was nearly 40% of the full value. Say you do the research and decide 30% (for land), then 70% = $280K. Depreciation is taken each year over a 27.5 year period, or just over $10,000 per year. (Note, the forms will help you get your year 1 number, as you didn't have a full year.) This depreciation helps with your cash flow during the year (as you should do the math, and if you keep the house, adjust your W4 withholdings for 2014, that lump sum you'll get in April won't pay the bills each month) but is 'recaptured' on sale. At some point in the future, you may save enough to buy a house where you wish to live, but need to sell the rental. Consider a 1031 Exchange. It's a way to sell a rental and buy a new one without triggering a taxable event. What I don't know is how long the new house must be a rental before the IRS would then allow you to move in. The same way you turned your home into a rental, a rental can be turned back to a primary residence. I just doubt you can do it right after the purchase. As fellow member @littleadv would advise, "get professional advice." And he's right. I've just offered what you might consider. The first year tax return with that Schedule E is the toughest as it's brand new. The next year is simple in comparison. The question of selling immediately is tough. Only you can decide whether the risk of keeping it is too great. You're saying you don't have the money to cover two month's vacancy. That scares me. I'd focus on beefing up the emergency account. And securing a credit line. You mentioned the tax savings. My opinion is that for any investment,the tax tail should never wag the investing dog. Buy or sell a stock based on the stock, not the potential tax bill for the sale. In your situation, the rent and expenses will cancel each other, and the depreciation is a short term loan, from a tax perspective. If you sold today, what do you net? If you analyzed the numbers now, what is your true income from the property each year? Is that return worth it? A good property will provide cash flow, principal reduction each year, and normal increase in value. This takes a bit of careful looking at the numbers. You might feel you're just breaking even, but if the principal is $12K less after a year, that's something you shouldn't ignore. On the other hand, an exact 'break-even' with little equity at stake offered you a leveraged property where any gains are a magnified percentage of what you have at risk. Last - welcome to Money.SE - consider adding some more details to your profile. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Should I invest my money in an ISA or Government bonds? (Or any other suggestion) | So you are off to a really good start. Congratulations on being debt free and having a nice income. Being an IT contractor can be financially rewarding, but also have some risks to it much like investing. With your disposable income I would not shy away from investing in further training through sites like PluralSite or CodeSchool to improve weak skills. They are not terribly expensive for a person in your situation. If you were loaded down with debt and payments, the story would be different. Having an emergency fund will help you be a good IT contractor as it adds stability to your life. I would keep £10K or so in a boring savings account. Think of it not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. Having such a fund allows you to go after a high paying job you might fail at, or invest with impunity. I would encourage you to take an intermediary step: Moving out on your own. I would encourage renting before buying even if it is just a room in someone else's home. I would try to be out of the house in less than 3 months. Being on your own helps you mature in ways that can only be accomplished by being on your own. It will also reduce the culture shock of buying your own home or entering into an adult relationship. I would put a minimum of £300/month in growth stock mutual funds. Keeping this around 15% of your income is a good metric. If available you may want to put this in tax favored retirement accounts. (Sorry but I am woefully ignorant of UK retirement savings). This becomes your retire at 60 fund. (Starting now, you can retire well before 68.) For now stick to an index fund, and once it gets to 25K, you may want to look to diversify. For the rest of your disposable income I'd invest in something safe and secure. The amount of your disposable income will change, presumably, as you will have additional expenses for rent and food. This will become your buy a house fund. This is something that should be safe and secure. Something like a bond fund, money market, dividend producing stocks, or preferred stocks. I am currently doing something like this and have 50% in a savings account, 25% in a "Blue chip index fund", and 25% in a preferred stock fund. This way you have some decent stability of principle while also having some ability to grow. Once you have that built up to about 12K and you feel comfortable you can start shopping for a house. You may want to be at the high end of your area, so you should try and save at least 10%; or, you may want to be really weird and save the whole thing and buy your house for cash. If you are still single you may want to rent a room or two so your home can generate income. Here in the US there can be other ways to generate income from your property. One example is a home that has a separate area (and room) to park a boat. A boat owner will pay some decent money to have a place to park their boat and there is very little impact to the owner. Be creative and perhaps find a way where a potential property could also produce income. Good luck, check back in with progress and further questions! Edit: After some reading, ISA seem like a really good deal. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Should I invest my money in an ISA or Government bonds? (Or any other suggestion) | There are a number of UK banks that offer what passes for reasonable interest on an amount of cash held in their current accounts. I would suggest that you look into these. In the UK the first £1000 of bank or building society interest is paid tax-free for basic rate taxpayers (£500 for higher rate tax-payers) so if your interest income is below these levels then there is no point in investing in a cash ISA as the interest rate is often lower. At the moment Santander-123 bank account pays 1.5% on up to £20000 and Nationwide do 5% on up to £2500. A good source if information on the latest deals is Martin Lewis' Moneysaving Expert Website | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Should I invest my money in an ISA or Government bonds? (Or any other suggestion) | I recommend investing in precious metals like gold, considering the economic cycle we're in now. Government bonds are subject to possible default and government money historically tends to crumble in value, whereas gold and the metals tend to rise in value with the commodies. Stocks tend to do well, but right now most of them are a bit overvalued and they're very closely tied to overvalued currencies and unstable governments with lots of debt. I would stick to gold right now, if you're planning on investing for more than a month or so. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Typical return for an IRA? How can I assess if my returns were decent? | There is no typical return for an IRA. Understand that an IRA is not an investment type, it is just an account that gets special tax treatment by the Federal Government. The money in the IRA could be invested in almost anything including Gold, Stocks, Bonds, Cash, CDs, etc. So the question as phrased isn't exactly meaningful. It is kind of like asking what is the typical price of things if I use $10 bills. As for a 10.6% annualized return on your portfolio. That's not a bad return. At that rate you will double your investment (with compounding) every 7.2 years. Again, however, some context is needed. You can really only evaluate investment returns with your risk profile in mind. If you are invested in super safe investments like CDs, that is an absolutely incredible return. You compare it to several indexes, which is a good way to do it if you are investing in the types of investments tracked by those indexes. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Typical return for an IRA? How can I assess if my returns were decent? | To me it looks pretty good (10% per year is a pretty good return). Lagging behind the indexes is normal, it is hard to beat the indexes over a long period of time, the longer the period - the lesser the chances to succeed. However, half a year is a relatively short period of time, and you should check your investments a little bit deeper. I'm assuming you're not invested in one thing, so you should check per investment, how it is performing. If you have funds - check each fund against the relevant index for that fund, if you have stocks - check against the relevant industry indexes, etc. Also, check the fees you pay to each fund and the plan, they come out of your pocket, lowering the return. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Typical return for an IRA? How can I assess if my returns were decent? | To try and address your 'how' it goes a bit like this. You need to first assess how your stuff is invested, if for example half is in stocks, and the other half is in bonds, then you will need to calculate a 'blended' rate for what are reasonable 'average return' for both. That might mean looking at the S&P500 or Russell 3000 for the stock portion, and some bond index for that portion, then 'blend the rates', in this case using a formula like this then compare the blended rate with the return in your IRA. It is generally a lot more useful to compare the various components of your total return separately, especially if you investing with a particular style such as 'agressive growth' or you are buying actual bonds and not a bond fund since most of the bond oriented indexes are for bond funds, which you can't really compare well with buying and holding bonds to maturity. Lets say your stock side was two mutual funds with different styles, one 'large cap' the other 'aggressive growth'. In that case you might want to compare each one of those funds with an appropriate index such as those provided by Morningstar If you find one of them is consistently below the average, you might want to consider finding an alternative fund who's manager has a better track record (bearing in mind that "past performance....") For me (maybe someone has a good suggestion here) bonds are the hard thing to judge. The normal goal of actually owning bonds (as opposed to a fund) is to retain the entire principal value because there's no principal fluctuation if you hold the bond to maturity (as long as you choose well and the issuer doesn't default) The actual value 'right now' of a bond (as in selling before maturity) and bond funds, goes up and down in an inverse relationship with interest rates. That means the indexes for such things also go up and down a lot, so it's very hard to compare them to a bond you intend to hold to maturity. Also, for such a bond, there's not a lot of point to 'switch out' unless you are worried about the issuer defaulting. If rates are up from what you are getting on your bonds, then you'll have to sell your bond at a discount, and all that happens is you'll end up holding a different bond that is worth less, but has higher interest (basically the net return is likely to be pretty much the same). The better approach there is generally to 'ladder' your maturity dates so you get opportunities to reinvest at whatever the prevailing rates are, without having to sell at a discount.. anyway the point is that I'm not sure there's a lot of value to comparing return on the bond portion of an IRA unless it's invested in bond funds (which a lot of people wanting to preserve principal tend to avoid) | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Typical return for an IRA? How can I assess if my returns were decent? | Do you want to retire? If so, when? How long do you expect to live? How much per month in today's dollars do you want to have at your disposal when you reach that age? Once you've answered those questions, then you'll be in a better position to say whether you should be disappointed or not. But the fact that you don't know indicates that you haven't looked into these questions yet. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Should I “hedge” my IRA portfolio with a life cycle / target date mutual fund? | First of all, it's great you're now taking full advantage of your employer match – i.e. free money. Next, on the question of the use of a life cycle / target date fund as a "hedge": Life cycle funds were introduced for hands-off, one-stop-shopping investors who don't like a hassle or don't understand. Such funds are gaining in popularity: employers can use them as a default choice for automatic enrollment, which results in more participation in retirement savings plans than if employees had to opt-in. I think life cycle funds are a good innovation for that reason. But, the added service and convenience typically comes with higher fees. If you are going to be hands-off, make sure you're cost-conscious: Fees can devastate a portfolio's performance. In your case, it sounds like you are willing to do some work for your portfolio. If you are confident that you've chosen a good equity glide path – that is, the initial and final stock/bond allocations and the rebalancing plan to get from one to the other – then you're not going to benefit much by having a life cycle fund in your portfolio duplicating your own effort with inferior components. (I assume you are selecting great low-cost, liquid index funds for your own strategy!) Life cycle are neat, but replicating them isn't rocket science. However, I see a few cases in which life cycle funds may still be useful even if one has made a decision to be more involved in portfolio construction: Similar to your case: You have a company savings plan that you're taking advantage of because of a matching contribution. Chances are your company plan doesn't offer a wide variety of funds. Since a life cycle fund is available, it can be a good choice for that account. But make sure fees aren't out of hand. If much lower-cost equity and bond funds are available, consider them instead. Let's say you had another smaller account that you were unable to consolidate into your main account. (e.g. a Traditional IRA vs. your Roth, and you didn't necessarily want to convert it.) Even if that account had access to a wide variety of funds, it still might not be worth the added hassle or trading costs of owning and rebalancing multiple funds inside the smaller account. There, perhaps, the life cycle fund can help you out, while you use your own strategy in your main account. Finally, let's assume you had a single main account and you buy partially into the idea of a life cycle fund and you find a great one with low fees. Except: you want a bit of something else in your portfolio not provided by the life cycle fund, e.g. some more emerging markets, international, or commodity stock exposure. (Is this one reason you're doing it yourself?) In that case, where the life cycle fund doesn't quite have everything you want, you could still use it for the bulk of the portfolio (e.g. 85-95%) and then select one or two specific additional ETFs to complement it. Just make sure you factor in those additional components into the overall equity weighting and adjust your life cycle fund choice accordingly (e.g. perhaps go more conservative in the life cycle, to compensate.) I hope that helps! Additional References: | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Should I “hedge” my IRA portfolio with a life cycle / target date mutual fund? | I choose lifecycle funds because I am placing faith (perhaps foolishly) that a full time fund manager knows better what to pick than I. The same reason I go with mutual funds in general apply to to why I also have the lifecycle funds. Presently my diversification strategy is really just index funds and lifecycle funds. The radio advice guy Clark Howard often promotes them. http://www.wacotrib.com/none/content/shared/money/stories/clark/0601/060425money.html (I count in the intimidated group) | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Should I “hedge” my IRA portfolio with a life cycle / target date mutual fund? | I like that you are hedging ONLY the Roth IRA - more than likely you will not touch that until retirement. Looking at fees, I noticed Vanguard Target retirement funds are .17% - 0.19% expense ratios, versus 0.04 - 0.14% for their Small/Mid/Large cap stocks. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
I am turning 18 and I am a Student, I need strategies on building great credit soon. Where should I start? | Based on the formula used by FICO which is pretty much what you want to focus on, the following is recommended for someone with no credit history: When you get all this, follow the following habits to make sure it does you some good: Follow these and you will do great, I started with a $500 Discover card and $500 Chase Visa at UCLA and a Union 76 gas card, I had 700+ credit in less than 2 years. Good luck and be vigilant. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
I am turning 18 and I am a Student, I need strategies on building great credit soon. Where should I start? | The details of credit score calculation tend to change periodically, but the fundamentals are mostly consistent. Pay your bills, keep your average account age high, overpay your credit card minimums, and keep your overall debt low. And do soft pulls on your credit report to see what's happening. First, the simplest route: pay all your bills early or on time. Automatic deduction may be useful in this regard, especially for bills with predictable amounts. A corollary to this tip is to never leave an unpaid bill. What often happens to young people is in the course of moving around they leave the final bill unpaid and it gets reported to collections. Make sure you follow up online with all bills, even after canceling the service. Second, average account age and oldest account age matter. Open an account like a credit card and never close it, so you'll have an older account (hopefully a zero-fee card). Try to keep other accounts open rather than closing them (no need to cancel a zero-fee credit card) so your average account age stays higher. A card that works on internal systems (like a gift card) is not going to show up on a credit report; a card that works like any VISA/MC is likely going to show up. The rule of thumb is if they need your SSN to run a credit check for the application, then the card will appear on a credit report. You can pull your credit report to find out if the card is listed (you may have to allow time for lag before the card appears, but I'm not sure how long that might be). Third, a tip for extra credit score is to pay more than the minimum required on credit card bills. You can achieve this by either using your credit card at least once a month or by leaving a small hanging balance each month so there's always something to overpay next month. Credit card reporting will be either: unpaid, underpaid, minimum paid, or overpaid. Minimum payment helps your score and overpayment helps more. If you can use your credit card every month, that will give you something to overpay every month. Otherwise, you can leave a small debt left on the card but still pay over the monthly minimum. However, your total debt load, especially debt carried on your cards, counts against your score; aim for less than 10% of your limit. Finally, of course, is to pull your credit report periodically. You need to know what others are seeing. Since debt load utilization matters, make sure the reported card maximum is correct on your credit report. Talk to your bank or account issuer if the limit is wrong. If a collection appears, then you need to handle it. Often you can negotiate with the collector, but be careful to negotiate how they will report the resolution. You want them to agree to remove any negative information (either in exchange for payment or because of a mistake). Failing that, you want them to mark it paid in full or satisfied in full; letting them notate your score that you only partially paid is what you want to avoid, since it most signals someone with cash flow problems and credit issues. They control their reporting to credit bureaus, so if the person on the phone demurs, ask to speak to their supervisor or someone with negotiating authority. Try to get any agreements in writing. Remember that your total debt load is a factor in your credit score. Home loans and student loans do affect credit score. If you take on a smaller home loan, then it will affect your credit less harshly (and leave you with smaller monthly payments). | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
I am turning 18 and I am a Student, I need strategies on building great credit soon. Where should I start? | Your goals are excellent. I really admire your thoughts and plans, and I hold you in high esteem. Good credit is indeed an important thing to have, and starting young is THE smart idea with respect to this. I see that you have as a goal the purchase of a home. Indeed, another fine ambition. (Wow, you are a different breed from what I normally encounter on the internet; that's for sure !) Since this won't happen overnight, I would encourage you to think about another option. At this point in your life you have what few people have: options, and you have lots of them. The option I would like to suggest you consider is the debt free life. This does NOT mean life without a credit card, nor does it mean living with ones parents all their days. In its simplest form, it means that you don't owe anybody anything today. An adapted form of that; with the reality of leases and so on, is that you have more immediate cash in the bank than you have contractual responsibilities to pay others. e.g., if the rent on a place is X, and the lease is 12 months, then you don't sign until you have 12X in the bank. That's the idea. If there is anything good that these past 10 years of recession and financial disasters have provided us as a nation, it is a clear picture presented to our young people that a house is not a guaranteed way to riches. Indeed, I just learned this week of another couple, forced out by foreclosure again. Yes, in the 1970s and 1980s the formula which anyone could follow was to take a mortgage on a single family house; just about any house in any community; and ten years later double your money, while (during those ten years) paying about the same (and in a few years, actually less) amount of money as you would for an apartment with about half the space. Those days were then, not now, and I seriously doubt that I will ever see them again in my lifetime. You might, at your age, one day. In the mean time, I would like to suggest that you think about that word options again; something that you have that I don't. If your mind is made up for certain that a house is the one and only thing you want, okay; this does not apply. During this time of building your credit (we're talking more than a year) I would like to encourage you to look at some of the other options that are out there waiting for you; such as... I also encourage you to take a calculator and a spreadsheet (I would be surprised if there is no freeware out there to do this with a few clicks) and compare the past 30 years of various investments. For example... It is especially educational if you can see line charts, with the ups and downs along the way. One last thing; about the stock market, you have an option (I love that word when people your age are actually thinking) called "dollar cost averaging". If you are not aware of this concept, just ask and I will edit this post (although I'm confident it has been explained by others far better than myself on this very site). Hit just about any solid stock market investment (plain old mutual fund, even with a load, and it will still work) and I believe you'll see what I'm trying to get across. Still, yes, you need a roof, and a young person should clearly plan on leaving parents in a healthy and happy way; so again, if the house is the one and only goal, then go for it kid (uhm, "kid", if you're still under 18). All the best. Do remember that you will be fixing the pipes, not the maintenance guy. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Long term saving: Shares, Savings Account or Fund | Congratulations on a solid start. Here are my thoughts, based on your situation: Asset Classes I would recommend against a long-term savings account as an investment vehicle. While very safe, the yields will almost always be well below inflation. Since you have a long time horizon (most likely at least 30 years to retirement), you have enough time to take on more risk, as long as it's not more than you can live with. If you are looking for safer alternatives to stocks for part of your investments, you can also consider investment-grade bonds/bond funds, or even a stable value fund. Later, when you are much closer to retirement, you may also want to consider an annuity. Depending on the interest rate on your loan, you may also be able to get a better return from paying down your loan than from putting more in a savings account. I would recommend that you only keep in a savings account what you expect to need in the next few years (cushion for regular expenses, emergency fund, etc.). On Stocks Stocks are riskier but have the best chance to outperform versus inflation over the long term. I tend to favor funds over individual stocks, mostly for a few practical reasons. First, one of the goals of investing is to diversify your risk, which produces a more efficient risk/reward ratio than a group of stocks that are highly correlated. Diversification is easier to achieve via an index fund, but it is possible for a well-educated investor to stay diversified via individual stocks. Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term. Make sure to take one or more risk tolerance assessments to understand how often you're willing to accept significant losses, as well as what the optimal asset allocation is for you given the level of risk you can live with. Generally speaking, for someone with a long investment horizon and a medium risk tolerance, even the most conservative allocations will have at least 60% in stocks (total of US and international) with the rest in bonds/other, and up to 80% or even 100% for a more aggressive investor. Owning more bonds will result in a lower expected return, but will also dramatically reduce your portfolio's risk and volatility. Pension With so many companies deciding that they don't feel like keeping the promises they made to yesterday's workers or simply can't afford to, the pension is nice but like Social Security, I wouldn't bank on all of this money being there for you in the future. This is where a fee-only financial planner can really be helpful - they can run a bunch of scenarios in planning software that will show you different retirement scenarios based on a variety of assumptions (ie what if you only get 60% of the promised pension, etc). This is probably not as much of an issue if you are an equity partner, or if the company fully funds the pension in a segregated account, or if the pension is defined-contribution, but most corporate pensions are just a general promise to pay you later in the future with no real money actually set aside for that purpose, so I'd discount this in my planning somewhat. Fund/Stock Selection Generally speaking, most investment literature agrees that you're most likely to get the best risk-adjusted returns over the long term by owning the entire market rather than betting on individual winners and losers, since no one can predict the future (including professional money managers). As such, I'd recommend owning a low-cost index fund over holding specific sectors or specific companies only. Remember that even if one sector is more profitable than another, the stock prices already tend to reflect this. Concentration in IT Consultancy I am concerned that one third of your investable assets are currently in one company (the IT consultancy). It's very possible that you are right that it will continue to do well, that is not my concern. My concern is the risk you're carrying that things will not go well. Again, you are taking on risks not just over the next few years, but over the next 30 or so years until you retire, and even if it seems unlikely that this company will experience a downturn in the next few years, it's very possible that could change over a longer period of time. Please just be aware that there is a risk. One way to mitigate that risk would be to work with an advisor or a fund to structure and investment plan where you invest in a variety of sector funds, except for technology. That way, your overall portfolio, including the single company, will be closer to the market as a whole rather than over-weighted in IT/Tech. However, if this IT Consultancy happens to be the company that you work for, I would strongly recommend divesting yourself of those shares as soon as reasonably possible. In my opinion, the risk of having your salary, pension, and much of your investments tied up in the fortunes of one company would simply be a much larger risk than I'd be comfortable with. Last, make sure to keep learning so that you are making decisions that you're comfortable with. With the amount of savings you have, most investment firms will consider you a "high net worth" client, so make sure you are making decisions that are in your best financial interests, not theirs. Again, this is where a fee-only financial advisor may be helpful (you can find a local advisor at napfa.org). Best of luck with your decisions! | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Long term saving: Shares, Savings Account or Fund | There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation). | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Long term saving: Shares, Savings Account or Fund | RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that "you believe these will continue" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market. In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this). Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits. Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
How do you translate a per year salary into a part-time per hour job? | If you're really a part-time worker, then there are some simple considerations.... The remote working environment, choice of own hours, and non-guarantee of work availability point to your "part-time" situation being more like a consultancy, and that would normally double or triple the gross hourly rate. But if they're already offering or paying you a low hourly figure, they are unlikely to give you consultant rates. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
How do you translate a per year salary into a part-time per hour job? | Rule of thumb: Double your hourly rate to get a yearly salary (in thousands). Halve your yearly salary to get your hourly rate. (assuming a 40hr/week job). eg: $50k/year = $25/hr. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
How do you translate a per year salary into a part-time per hour job? | All things being equal, a $55,000/year job with 25% benefit load is about $68,750/year. That's a little more than $34/hr. Your rate really depends on the nature of the work. If it's strictly a part-time job where you are an employee, you're probably looking at a $28-38/hr range. If you're an independent contractor, the rate should be higher, as you're paying the taxes, doing other administrative stuff. How much higher depends on the industry... software/it rates are usually 1.5-2x, construction is driven by the union scale in many places, etc. Note that you need to meet criteria defined by the IRS to successfully maintain independent contractor status from a tax POV. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
How do you translate a per year salary into a part-time per hour job? | There is no fixed formulae, its more of how much you can negotiate Vs how many others are willing to work at a lower cost. Typically in software industry the rates for part time work would be roughly in the range of 1.5 to 2 times that of the full time work for the same job. With the above premise roughly the company would be willing to pay $100,000 for 2000 hrs of Part time work(1), translating into around $50 per hour. How much you actually get would depend on if there is someone else who can work for less say at $30 at hour. (1) The company does not have 2000 hrs of work and hence its engaging part time worker instead of full time at lesser cost. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
How do you translate a per year salary into a part-time per hour job? | As an easy and rough rule of thumb, a job for $55,000 per year is $55 per hour as a contractor. That's roughly twice the hourly rate. In return, the company gets the rate to vary your hours or cease your employment with less financial, legal or managerial overhead than a full time employee. You have less stability, less benefits, perhaps need to put some time into finding another job sooner. Of course the ultimate, though less helpful, answer is "whatever the market will bear." | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
How do you translate a per year salary into a part-time per hour job? | It's difficult to quantify the intangible benefits, so I would recommend that you begin by quantifying the financials and then determine whether the difference between the pay of the two jobs justifies the value of the intangible benefits to you. Some Explainations You are making $55,000 per year, but your employer is also paying for a number of benefits that do not come free as a contractor. Begin by writing down everything they are providing you that you would like to continue to have. This may include: You also need to account for the FICA tax that you need to pay completely as a part time employee (normally a company pays half of it for you). This usually amounts to 7.8% of your income. Quantification Start by researching the cost for providing each item in the list above to yourself. For health insurance get quotes from providers. For bonuses average your yearly bonuses for your work history with the company. Items like stock options you need to make your best guess on. Calculations Now lets call your original salary S. Add up all of the costs of the list items mentioned above and call them B. This formula will tell you your real current annual compensation (RAC): Now you want to break your part time job into hours per year, not hours per month, as months have differing numbers of working days. Assuming no vacations that is 52 weeks per year multiplied by 20 hours, or 1040 hours (780 if working 15 hours per week). So to earn the same at the new job as the old you would need to earn an hourly wage of: The full equation for 20 hours per week works out to be: Assumptions DO NOT TAKE THIS SECTION AS REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR SITUATION; ONLY A BALLPARK ESTIMATE You must do the math yourself. I recommend a little spreadsheet to simplify things and play what-if scenarios. However, we can ballpark your situation and show how the math works with a few assumptions. When I got quoted for health insurance for myself and my partner it was $700 per month, or $8400 per year. If we assume the same for you, then add 3% 401k matching that we'll assume you're taking advantage of ($1650), the equation becomes: Other Considerations Keep in mind that there are other considerations that could offset these calculations. Variable hours are a big risk, as is your status as a 'temporary' employee. Though on the flip side you don't need to pay taxes out of each check, allowing you to invest that money throughout the year until taxes are due. Also, if you are considered a private contractor you can write off many expenses that you cannot as a full time employee. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
First time investor and online brokerage accounts | First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. "Best" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several "discount" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
First time investor and online brokerage accounts | Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
First time investor and online brokerage accounts | Most mutual funds are designed to make the investment banks that sell them money, not to make investers money. They do this by taking significant fees out. Because they make lots of money on these funds, they advertise them a lot, and give them important-sounding names, like "Advanced technology global diversity long term appreciation". Index funds are the exception; they attempt to mirror the performance of a specific index (such as the S&P 500 index). They generally have very low fees. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
What's the best way to account for a risky investment - As an asset or an expense? | I'm no accountant, but I think the way I'd want to approach this kind of thing in Gnucash would be to track it as an Asset, since it is. It sounds like your actual concern is that your tracked asset value isn't reflecting its current "market" value. Presumably because it's risky it's also illiquid, so you're not sure how much value it should have on your books. Your approach suggested here of having it as just as expense gives it a 0 value as an asset, but without tracking that there's something that you own. The two main approaches to tracking an investment in Gnucash are: Of course, both of these approaches do assume that you have some notion of your investment's "current value", which is what you're tracking. As the section on Estimating Valuation of the concepts guide says of valuing illiquid assets, "There is no hard rule on this, and in fact different accountants may prefer to do this differently." If you really think that the investment isn't worth anything at the moment, then I suppose you should track it at 0, but presumably you think it's worth something or you wouldn't have bought it, right? Even if it's just for your personal records, part of a regular (maybe annual?) review of your investments should include coming up with what you currently value that investment at (perhaps your best guess of what you could sell it for, assuming that you could find a willing buyer), and updating your records accordingly. Of course, if you need a valuation for a bank or for tax purposes or the like, they have more specific rules about how they are tracking what things are worth, but presumably you're trying to track your personal assets for your own reasons to get a handle on what you currently own. So, do that! Take the time to get a handle on the worth of what you currently own. And don't worry about getting the value wrong, just take your best guess, since you can always update it later when you learn new information about what your investment is worth. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
How can I invest in gold without taking physical possession? | You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
How can I invest in gold without taking physical possession? | In addition to the possibility of buying gold ETFs or tradable certificates, there are also firms specializing in providing "bank accounts" of sorts which are denominated in units of weight of precious metal. While these usually charge some fees, they do meet your criteria of being able to buy and sell precious metals without needing to store them yourself; also, these fees are likely lower than similar storage arranged by yourself. Depending on the specifics, they may also make buying small amounts practical (buying small amounts of physical precious metals usually comes with a large mark-up over the spot price, sometimes to the tune of a 50% or so immediate loss if you buy and then immediately sell). Do note that, as pointed out by John Bensin, buying gold gets you an amount of metal, the local currency value of which will vary over time, sometimes wildly, so it is not the same thing as depositing the original amount of money in a bank account. Since 2006, the price of an ounce (about 31.1 grams) of gold has gone from under $500 US to over $1800 US to under $1100 US. Few other investment classes are anywhere near this volatile. If you are interested in this type of service, you might want to check out BitGold (not the same thing at all as Bitcoin) or GoldMoney. (I am not affiliated with either.) Make sure to do your research thoroughly as these may or may not be covered by the same regulations as regular banks, particularly if you choose a company based outside of or a storage location outside of your own country. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Diversify across multiple brokers? | You should ensure that your broker is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). SIPC protects the cash and securities in your brokerage account much like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects bank deposits. Securities are protected with a limit of $500,000 USD. Cash is protected with a limit of $250,000 USD. It should be noted that SIPC does not protect investors against loss of value or bad advice. As far as having multiple brokerage accounts for security, I personally don’t think it’s necessary to have multiple accounts for that reason. Depending on account or transaction fees, it might not hurt to have multiple accounts. It can actually be beneficial to have multiple accounts so long as each account serves a purpose in your overall financial plan. For example, I have three brokerage accounts, each of which serves a specific purpose. One provides low cost stock and bond transactions, another provides superior market data, and the third provides low cost mutual fund transactions. If you’re worried about asset security, there are a few things you can do to protect yourself. I would recommend you begin by consulting a qualified financial advisor about your risk profile. You stated that a considerable portion of your total assets are in securities. Depending on your risk profile and the amount of your net worth held in securities, you might be better served by moving your money into lower risk asset classes. I’m not an attorney or a financial advisor. This is not legal advice or financial advice. You can and should consult your own attorney and financial advisor. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
What is a rule of thumb for accruing debt on a rental property? | To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Can individual investors buy precious metals at the spot price? | There are various exchanges around the world that handle spot precious metal trading; for the most part these are also the primary spot foreign exchange markets, like EBS, Thomson Reuters, Currenex (website seems to be down), etc. You can trade on these markets through brokers just like you can trade on stock markets. However, the vast majority of traders on these exchanges do not intend to hold any bullion ownership at the end of the day; they want to buy as much as they sell each day. A minority of traders do intend to hold metal positions for longer periods, but I doubt any of them intend to actually go collect bullion from the exchange. I don't think it's even possible. Really the only way to get bullion is to pay a service fee to a dealer like you mentioned. But on an exchange like the ones above you have to pay three different fees: So in the end you can't even get the spot price on the exchanges where the spot prices are determined. You might even come out ahead by going to a dealer. You should try to find a reputable dealer, and go in knowing the latest trade prices. An honest dealer will have a website showing you the current trade prices, so you know that they expect you to know the prices when you come in. For example, here's a well-known dealer in Chicago that happily shows you the spot prices from KITCO so you can decide whether their service fee is worth it or not. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Can individual investors buy precious metals at the spot price? | The futures market allows you to take delivery at the lowest cost. Most people don't deal in 100oz gold bars and 5000oz of 1000oz silver bars though, especially at the retail level. That said, when you are at the retail level, often times you will find reputable Internet dealers offering the lowest cost of ownership. Keep in mind brand name though when you're doing this. Reputable refiners/mints will often see higher premiums versus generic, and this does matter to some extent. Quantity and weights also matter in terms of pricing; the more you buy the lower the premium. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Paying off mortgage or invest in annuity | You can't pay your bills with equity in your house. Assuming you paid off the mortgage, where would the money come from that you plan to live off of? If that is your whole retirement savings I'd say do neither. Maybe an annuity (not variable) for SOME of the money, keep the rest invested in conservative investments some of it in cash for emergencies. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Paying off mortgage or invest in annuity | There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum. So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said "ignoring tax implications". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Paying off mortgage or invest in annuity | I am in the process of writing an article about how to maximize one's Social Security benefits, or at least, how to start the analysis. This chart, from my friends at the Social Security office shows the advantage of waiting to take your benefit. In your case, you are getting $1525 at age 62. Now, if you wait 4 years, the benefit jumps to $2033 or $508/mo more. You would get no benefit for 4 years and draw down savings by $73,200, but would get $6,096/yr more from 64 on. Put it off until 70, and you'd have $2684/mo. At some point, your husband should apply for a spousal benefit (age 66 for him is what I suggest) and collect that for 4 years before moving to his own benefit if it's higher than that. Keep in mind, your generous pensions are likely to push you into having your social security benefit taxed, and my plan, above will give you time to draw down the 401(k) to help avoid or at least reduce this. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Supply & Demand - How Price Changes, Buy Orders vs Sell Orders [duplicate] | For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to "wannabees." Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their "bid" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first ("sold to the highest bidder"). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their "offer" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a "match" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Supply & Demand - How Price Changes, Buy Orders vs Sell Orders [duplicate] | Yes for every order there is a buyer and seller. But overall there are multiple buyers and multiple sellers. So every trade is at a different price and this price is agreed by both buyer and seller. Related question will help you understand this better. How do exchanges match limit orders? | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Supply & Demand - How Price Changes, Buy Orders vs Sell Orders [duplicate] | That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
How do I read technicals for tickers that move together but are slightly different? | Following comments to your question here, you posted a separate question about why SPY, SPX, and the options contract don't move perfectly together. That's here Why don't SPY, SPX, and the e-mini s&p 500 track perfectly with each other? I provided an answer to that question and will build on it to answer what I think you're asking on this question. Specifically, I explained what it means that these are "all based on the S&P." Each is a different entity, and different market forces keep them aligned. I think talking about "technicals" on options contracts is going to be too confusing since they are really a very different beast based on forward pricing models, so, for this question, I'll focus on only SPY and SPX. As in my other answer, it's only through specific market forces (the creation / redemption mechanism that I described in my other answer), that they track at all. There's nothing automatic about this and it has nothing to do with some issuer of SPY actually holding stock in the companies that comprise the SPX index. (That's not to say that the company does or doesn't hold, just that this doesn't drive the prices.) What ever technical signals you're tracking, will reflect all of the market forces at play. For SPX (the index), that means some aggregate behavior of the component companies, computed in a "mathematically pure" way. For SPY (the ETF), that means (a) the behavior of SPX and (b) the behavior of the ETF as it trades on the market, and (c) the action of the authorized participants. These are simply different things. Which one is "right"? That depends on what you want to do. In theory you might be able to do some analysis of technical signals on SPY and SPX and, for example, use that to make money on the way that they fail to track each other. If you figure out how to do that, though, don't post it here. Send it to me directly. :) | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Is it possible to take advantage of exceptions to early withdrawal penalties on a 401(k)? | Your question doesn't make much sense. The exceptions are very specific and are listed on this site (IRS.GOV). I can't see how you can use any of the exceptions regularly while still continuing being employed and contributing. In any case, you pay income tax on any distribution that has not been taxed before (which would be a Roth account or a non-deductible IRA contribution). Including the employer's match. Here's the relevant portion: The following additional exceptions apply only to distributions from a qualified retirement plan other than an IRA: | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Is it possible to take advantage of exceptions to early withdrawal penalties on a 401(k)? | Most companies put the company match in your account each paycheck, but your are not generally vested for the match. If you leave before the specified time period then they pull back part of the matching funds. I knew somebody who did something similar back in the 1980's with their 401K. They put in 8% of their paycheck after taxes; a 100% match was deposited; then they pulled out the employees contribution every quarter. They did this for the 10 years I knew them. It avoided any tax implications, and they were still saving 8% of their pay for retirement. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
What would be a wise way to invest savings for a newly married couple? | Forgive me as I do not know much about your fine country, but I do know one thing. You can make 5% risk free guaranteed. How, from your link: If you make a voluntary repayment of $500 or more, you will receive a bonus of 5 per cent. This means your account will be credited with an additional 5 per cent of the value of your payment. I'd take 20.900 of that amount saved and pay off her loan tomorrow and increase my net worth by 22.000. I'd also do the same thing for your loan. In fact in someways it is more important to pay off your loan first. As I understand it, you will eventually have to pay your loan back once your income rises above a threshold. Psychologically you make attempt to retard your future income in order to avoid payback. Those decisions may not be made overtly but it is likely they will be made. So by the end of the day (or as soon as possible), I'd have a bank balance of 113,900 and no student loan debt. This amounts to a net increase in net worth of 1900. It is a great, safe, first investment. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
What would be a wise way to invest savings for a newly married couple? | First, keep about six months' expenses in immediately-available form (savings account or similar). Second, determine how long you expect to hold on to the rest of it. What's your timeframe for buying a house or starting a family? This determines what you should do with the rest of it. If you're buying a house next year, then a CD (Certificate of Deposit) is a reasonable option; low-ish interest reate, but something, probably roughly inflation level, and quite safe - and you can plan things so it's available when you need it for the down payment. If you've got 3-5 years before you want to touch this money, then invest it in something reasonably safe. You can find reasonable funds that have a fairly low risk profile - usually a combination of stock and bonds - with a few percent higher rate of return on average. Still could lose money, but won't be all that risky. If you've got over five years, then you should probably invest them in an ETF that tracks a large market sector - in the US I'd suggest VOO or similar (Vanguard's S&P 500 fund), I'm sure Australia has something similar which tracks the larger market. Risky, but over 5+ years unlikely to lose money, and will likely have a better rate of return than anything else (6% or higher is reasonable to expect). Five years is long enough that it's vanishingly unlikely to lose money over the time period, and fairly likely to make a good return. Accept the higher risk here for the greater return; and don't cringe when the market falls, as it will go up again. Then, when you get close to your target date, start pulling money out of it and into CDs or safer investments during up periods. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
What would be a wise way to invest savings for a newly married couple? | I agree with @Pete that you may be well-advised to pay off your loans first and go from there. Even though you may not be "required" to make payments on your own loan based on your income, that debt will play a large factor in your borrowing ability until it is gone, which hinders your ability to move toward home ownership. If you are in a fortunate enough position to totally pay off both your loan and hers from cash on hand then you should. It would still leave you with more than $112,000 and no debt, which is a big priority and advantage for a young couple. Mind you, this doesn't keep you from starting an investment plan with some portion of the remaining funds (the advice to keep six months' income in the bank is very wise) through perhaps a mutual fund if you don't want to directly manage the investments yourself. The advantage of mutual funds is the ability to choose the level of risk you're willing to take and let professionals manage how to achieve your goals for you. You can always make adjustments to your funds as your circumstances change. Again, I'd emphasize ridding yourself of the student loan debt as the first move, then looking at how to invest the remainder. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Over contributing to workplace pension or private pension | Firstly (and this part is rather opinion-based) I would absolutely not think of making more pension contributions when you are currently totaling 6% of salary as "over contributing". There are some who argue that you should be putting a minimum of 20% away for retirement throughout your working life; you don't say how old you are / how close to retirement you are, but a common rule of thumb is to halve your age and put away that % of your salary into your pension. So I would certainly start with upping those contributions. I actually don't think it makes much difference whether you go for just your workplace pension versus a separate private one - in general you end up paying management fees that are a % of the value, so whether it is in one place or split doesn't cost any less. The "all eggs in one basket" syndrome is a possible argument but equally if you change jobs a few times and end up with half a dozen pension pots it can be very hard to stay on top of them all. If you end up with everything in one pot and then transfer it when you change jobs, it's easier to manage. Other options: ISA as you mentioned; on the plus side these are tax free. On the minus side, you can either go for a cash ISA which at the moment has very low rates of return, and/or a stocks and shares ISA which exposes you to risks in the stock market. If you have debt, consider paying it off early / overpaying. Student loans may or may not be the exception to this depending on your personal situation. Certainly if you have a mortgage you can save a vast amount by overpaying early. Other investments - stocks and shares, BTL housing, fine wines, Bitcoin, there are almost limitless possibilities. But it makes sense to max out the tax-efficient options before you look into these. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
How does a small worker co-op track/manage stocks/shares | What I know about small companies and companies who are not listed on the stock markets is this: If a small company has shares issued to different people either within an organization or outside the value of the shares is generally decided by the individual who wants to sell the share and the buyer who wants to buy it. Suppose my company issued 10 shares to you for your help in the organization. Now you need money and you want to sell it. You can offer it at any price you want to to the buyer. If the buyer accepts your offer thats the price you get. So the price of the share is determined by the price a buyer is willing to buy it at from you. Remember the Face value of the shares remains the same no matter what price you sell it for. Now annual profit distribution is again something called dividends. Suppose my company has 100 shares in total out of which I have given you 10. This means you are a 10% owner of the company and you will be entitled to 10% of the net profit the company makes. Now at the end of the year suppose my company makes a 12,000 USD net profit. Now a panel called board of directors which is appointed by share holders will decide on how much profit to keep within the company for future business and how much to distribute about share holders. Suppose they decide to keep 2000 and distribute 10,000 out of total profit. Since you own 10% shares of the company you get 1000. The softwares you are talking are accounting softwares. You can do everything with those softwares. After-all a company is only about profit and loss statements. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
What is the Difference between Life Insurance and ULIP? | I would refer you to this question and answers. Here in the US we have two basic types of life insurance: term and whole life. Universal life is a marketing response to whole life being such a bad deal, and is whole life just not quite as bad. I am not familiar with the products in India, but given the acronym (ULIP), it is probably universal life, and as you describe is variable universal life. Likely Description "Under the hood", or in effect, you are purchasing a term life policy and investing excess premiums in a collection of stock mutual funds. This is a bad deal for a few reasons: A much better option is to buy "level term insurance" and invest on your own. You won't necessarily lose money, but you can make better financial decisions. It is good to invest, it is good to have life. A better decision would not to combine the two into a single product. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
What is the Difference between Life Insurance and ULIP? | ULIP insurance plan ULIP is Unit Linked Insurance Plan. The premium you pay, a small part goes towards covering life insurance. The Balance is invested into Stock Markets. Most ULIP would give you an option to choose from Debt Funds [100% safe buy low returns 5-7%] or Equity [High Risks, Returns can be around 15%]. Or a mix of both. ULIP are not a good way to save money. There are quite a few hidden fees that actually reduce the return. So notionally even if returns shown are great, in effect it is quite less. For example the premium you pay in first year, say Rs 10,000/- Rs 2,500/- goes towards commission. And say Rs 100 goes towards insurance. Balance Rs 7,400/- units are purchased in your account. Even if these grow by 20%, you are still in loss. Ofcousre, the commissions go down year after year and stop at 5%. Then there is fund management fees that you don't get to see. There is maintenance fee that is deduced from your balance. Thus the entire method of charging is not transparent. Life insurance from LIC There are broadly 2 types of Life Insurance plans Money Back / Endowment Plan. The concept here is again same, you pay a premium and part of it goes toward Insurance. The balance LIC invests in safe bonds. Every year a bonus is declared; generally less than Bank rate. At the end of the plan you get more than what you paid in premium. However if you had kept the same in Bank FD, you would have got more money back. So if you die, your nominee would get Insurance plus bonus. If you survive you get all the accumulated bonus. Pure Term Plan. Here the premium is quite less for the sum insured. Here if you die, your nominee would get insurance. If you survive you don't get anything. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Why is the regulation of “swaps” important to failing systemically significant institutions? | Have you ever considered how much faith and confidence play a role in the financial sector? The calling in of swaps could cause issues similar to a Bank Run, which may or may not involve others coming into play. While this is cleaning up the mess from a few years ago, there is something to be said for how complicated are various financial instruments in this situation. If you want something similar to ponder, what would make any institution be considered major and would this be agreed by various countries given how connected things are within the world? What makes an institution major in the United States may not be quite the same standards in Brazil and this where one has to consider how to maintain faith in the system that could unravel rather badly if everyone tries to cash out at the same time. The Bank Run link above is something to consider that could cause a bank that appears fine to suddenly have speculators cause more disruptions which isn't likely to help. The global credit markets aren't likely to freeze overnight and thus there can be the question how does this get handled if another mess could arise. The idea here is to set up the framework to prevent the panic that could lead to a global depression. The idea is to create for derivatives something similar to the stock market's trading curbs that exist to contain panic on a macro level. The psychology is quite important in figuring out how to handle the obligations of a company that was perceived to be infallible as well as making sure what is agreed works across various cultures and currencies. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Growth of unrealized gains in tax-managed index funds | I don't know that I can answer the question fully, but 2 points. The percent that represent capital gains certainly can't exceed 100. Did you mean 50% but the 500% is a typo? More important, funds held in retirement accounts have no issue with this, Cap Gains are meaningless within tax deferred accounts. I don't know the ratio of stocks held in these accounts vs outside, just that the 2011 year end total retirement account worth was $17 trillion. (That's 12 zeros) This strikes me as a high ratio, although more numbers digging is in order. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Growth of unrealized gains in tax-managed index funds | Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically. The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock. However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
With respect to insider trading, what is considered “material information”? | Some history: In the US, this is very tightly controlled and regulated. Although stock market securities insider trading is a relatively new crime around the world (20-30 year old), the United States is exceptional for offering the longest sentences for it, although it is still far more lucrative than and carries lower sentences than something like petty larceny. The perception of illegal insider trading has changed in the US over the years, although it is based on much older fraud statutes the regulators and the courts have only really developed modern case law against insider trading in the past 20-30 years. The US relies on its vast network of registered broker-dealers to detect and report abnormal trading activity and the regulator (SEC) can quickly obtain emergency court orders from rent-a-judges (Administrative Law Judges) to freeze trader's assets to prevent them from withdrawing, or quickly enacting sanctions. So this reality helps deter trading on material inside information. So for someone that needs to get an information advantage on the market, it is [simply] necessary for them to rationalize how this information could be inferred from public sources. Similarly there is a thin line between non-public information and public information, the "lab experiment" example would be material insider information, but the fact that there will be litigation over a company's key patents may be "public" as soon as the lawyer submits the complaint to the court system. It is also worth noting that there are A LOT of financial products trading in the capital markets, and illegal insider trading laws only applies to trading of shares of a company. So if a major holder in gold is about to liquidate all their holdings, being short gold futures is not subject to civil and criminal sanctions. Hope this helps. The above examples should help you understand what kind of information is material inside information and what kind is not, and how it is relevant to trading decisions. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
With respect to insider trading, what is considered “material information”? | Material Information means that any information that can reasonable affect the share price of the company [upward or downward] as looked by the investors. The idea is to provide a level playing field to all investors. Hence it forces people having material information not to trade when they have this information that is not yet disclosed. Yes it happens all the time and laws are quite stringent. There is monitoring of share activity by regulators ... hence most of the times the companies come out with their own guidelines and top & senior management is prohibited from trading in their own company’s shares for pretty much round the year except few windows the company decides is safe. Now it may not be possible to monitor every small material info, but any large spike of stocks after certain announcements is investigated by regulators to verify any undue gains. For ex a person who never trades suddenly buys large qty of shares and it goes up and he sells again ... etc | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Are U.S. salaries typically measured/reported before tax, or after tax? | In the U.S., virtually all salaries are expressed as "gross salaries", which are before the taxes that the individual must pay on their income. The numbers shown in the links are almost certainly gross salary figures. However, the "gross salary" is not the entire "total compensation" number, which is the total value of all compensation and benefits that the employee receives for his work. Total compensation includes not only salary and bonuses, but the cost or value of any employer-paid healthcare, retirement, company car, expense account, stock options, and other valuable goods or services. That's still not the total amount of money the company has to pay to have you; there are employer-paid payroll taxes totaling 6.2% of your gross salary, plus practical costs like the cost of your computer, cubicle or office furniture, and the portion of utility costs that keep you well-lit, clean and comfortable. This complete number is called "total employee cost", and the general rule of thumb is that it's double your gross cash compensation (salary + bonuses). Lastly, $100k in California isn't worth as much, in real terms, as $100k in other parts of the U.S. The cost of living in California, especially in Silicon Valley where the majority of the people who make six figures by being C++ programmers are located, is ridiculously expensive. There are other tech hubs in the U.S., like DFW, Austin TX, Atlanta GA, St Louis MO, Raleigh NC, etc where people earn less, but also spend less to live and so can use more of their salary in a "discretionary" manner. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
What is a “closed-end fund”? How is a closed-end fund different from a typical mutual fund? | A closed-end fund is a collective investment scheme that is closed to new investment once the fund starts operating. A typical open-ended fund will allow you to buy more shares of the fund anytime you want and the fund will create those new shares for you and invest your new money to continue growing assets under management. A closed-end fund only using the initial capital invested when the fund started operating and no new shares are typically created (always exception in the financial community). Normally you buy and sell an open-end fund from the fund company directly. A closed-end fund will usually be bought and sold on the secondary market. Here is some more information from Wikipedia Some characteristics that distinguish a closed-end fund from an ordinary open-end mutual fund are that: Another distinguishing feature of a closed-end fund is the common use of leverage or gearing to enhance returns. CEFs can raise additional investment capital by issuing auction rate securities, preferred shares, long-term debt, and/or reverse-repurchase agreements. In doing so, the fund hopes to earn a higher return with this excess invested capital. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
How to choose a good 401(k) investment option? | There are not as many options here as you fear. If you have no other investments outside this 401K it is even easier. Outside accounts include IRA, Roth IRA, taxable investments (mutual funds, ETF, individual stocks), Employee stock purchase plans. Amount: make sure you put enough in to get all the company match. I assume that in your case the 9% will do so, but check your documents. The company match will be with pre-tax funds. Roth vs Regular 401K? Most people in their lifetime will need a mix of Roth and Regular retirement accounts. You need to determine if it is better for you to pay the tax on your contributions now or later. Which accounts? If you are going to invest in a target date fund, you can ignore the rest of the options. The target date fund is a mixture of investments that will change over the decades. Calculate which one fits your expected retirement date and go with it. If you want to be able to control the mix, then you will need to pick several funds. The selection depends on what non-401K investments you have. Now here is what I considered the best advice. Decide Roth or regular, and just put the money into the most appropriate target date fund with the Roth/regular split you want. Then after the money starts flowing into your account, research the funds involved, the fees for those funds, and how you want to invest. Then move the money into the funds you want. Don't waste another day deciding how to invest. Just get started. The best part of a 401K, besides the match, is that you can move money between funds without worrying about taxes. If you realize that you want to put extra emphasis on the foreign stocks, or Mid-cap; just move the funds and redirect future contributions. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
How to choose a good 401(k) investment option? | The vanguard funds are all low fee your employer has done a good job selecting their provider for 401(k). I would do a roth if you can afford it as taxes are at a historical low. Just pick the year you want to get your money if you will need your money in 2040 pick Vanguard Target Retirement 2040 Fund. Its that simple. This is not a "thing" ( low-risk, and a decent return ). Risk and reward are correlated. Get the vanguard and every year it rebalances so that you take less risk every year. Lastly listen to the Clark Howard podcast if you are having trouble making decisions or contact their 45 hour a week free advice email/phone help. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
How to choose a good 401(k) investment option? | Great question and good for you for starting investments. Are you young, like in your 20s? I would do all that you can in the ROTH. You will not get a tax break now, but you will get one later. Keep in mind that any company match does not go into ROTH but the IRA. I try to look at two things when judging a mutual fund: the historic performance, and the expense fee. When comparing two funds, if one has a 10% average return for 10 years, and a 1% fee, I feel it is better than a fund that has a 12% return for the same time period and a 3% fee. If they are close, you can always put a little bit in each one. An important question to ask is if you have debt. You may want to scale back your contributions some to pay down that debt. For me, I don't like to go below a company match to do so, but anything over and above might be better utilized to move that student, car or credit card loan to zero. Others might disagree, so YMMV, but I have done this myself. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
How to choose a good 401(k) investment option? | There are a lot of funds that exist only to feed people's belief that existing funds are not diversified or specialized enough. That's why you have so many options. Just choose the ones with the lowest fees. I'd suggest the following: I wouldn't mess around with funds that try and specialize in "value" or those target date funds. If you really don't want to think and don't mind paying slightly higher fees, just pick the target date fund that corresponds to when you will retire and put all your money there. On the traditional/Roth question, if your tax bracket will be higher when you retire than it is now (unlikely), choose Roth. Otherwise choose traditional. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
How to choose a good 401(k) investment option? | I agree with the others that the ROTH is probably better. See this list of benefit/cost comparison (as opposed to rule differences)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_401%28k%29_and_IRA_accounts&oldid=582368417 | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
What to know before purchasing Individual Bonds? | A few points that I would note: Call options - Could the bond be called away by the issuer? This is something to note as some bonds may end up not being as good as one thought because of this option that gets used. Tax considerations - Are you going for corporate, Treasury, or municipals? Different ones may have different tax consequences to note if you aren't holding the bond in a tax-advantaged account,e.g. Roth IRA, IRA or 401k. Convertible or not? - Some bonds are known as "convertibles" since the bond comes with an option on the stock that can be worth considering for some kinds of bonds. Inflation protection - Some bonds like TIPS or series I savings bonds can have inflation protection built into them that can also be worth understanding. In the case of TIPS, there are principal adjustments while the savings bond will have a change in its interest rate. Default risk - Some of the higher yield bonds may have an issuer go under which is another way one may end up with equity in a company rather than getting their money back. On the other side, for some municipals one could have the risk of the bond not quite being as good as one thought like some Detroit bonds that may end up in a different result given their bankruptcy but there are also revenue bonds that may not meet their target for another situation that may arise. Some bonds may be insured though this requires a bit more research to know the credit rating of the insurer. As for the latter question, what if interest rates rise and your bond's value drops considerably? Do you hold it until maturity or do you try to sell it and get something that has a higher yield based on face value? | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
How can I calculate a “running” return using XIRR in a spreadsheet? | Set your xirr formula to a very tall column, leaving lots of empty rows for future additions. In column C, instead of hardcoding the value, use a formula that tests if it's the current bottom entry, like this: =IF(ISBLANK(A7),-C6, C6) If the next row has no date entered (yet), then this is the latest value, and make it negative. Now, to digress a bit, there are several ways to measure returns. I feel XIRR is good for individual positions, like holding a stock, maybe buying more via DRIP, etc. For the whole portfolio it stinks. XIRR is greatly affected by timing of cash flows. Steady deposits and no withdrawals dramatically skew the return lower. And the opposite is true for steady withdrawals. I prefer to use TWRR (aka TWIRR). Time Weighted Rate of Return. The word 'time' is confusing, because it's the opposite. TWRR is agnostic to timing of cashflows. I have a sample Excel spreadsheet that you're welcome to steal from: http://moosiefinance.com/static/models/spreadsheets.html (it's the top entry in the list). Some people prefer XIRR. TWRR allows an apples-to-apples comparison with indexes and funds. Imagine twin brothers. They both invest in the exact same ideas, but the amount of cash deployed into these ideas is different, solely because one brother gets his salary bonus annually, in January, and the other brother gets no bonus, but has a higher bi-weekly salary to compensate. With TWRR, their percent returns will be identical. With XIRR they will be very different. TWRR separates out investing acumen from the happenstance timing of when you get your money to deposit, and when you retire, when you choose to take withdrawals. Something to think about, if you like. You might find this website interesting, too: http://www.dailyvest.com/ | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
How can I calculate a “running” return using XIRR in a spreadsheet? | I could not figure out a good way to make XIRR work since it does not support arrays. However, I think the following should work for you: Insert a column at D and call it "ratio" (to be used to calculate your answer in column E). Use the following equation for D3: =1+(C3-B3-C2)/C2 Drag that down to fill in the column. Set E3 to: =(PRODUCT(D$3:D3)-1)*365/(A3-A$2) Drag that down to fill in the column. Column E is now your annual rate of return. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Is there any way to attach a statement of explanation while submitting a tax return electronically using Free Fillable Forms? | Depending on what you need to explain, you can submit your electronic return without the supplemental information and subsequently mail a Form 8453 with the additional information. This is helpful for form 8489, for example, where you need to list every transaction reported by your stock broker on a 1099-B. See https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8453.pdf for more details on this form. If the information you need to submit an attachment for doesn't follow one of the options on that form, you will likely need to file a paper return or use a paid tax preparation service/application. Limitations of FreeFile are explained here, along with a list of forms that are available: https://www.irs.gov/uac/List-of-Available-Free-File-Fillable-Forms The "Attaching Statements" and "Write-in information" sections seem like they might apply to your situation. Attaching Statements - If you need to add statements and you can't use Form 8453, U.S. Individual Income Tax Transmittal for an IRS e-file Return, to mail that information, you will not be able to use this program to efile your return Identity Protection PIN's (IP PIN) - This program only supports the entry of a Primary taxpayer's IP PIN. If the spouse or dependents have an IP PIN, you cannot use this program to efile the return. Writing In Information - Your ability to "write in" additional information to explain an entry is generally limited to the 1040 forms and some of the more frequently submitted forms. If you need to write in additional information on a form, other than the 1040 series, you may not be able to use this program to efile your tax return. E-filing Forms - To efile forms, (except Form 4868) they must be attached to a 1040 series form (1040, 1040A or 1040EZ). Form Limitations - There may be Known Limitations of forms you plan to complete. Please review them. A form limitation may keep you from completing or e-filing your return. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Understanding how this interpretation of kelly criterion helps the trader | Three important things worth remembering about Kelly when applied to real world edges: 1) Full Kelly staking is gut wrenchingly volatile. While it maximises the growth of the bankroll, it does so in a way that still leaves you very likely to experience massive (50%+) reductions in capital. Most long terms users of Kelly tend to stick in the 1/4 to 1/2 Kelly unit range to try and stay sane and retain a margin of error. See below for how large the typical swings can be with full Kelly: 2) Garbage in, garbage out. If you are making errors in pricing your actual edge, Kelly becomes very wrong very fast, easily leading you to a high chance of ruin if you are over estimating your true edge. As most people do massively over estimate their edges, Kelly simply pushes them far into territory where risk of ruin is high. 3) A Kelly user prefers to back likely outcomes over non likely ones, even to the point where they prefer a smaller % edge if the chances of winning are better. Compare the below comparison of growth between two betting scenarios (decimal odds, so for the percantage chances do 1/odds): In this case, despite the percentage edge on the red bet being higher than that of the green, in terms of bankroll growth it ends up only being roughly as good to a kelly gambler as the smaller edge on the more likely event. This has an obvious effect on the types of edges you should be seeking out if given choices between liklihoods. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Understanding how this interpretation of kelly criterion helps the trader | The goal of the kelly criterion strategy is to find a balance between preservation of starting capital and returns. One of extreme you could bet the entirety of your account on one trade, which would maximize your returns if you win, but leave you unable to further invest if you lose. On the other extreme, you could bet the smallest amount of capital possible over the course of several trades to increase the probability that you'll even out to 70% accuracy over time. But this method would be extremely slow. So for your case, investing 40% each time is one way to find an optimal balance between these two extremes. Use this as a rule of thumb though, because your own situation and investing goals may differ from the goal of optimal growth. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Understanding how this interpretation of kelly criterion helps the trader | I don't know too much about the kelly criterion, but going by the other answers it sounds like it could be quite risky depending how you use it. I have been taught the first thing you do in trading is protect your existing capital and any profits you have made, and for this reason I prefer and use Position Sizing (PS). The concept with PS is that you only risk a small % of your capital on every trade, usually not more than 1%, however if you want to be very aggressive then not more than 2%. I use 1% of my capital for every trade. So if you are trading with an account of $40,000 and your risk R on every trade is 1%, then R = $400. As an example, say you decide to buy a stock at $10 and you work out your initial stop to be at $9.50, then our maximum risk R of $400 is divided by the stop distance of $0.50 to get your PS = $400/$0.50 = 800 shares. If the price then drops after your purchase, your maximum loss (subject to no slippage) would be $400. If the price moves up you would raise your stop until your potential loss becomes smaller and smaller and then becomes a gain once your stop moves above your initial purchase price. The aim is to make your gains be larger than your losses. So if your average loss is kept to 1R or less then you should aim to get your average gains to 2R, 3R or more. This would be considered a good trading system where you will make regular profits even with a win ratio of 50%. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? | I would focus first on maxing out your RRSPs (or 401k) each year, and once you've done that, try to put another 10% of your income away into unregistered long term growth savings. Let's say you're 30 and you've been doing that since you graduated 7 years ago, and maybe you averaged 8% p.a. return and an average of $50k per year salary (as a round number). I would say you should have 60k to 120k in straight up investments around age 30. If that's the case, you're probably well on your way to a very comfortable retirement. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? | There's a bit of working backwards that's required. This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.) | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? | For most people, a million dollars is about right. Here's the back of the napkin math that you should consider to find your own estimate: If you take 1 and divide it by 2, that's roughly the size of the nest egg you'll need to live indefinitely. For example, if your retirement investments are earning 5% a year, and you want to live on $50,000 a year, you would need a $1,000,000 nest egg (50,000 / 0.05) Note that you don't have to make any assumptions about how long you'll live. The whole idea of a nest egg is that you live off the interest it earns each year without ever dipping into the principle. It's the gift that keeps on giving! When you die, you can pass it along to children, charities, etc. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? | One more thing to consider is that $1M today is not the same as $1M 30 years from now because of inflation. Consider that just 30 years ago (1980) the average house price in the US was only about $69K and a new car cost around $7K on average. When you retire, it isn't much of a stretch to assume that you could be paying $1.5M for a typical house, $100K for mid-grade car, by the time you retire in 30 years. Of course, over the rest of your working life your salary will likely increase due to inflation too, so that will help. In 1980 the average US income was around $19K/year. So even though that number seems huge, it is because it is denominated in currency that has been devalued significantly. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? | Here's another answer on the topic: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? An angle on it this question made me think of: a good approach here is to focus on savings rate (which you can control) rather than the final number (which you can't, plus it will fluctuate with the markets and make you nervous). For example, focus on saving at least 10% of your income annually (15% is much safer). If you focus on the final number: The way it works in the real world is that you save as much as you can, but there are lots of random factors and unknowns. Some people end up having to work a lot longer than they hoped to. Others end up able to retire early. Others retire on time but have to spend less than they hoped. But the one thing you can often control (as long as you have an income and no catastrophes, anyway) is that you spend less than you make. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? | There are three numbers that matter in that calculation: 1) How much do you expect per month from in pension/social security/or other retirement programs? 2) At what age will each of you retire? 3) How long will each of you live? 4) What will your annual expenses be when you retire? Unfortunately #3 is the most important of the three and the hardest to know with any certainty. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
One Share Stock Reverse Split | Any time there is a share adjustment from spin-off, merger, stock split, or reverse slit; there is zero chance for the stockholders to hang on to fractional shares. They are turned into cash. For the employees in the 401K program or investors via a mutual fund or ETF this isn't a problem. Because the fraction of a share left over is compared to the thousands or millions of shares owned by the fund as a collective. For the individual investor in the company this can be a problem that they aren't happy about. In some cases the fractional share is a byproduct that will result from any of these events. In the case of a corporate merger or spin-off most investors will not have an integer number of shares, so that fraction leftover that gets converted to cash isn't a big deal. When they want to boost the price to a specific range to meet a regulatory requirement, they are getting desperate and don't care that some will be forced out. In other cases it is by design to force many shareholders out. They want to go private. They to 1-for-1000 split. If you had less than 1000 shares pre-split then you will end up with zero shares plus cash. They know exactly what number to use. The result after the split is that the number of investors is small enough they they can now fall under a different set of regulations. They have gone dark, they don't have to file as many reports, and they can keep control of the company. Once the Board of Directors or the majority stockholders votes on this, the small investors have no choice. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Investments other than CDs? | You're losing money. And a lot of it. Consider this: the inflation is 2-4% a year (officially, depending on your spending pattern your own rate might be quite higher). You earn about 1/2%. I.e.: You're losing 3% a year. Guaranteed. You can do much better without any additional risk. 0.1% on savings account? Why not 0.9%? On-line savings account (Ally, CapitalOne-360, American Express, E*Trade, etc) give much higher rates than what you have. Current Ally rates are 0.9% on a regular savings account. 9 times more than what you have, with no additional risk: its a FDIC insured deposit. You can get a slightly higher rate with CDs (0.97% at the same bank for 12 months deposit). IRA - why is it in CD's? Its the longest term investment you have, that's where you can and should take risks, to maximize your compounding returns. Not doing that is actually more risky to you because you're guaranteeing compounding loss, of the said 3% a year. On average, more volatile stock investments have shown to be not losing money over periods of decades, even if they do lose money over shorter periods. Rental - if you can buy a property that you would pay the same amount of money for as for a comparable rental - you should definitely buy. Your debt will be secured by the property, and since you're paying the same amount or less - you're earning the equity. There's no risk here, just benefits, which again you chose to forgo. In the worst case if you default and walk away from the property you lost exactly (or less) what you would have paid for a rental anyway. 14 years old car may be cheaper than 4 years old to buy, but consider the maintenance, licensing and repairs - will it not some up to more than the difference? In my experience - it is likely to. Bottom line - you think you're risk averse, but you're exactly the opposite of that. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |