Split (1)

train · 55.1k rows

query_id stringlengths 32 32	query stringlengths 6 5.37k	positive_passages listlengths 1 17	negative_passages listlengths 10 100	subset stringclasses 7 values
e92c69de6712690a238ab5b1c880ec59	If a country can just print money, is global debt between countries real?	[ { "docid": "b12b0aabd80cb5c2609e5f39ae7a7ad3", "text": "The debt is absolutely real. China loans money to US via buying the US treasury bonds. The bond is essentially a promise to pay back the money with interest, just like a loan. As you point out, the US can print money. If this were to happen, then the USD that the owner of a treasury bond receives when the bond matures are worth less that than the USD used to purchase the bonds. There are lots of reasons why the US doesn't want to print lots of money, so the purchaser of the bond is probably confident it won't happen. If for some reason they think it is possible, then they will want to cover that risk by only purchasing bonds that have a higher interest rate. The higher interest offsets the risk of the USD being worth less. Of course, there are lots more details, e.g., the bonds themselves are bought and sold before maturity, but this is the basic idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ce931d868b678112c38d510efe1c7d3", "text": "\"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 \"\"dollars\"\", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45185420c394230f6ea4c738968825fd", "text": "To understand this fully one would need to understand quite a few things. Not in scope here. In short, whenever China sells goods to US, it gets USD as most of the trades are in USD. China uses this money to buy other things it needs like Oil etc. After this they still have quite a bit of USD left with them. The money is left with them because US is buying more things from China and selling less things to China. This creates a surplus USD with China. So if US were to borrow money from China or any other country, it would be this excess money. Ofcourse how money gets created in first place is a different topic altogether.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6b44c3e9f0f7b02c284a23f945e7de1", "text": "This is a extremely complicated subject, but I assume you want a very simple answer (otherwise I'm not qualified to answer). The value of most currencies is closely tied to the economy of the county, so if China were to print a huge amount of yuan, then since the value of their economy has not really changed, the international currency markets would devalue the yuan to compensate. (This is rather like, if have shares in, say Apple, and they were to issue an extra billion shares, then the value of your shares would fall (by half), rather than for Apple to be suddenly be worth twice as much) Print too many notes and your currency basically becomes almost worthless, which is what happened to the Zimbabwean dollar. I like the idea of China skipping crate loads of actual yuan or dollars notes to America, but in practice, the borrowing is just a paper exercise, rather like an IOU. As to whether America owes Yuan or dollars, the answer is whatever has been agreed. Assuming the currencies are fairly stable, then since each country has more control over their own currency, it is natural for them to prefer their own currency. However, if America believes the value of the dollar will increase, they may prefer to pay back in Yuan (costing them less dollars), and if China believes the value of the dollar will decrease they may agree to that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db76c8b2fee1cabf362f8e88da5c5936", "text": "The main driver behind countries not printing themselves out of debt is the fact that it will cripple the economy, destroy citizens savings, asset valuations and piss all the countries trade partners off so much that they may stop doing business with them. You will have a few different extremes, look at Zimbabwe as an example of a country that just prints money like no ones business. America is essentially devaluing its currency to compete with China. That annoys the Chinese because their holdings are devalued and as such you then see people moving away from US treasuries into more stable commodities and currencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6e444f254d171aade7bf0b62c90b74d", "text": "\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \"\"printing their way out of it\"\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9a6362547ac6859733c2e74e823f56da", "text": "Japan printed 11 trillion yen on Monday. They do this by monetizing their own debt. The increase in the supply of yen affects the value of the currency. Strange thought, I know. Greece has an economic crisis because they were borrowing at rates that AAA rated countries do. Someone noticed that they weren't exactly a AAA country when they needed to ask for bailout money. Since all government debt is considered risk free and same as cash, this came as a shock to most 'investors' hence the 'crisis' edit: my bad, was 11 trillion, not 9 trillion", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef900298081d52c0b7a1e22a0c5c2834", "text": "You don't understand government financing at all. Gov'ts earn revenue, aka, taxes. They also spend money. The different between the money they spend and they money they earn is the deficit. If you run a deficit for a long period of time, you incur a very large national debt. Now, you can finance (aka, pay for) a deficit by borrowing money. This means you can sell bonds, and instead of pay off the debt each year, you just pay the interest. If your spending balloons out of control, your the likely hood of you paying your debt decreases. If you are very unlikely to payback your debt, people won't buy any more of your bonds, and you no longer have the income (from borrowing) to pay off your interest from other debt you owe, or what ever other obligations you own (think mortgage payments, or teachers salaries, etc). Here's were Europe and USA differ: European nations can't just print money. They can issue more debt, but they can't just create more euros. IF you can print money, you can pay off your debt with money you literally created out of thin air (at the expense of your people, this is called inflation). But this is a form of cheating, eventually people won't trust you, and won't buy your debt either. So where do the banks come in? if the government is SOUND and the banks are NOT, the government can backstop the banks. This is what the US and UK did. Greece, Spain, Ireland all had to back stop their banks also. However, Greece, Spain, and Irelany ( and Italy, and Portugal) also have 1) A lot of debt 2) Structurally high deficits 3) Extremely high borrowing costs (high interest rates...because people don't trust them...because...) 4) Weak underlying economies The fourth point gets you in real trouble. if you have high entitlements, lots of poeple out of work, who the hell is paying taxes and what are they going to? You have no revenue! Remember, a govt works just like a household. It is easy for a good household to support one member, but it is difficult for a member to support an irresponsible household.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65a545ad655f7500a92ec4ec4f1f0f4f", "text": "\"Japan Has Entered The Next Phase: Unlimited Money Printing Investors have been watching Japan for over a decade now, wondering what happens to a country that has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 234%--too big to realistically pay off. We are starting to get the answer. For review, Japan was the first country in the modern central banking era to begin a policy of quantitative easing--an unconventional form of monetary policy that is used when interest rates have already been lowered to the zero bound. Quantitative easing, which involves the purchase of \"\"printed\"\" money to buy government bonds, was widely viewed in Japan as a failure, but what most people don't understand about Japan's early QE experiments is that they were very small--less than $20 billion a month. It took Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda to ramp up asset purchases significantly in what was called \"\"Abenomics.\"\" Shinzo Abe, Japan's prime minister. Photographer: Akio Kon/Bloomberg The results of Abenomics have been mixed, but the stock market is certainly higher and the yen is certainly lower, although it's not clear that either of those two developments have really helped. Japan's stock market is mostly foreign-owned, and the weaker yen didn't materially help the balance of trade. Still, there are a lot of people who said that Japan's endless debt deflation would have been worse without Abenomics, so it has remained firmly in place for five years. Abenomics rapidly began to cause distortions, as accelerated asset purchases caused the Bank of Japan to hold a huge percentage of outstanding government bonds, at 40% and rising, as well as being the majority holder of index ETFs. Investors who traffic in JGBs have remarked that the market now functions very poorly, since so much of the market is held by the BOJ. It seems that will get worse, not better. Last year the BOJ implemented a policy of yield curve targeting (ostensibly to help the banks), keeping the overnight rate negative but targeting a 10 year rate at zero percent. The BOJ has been buying longer-dated bonds for years, but this was the first time it ever explicitly capped a rate at longer maturities. Some people wondered how committed the BOJ would be to maintain that cap in the event that JGBs were caught up in a global duration selloff, which we experienced in the last two weeks. As 10-year JGB yields rose above 0.10% last week, the BOJ announced that it was prepared to buy an unlimited amount of bonds to keep yields close to zero percent. As you can imagine, buying an unlimited amount of 10-year JGBs involves printing a theoretically unlimited amount of yen, so the yen weakened significantly on the news. It still remains about ten percent stronger than it was in 2015. We are getting closer to the endgame for Japan. What happens if yields rise further? What happens if the yen depreciates significantly? How much could it depreciate? Could Japan have a currency crisis? What happens if the BOJ ends up owning the entire bond market? These are the questions that investors are asking, and nobody really knows the answers. We are in uncharted territory. I believe that a currency crisis isn't just possible--it's inevitable. And it probably happens at about the time that the BOJ owns all or nearly all of the JGB market, and has to resort to canceling the debt. This sounds like a neat magic trick to make the debt go away, but the laws of economics are not to be conned. Anything is possible--a currency crash, a bond market crash--anything. This is the very definition of debt monetization that resulted in hyperinflation in places like Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe. Is Japan different? We shall see. We will find out soon, as Japan has taken a major step in that direction. Jared Dillian is the author of All the Evil of This World, and the editor of the 10th Man newsletter for Mauldin Economics. Subscribe here. Forbes articles have 8 tracking cookies and 9 tracking scripts. This comment has none.(https://www.reddit.com/r/raws/comments/68xk37/about/)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "768afd430beaddf843064787b4537b0f", "text": "If we postulate that there is at least some element of truth to the phrase 'A leopard does not change his spots' and then consider this tidbit He conveniently forgets to mention his 1.5 million dollar fraud fine from the SEC over investment “advice” he sold through a news letter. The SEC claimed and the judge agreed that the report was “replete with lies”. I think that gives you just about all you might need to know regarding the man behind the video, and the nature of it's content. Oh, and it's purpose? To SELL YOU the same said newsletter. I guess it's natural for Stansberry to feel as he does. After all if the US gov had just busted me for conning and lying to folks, and fined ME 1.5Mill, I'd be having some pretty intense lurid fantasies about it going down in flames, and trying to hide any money I had left offshore also. A huge amount of his argument hinges on the US no longer being the world's reserve currency. Firstly, while I'll admit I'm none too happy with the way the national debt has been managed for oh, around 30 years how, (which includes I will note going from a pretty much balanced budget, to around an 80% increase in the debt from 2001 through 2008, when 'times were good' and there was little need to spend money we didn't have), when compared to a lot of other countries, we still don't look that bad. You have to ask yourself this first, if not the US, then WHO? are the governments of the world going to trust China? could the Yen handle the load? Is the Euro any better off especially considering problems in Greece, Ireland, etc. Do countries like Switzerland have enough liquidity and available ways to invest there? In order for the US to STOP being the world's reserve currency, you must have something to replace it with, and really, can we realistically think of one country/currency with the capability to become a new 'world reserve currency'??? Secondly, even then should such a shift actually happen, it doesn't mean people will ALL just magically stop buying US debt. Yes the demand would go down, but it would not go to zero. There are after all a worldfull of other countries who's money is right now NOT the world reserve currency, and yet they are able to sell bonds and people and even other countries invest there. (China for example does not invest exclusively in the US), so yeah we might have to start paying more interest to get people to buy US debt, but it's not like the demand will go away. Save your money, save your time, don't buy into this dung.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4ee281926e6a79e88acbe72e41096f9", "text": "\"First of all, just for the sake of clarity, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually \"\"print\"\" money - that's the job of the BEP. What they do is they buy US Treasury bonds - i.e., loan money to the US government. The money they do it with are created \"\"from thin air\"\" - just by adding some numbers in certain accounts, thus it is described as \"\"printing money\"\". The US government then spends the money however it wishes to. The idea is that this money is injected into the economy - since the only way the US government can use the money from these loans is to spend them on buying something or give it to some people that would spend them. As it is a loan, sometime in the future the US government would pay these loans back, and in this moment the Fed would decide - if they want to \"\"contract\"\" the supply of money back, they just \"\"destroy\"\" the money they've got, by erasing the numbers they created before. They could also do it by selling the bonds they hold on the open market and then again \"\"destroy\"\" the money they got as proceeds, thus lowering the amount of money existing in the economy. This way the Fed can control how much money is out there and thus supposedly influence inflation and economic activity. The Fed could also inject money in the economy by buying any assets after creating the money - for example, right now they own about a trillion dollars worth of various mortgage-based securities. But since buying specific security would probably give unfair advantage to the issuers and owners of this security, usually US treasury bonds if what they buy. The side effect of increased supply of money denominated in dollars would be, as you noted, devaluation of dollars compared to other currencies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe6aa5920172d01e15ecd2a8c400c64e", "text": "\"Bankruptcy is a way to the fiat currency system to regulate itself. The current system assume that there will always be more debts than money available. Since money is created with debt already attached to it, the difference between \"\"real\"\" money, and \"\"on paper\"\" money build up over time. When this disparity become to big, bankruptcies need to occur to bring those two number closer to each other. It's like earthquakes if you like, the tectonic plates build up tension that need to be released in many small shocks, or a few big shocks. The everyday bankruptcies represent the small quakes, and big recession represent too much build up that need to be released in one big shocks. It's a very high level explanation and it doesn't go into details, but it's roughly why it happens. EDIT: I wasn't saying that it was bad or not, I was simply explaining bankruptcy and why it's bound to happen. If you don't like the analogy, it's no reason for downvote. I know it may not be clear for everyone, but if you do not agree, please explain yourself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "119a3ad16226b55f87fc67344cc171f8", "text": "\"> but the buying power of that money can be significantly reduced to the point where it's fundamentally useless, i.e. inter-war Germany and many countries in South and Central America. That's true, but how does that come about? The effect on buying power stems from the level of spending in the present period. Too little leaves you anywhere from outright deflation and contraction to weaker growth falling short of capacity. Too much reaches capacity and keeps spending, bidding up prices and driving down purchasing power. It has nothing to do with debt:GDP or interest payments. > Germany managed to skate by by creating a new Deutschmark in a confidence trick, and it worked because Germany is a solid, iron clad manufacturing powerhouse of a lot of stuff. There are two important differences between inter-war Germany and the US. First is that inter-war Germany lost a war. This real shock is kind of important. When you're talking about buying power of money, one side of it is the amount of money in circulation but the other side of it is how much real output there is to buy and German real output capacity collapsed after the war. Their most productive regions were occupied territory and they were no longer a powerhouse manufacturing a lot of stuff, driving down the value of their currency. So lesson number one from Germany: real output collapse harms your currency. The second problem is that losing a war left Germany saddled with war reparations denominated in foreign currency. When you're on the hook for something you don't print you're in a situation where you can run out of money and that's exactly what happened to them. They tried printing more of their own currency to buy the foreign stuff with but that quickly drove down the value of German currency. So lesson number two from Germany is you don't want to be on the hook for a currency you don't issue. Put the two together and you have a real supply shock + foreign-denominated debt eviscerating the buying power of German currency. It wasn't debt:GDP but the real basis for their economy collapsing out from under them pushed along by a need for foreign currency. >My question is, at what point do we engage Washington's unlimited money printing presses until we reach that point? In answer to your question, the printing presses are what funds the real economy. The worry in terms of avoiding \"\"that point\"\" is in making sure we keep that real economy productive and fully funded. Ironically, taking our eye off the ball to focus on budget balance at the expense of real output pushes the economy in the direction you're afraid of going. See also: the euro zone today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdf71bd9c994ed091173b092c7fda40f", "text": "> Story printed literally as the only thing that can hold on value to the currency.. Japan has huge current account and trade surplus. they have to print money or else Yen will shoot up to the moon. Japan cannot afford over valued currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2393a44dc0901577a7086d3f55c7bdc7", "text": "\"Sovereign states borrow money explicitly in a two primary ways: A sovereign cannot be compelled to repay debt, and there isn't a judicial process like bankruptcy to erase debt. When sovereigns default, they negotiate new terms with creditors and pay back some fraction of the actual debt owed. They can also print money to repay debt, which has other nasty consequences. But, while a state cannot be compelled to repay a debt, creditors cannot be compelled to loan money to the state either! Any enterprise of sufficient size needs access to capital via loans to meet daily obligations in anticipation of revenue -- even when times are good. Defaulting makes borrowing impossible or expensive, and is avoided. Regarding using your military to avoid repaying debt... remember what Napoleon said: \"\"An army travels on its stomach\"\". Military campaigns are expensive... no borrowing ability means the soldiers don't get paid and the food, fuel and ammo don't get delivered. Smaller countries have other risks as well. Many nations are essentially forced to use US Dollars as a reserve currency, or are forced by the market to borrow money in a foreign currency. This creates a situation where any risk of non-payment results in a deep devaluation of the local currency. When your debt is denominated in dollars, these shifts can dramatically increase your debt obligations from a local currency point of view. You also run the risk that a larger or richer company will park warships in your harbor and seize assets as payment -- the US and Britain engaged in this several times during the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, not paying the bills has a cascading effect. Bad situations get worse, and they do so quickly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b56622ebc3733c8796be7e12c241770e", "text": "Yes, and heres some pretty scary stats. Global debt went from about 200% of GPD in 2007 to 325% of GDP today. Global Debt is about 2.5x more than the value of global broad money (all the money in the world). The value of the derivatives market has increased to 6x the value of all global debt. Meaning a global market of packaging and trading debt exists that is 6x the value of the debt being traded, and 15x the value of all the money in the world.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fefb2bebc863d73f23a0dfeed3af1802", "text": "Question: So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam, it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash. So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is. And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary? But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90bde0cc066745cdff7035c91c4165a8", "text": "\"[There's about 10 trillion in gold](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve) and about [2.8 trillion of US cash](http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/the-value-of-united-states-currency-in-circulation/) in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world. For example, about [4 trillion a day](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market) changes hands in the currency markets alone - if that were required to be cash or gold it would be impossible to do so, and you'd suffer from more poorly priced goods since markets could not adjust as quickly, so vendors would charge more premium to handle the risk. Yes, there is not (and has not been) enough cash in circulation to run the world economy. There is also vastly too little gold, unless you want to strangle commerce due to not being enough money to trade. > \"\"posing as the money supply\"\" All money is debt, and always has been. Money is a placeholder that you can trade for goods later meaning someone owes you a thing. The value of that money is the debt they (or society) owes you for something you already did to get that money. So there is no posing, just most don't understand money, how it originated, why it exists, or why it works. They never ask the question \"\"how does money come into existance\"\". > Does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? Probably not much. Loans are made expecting some default, so the interest others pay on their loans helps offset the defaulted ones. If loans become riskier, the interest demanded increases, so the lender still (if they do their risk analysis well and no external events break their expectations) makes money. When you pay off a debt, that money, as you're paying it, is likely being lent in other loans, so paying it off does not do much. If you could pay off about 100 trillion in debt into the US economy in one payment you might break some things :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57904482f79435e2e4f514c6c20f95a3", "text": "They're not going to do anything about it. Washington needs the debt wheel to keep spinning, or the Dollar will lose its position as the Reserve Currency. Then all hell would break loose. Powerful countries like Japan are going to have to take the initiative. And apparently they are starting to. It has to be countries like Japan because if a weak country tries this, they'll get invaded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39430e9e2b7e42a65b94a9ad0d7d55bf", "text": "\"Correct! But this is only true when a central bank is involved. So if there's a single institution that has a territorial monopoly on the production of money (and competing currencies aren't allowed via \"\"legal tender laws\"\"), then the debt-based money system OP describes isn't actually the system being used. That's the problem with his post: he's trying to make it seem like our current system of fiat currencies is somehow natural or emergent. It's not. What we have now is the result of a legal monopoly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b239353cfdc455d5b2bc50df36c11c4", "text": "\"Are you working for a company that offers a Dependent Care Account? You may be able to withhold up to $5000/yr pre tax for care for you child. If you cover more than half her expenses, she is your dependent. You can't \"\"double dip.\"\" If she is your dependent, she cannot be the care provider for purposes of the DCAS, see Pub 503 top of p7 \"\"Payments to Relatives or Dependents.\"\" How do you think a business would change your situation? The DCA is a small tax break, if you have no business now, this break isn't something that should drive this.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
167fe1e614f07ad9b20c082f950fd8c0	Dormant company, never paid taxes, never traded in UK - should I have notified the HMRC?	[ { "docid": "d294dd6438dfaa3a54557e2c33f1d5ae", "text": "You don't have to register for corporation tax until you start doing business: After you’ve registered your company with Companies House, you’ll need to register it for Corporation Tax. You’ll need to do this within 3 months of starting to do business. Since you haven't needed to do that yet, there also shouldn't be any need to tell HMRC you've stopped trading. So it should just be a question of telling Companies House - I guess it's possible they'll first want you to provide the missing accounts.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8400613fe1604536e0f9484699465382", "text": "You should check this with a tax accountant or tax preparation expert, but I encountered a similar situation in Canada. Your ISA income does count as income in a foreign country, and it is not tax exempt (the tax exemption is only because the British government specifically says so). You would need to declare the income to the foreign government who would almost certainly charge you tax on it. There are a couple of reasons why you should probably keep the funds in the ISA, especially if you are looking to return. First contribution limits are per year, so if you took the money out now you would have to use future contribution room to put it back. Second almost all UK savings accounts deduct tax at source, and its frankly a pain to get it back. Leaving the money in an ISA saves you that hassle, or the equal hassle of transferring it to an offshore account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "285656fee715b39a89d1eaadd137f3b2", "text": "The LLC (not you) is probably in debt to the California FTB. Any LLC registered in California must pay at least $800 a year, until it is officially dissolved (i.e.: notice of cancellation/dissolution properly filed with the California Secretary of State). The FTB may come after members (including you) personally, if it can prove that the failure to pay was due to your negligence. Talk to a CA-licensed EA/CPA about how to resolve this. Otherwise, at least from what you've described, there were no other taxable events. LLC is a disregarded entity, so the IRS doesn't care about it much anyway (unless someone was stupid enough to elect it to be taxed as a corporation, that is). Keep in mind that when in doubt - you are always better off with a professional (a CPA/EA licensed in your State) advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9dca32b8177f2bddd8208506c0d1b84", "text": "You proceed with a proper legal advice. You should not ignore IRS letters. You should have taken your chances in trying to reach a compromise with them, but that ship has likely sailed already. You might want to consider bankruptcy. Ask your parents for a couple of hundreds of dollars to pay for a legal consultation with a lawyer and a CPA and proceed from there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5233f5bef9fbf9e67543bacf0f91b536", "text": "As someone who used to be an IT contractor in the UK and used to work from home, my advice is to talk to your accountant in detail. It's been a few years, but IIRC you can write off some small stuff like proportional heating costs etc, but in my case it was so minuscule that it wasn't worth the effort. You're likely better off to just leave it. <subliminal message> Talk to your accountant :). </subliminal message>", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e30c1a9481ded4a26c6feb5502718faa", "text": "My understanding is you can create a company 0 value. Then you need to either loan the company the money to buy the building (it will still have 0 value as it will have a debt equal to it's assets) or sell share to investors at any price you like to raise the money to buy the building. Once shares have value (as valued by a chartered accountant - not anyone can do this) then anyone recieving shares will have to pay income tax. This is why keeping the shares as no value for as long as possible can be preferable. Also a benefit of using share options. talk to your investors, see what they require.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "358ca6cdfe9780ec08e4a2d93d91605b", "text": "My understanding (I am not a lawyer or tax expert) is that you are not allowed to work for free, but you can pay yourself minimum wage for the hours worked. There are probably National Insurance implications as well but I don't know. The main thing is, though, that if HMRC think that you've set up this system as a tax avoidance scheme then they're allowed to tax you as though all the income had been yours in the first place. If you are considering such a setup I would strongly advise you to hire a qualified small business accountant who will be familiar with the rules and will be able to advise you on what is and is not possible / sensible. Falling outside the rules (even inadvertently) leaves you liable to a lot of hassle and potentially fines etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0405c80b946e2a2c2c2ceae2b78ccae7", "text": "In a simple case as the sole UK resident director/shareholder of a company, with that company as your only income, you are usually best paying yourself a salary of the maximum tax free amount allowed under your tax code (~£11k for most people at present). On this you will have to pay some employer and employee National Insurance (NI) contributions (totalling around £1000). Your salary/employer NI counts as an expense, so that is taken off the company profits. You then pay corporation tax on the remainder (20%). The first £5k you take as dividends is tax free, the remainder at a lower tax rate than the equivalent combined income tax/NI (starting at 7.5% instead of 20% tax plus employee plus employer NI), giving a significant saving compared to salaried income even after corporation tax. To declare and pay the tax, you would need to complete a self-assessment tax return. Your company will also need to file a return. The Contractor UK website, although aimed at IT contractors, has some very useful information on operating Ltd companies. That said, finances are rarely that simple so I would concur with the recommendation you engage an accountant, which is a tax-deductible expense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25c3c0fedb487bda03a9b386cba5a700", "text": "As 'anonymous' already mentioned, I think the correct answer is to go see an accountant. That said, if you are already have to fill in a tax return anyway (ie, you're already a high rate taxpayer) then I don't see why it should be an issue if you just told HMRC of your additional profit via your tax return. I never was in the situation of being employed with a side business in the UK, only either/or, but my understanding is that registering as self employed is probably more suitable for someone who doesn't PAYE already. I might be wrong on this as I haven't lived in the UK for a couple of years but an accountant would know the answer. Of course in either case, make sure that you keep each an every scrap of paper to do with your side business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c9b48ed7f140ddf25940da79b0bba86", "text": "The VAT number should be equivalent from the point of view of your client. The fact that you are a sole trader and not a limited liability doesn't matter when it comes down to pay VAT. They should pay the VAT to you and you will pay it to the government. I'll guess that their issue is with tax breaks, it is a bit more tricky to receive a tax break on paid taxes if you buy something abroad (at least it is here in Finland). If they won't pay you because of that, you could open a LTD or contract the services of a 'management company' which will do the job of invoicing, receiving the money and passing it back to you, for a fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21d0c3dcd64ed588f9aa8af50c2612a9", "text": "An ISA is a much simpler thing than I suspect you think it is. It is a wrapper or envelope, and the point of it is that HMRC does not care what happens inside the envelope, or even about extractions of funds from the envelope; they only care about insertions of funds into the envelope. It is these insertions that are limited to £15k in a tax year; what happens to the funds once they're inside the envelope is your own business. Some diagrams: Initial investment of £10k. This is an insertion into the envelope and so counts against your £15k/tax year limit. +---------ISA-------+ ----- £10k ---------> \| +-------------------+ So now you have this: +---------ISA-------+ \| £10k of cash \| +-------------------+ Buy fund: +---------ISA-------+ \| £10k of ABC \| +-------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ \| £12k of ABC \| +-------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ \| £12k of cash \| +-------------------+ Buy another fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ \| £10k of JKL & £2k of cash \| +-----------------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ \| £11k of JKL & £2k of cash \| +-----------------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ \| £13k of cash \| +-------------------+ Withdraw funds. This is an extraction from the envelope; HMRC don't care. +---------ISA-------+ <---- £13k --------- \| +-------------------+ No capital gains liability, you don't even have to put this on your tax return (if applicable) - your £10k became £13k inside an ISA envelope, so HMRC don't care. Note however that for the rest of that tax year, the most you can insert into an ISA would now be £5k: +---------ISA-------+ ----- £5k ---------> \| +-------------------+ even though the ISA is empty. This is because the limit is to the total inserted during the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3275902f1c0f9720de7ffcf33556f77", "text": "\"The shares are \"\"imputed income\"\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \"\"US Person\"\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abd138c01e6d5a971c99c8f92350dfec", "text": "\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "305d0bb481877f331240bc5ec2e0572e", "text": "I love the flat rate VAT scheme. It's where you pay a percentage based on your industry. An example might be Computer repair services, where you'll pay 10.5% of your total revenue to the HMRC. But you'll be invoicing for VAT at 20% still. Would definitely recommend registering for it since you're expecting to cross the threshold anyway. And like DumbCoder said, you also get a first year discount of 1%, so in the example above, you'd end up paying 9.5% VAT on your turnover. I personally found it a pain to invoice without VAT (my clients expected it), so registering made sense regardless of the fact I was over threshold. The tricky bit is keeping under the £150k turnover so you stay eligible for the flat rate. It does get more complex otherwise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85e8f159933518a5a1796e99a84b2ce8", "text": "Ugh. Really? I thought this subreddit was smarter than this. 1) You pay taxes on net income, not sales. Expenses are tax deductible. 2) This took place in the UK, which operates on a different set of tax rules than many of us are familiar with. 3) The company still pays other taxes even if they don't pay income tax. In the US, examples would be payroll taxes including the employer portion of things like SS and Medicare, but I'm sure the UK has similar programs funded in a similar manner. To the extent that they own their buildings, they also pay property taxes. They globally source their supplies, which means they also pay import taxes. There are a ton of other taxes that a company pays. 4) Tax laws are complex because business is complex. Inflammatory headlines like this serve no purpose whatsoever.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "553ba551de833464c003df753f98f022", "text": "Not sure about the UK, but if it were in the US you need to realize the expenses can be claimed as much as the income. After having a mild heart attack when I did my business taxes the first time many years ago, a Small Business Administration adviser pointed it out. You are running the site from a computer? Deductible on an amortization schedule. Do you work from home? Electricity can be deducted. Do you drive at all? Did you pay yourself a wage? Any paperwork, fax communications, bank fees that you had to endure as work expenses? I am not an accountant, but chances are you legally lost quite a bit more than you made in a new web venture. Discuss it with an accountant for the details and more importantly the laws in your country. I could be off my rocker.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
939594a63e132a79df457e5c29f53d7c	Why do bank statements end on SUCH wildly inconsistent days of the month?	[ { "docid": "b727ae7b43228b83efcdc86a2ddfa0c7", "text": "Looking at your dates, I think I see a pattern. It appears that your statement closing date is always 17 business days before the last business day of the month. For example, if you start at May 31 and start counting backwards, skipping Saturdays, Sundays, and May 30 (Memorial Day), you'll see that May 5 is 17 business days before May 31. I cannot explain why Bank of America would do this. If you ask them, let us know what they say. If it bothers you, find another bank. I do most of my banking (checking, savings, etc.) with a local credit union. Their statements end on the last day of the month, every month without fail. (Very nice, in my opinion.) I have two credit cards with nationally known banks, and although those statements end in the middle of the month, they are consistently on the same date every month. (One of them is on the 13th; the other date I can't recall right now.) You are right, a computer does the work, and your statement date should be able to fall on a weekend without trouble. Even when these were assembled by hand, the statement date could still be on a weekend, and they just wouldn't write it up until the following Monday. You should be able to find another bank or credit union that does this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f67397e8aa4882f62733d4d80aaabdf3", "text": "They need to spread the work for all customers over the whole month, and they don't work on weekends. Combine the two, and the rule becomes clear - if months have minimum of N working days, 1/N of all customers gets set on each day. You seem to be on day 5: If the month starts with a Monday, the fifth working day is the 5. (Friday); if there is a Sat or Sun in between, it will be the 6th, and if there is both a Sat and a Sun in there, it will be the 7th. However, the statement itself is not very important at all. It is just the day where they print it on paper (or even only on a PDF). You can see your bank account activity every day 24/7 by checking online, and nothing keeps you from printing it on every 1st of the month if you want (or every day, or whenever you prefer).", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "fa70890a59cb856eb8e66c48a3ef4e05", "text": "I was forced to give my bank permission to cover any overdrafts out of my savings accounts. Or pay the bank a fee. After 6 months I discovered they were still taking out a fee, when I confronted them they said it wasn't the overdraft fee it was just an administrative fee. Banks need to burn in hell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a5a1da92420013f72c201f2ccd6593c", "text": "\"I can't think of any conceivable circumstance in which the banker's advice would be true. (edit: Actually, yes I can, but things haven't worked that way since 1899 so his information is a little stale. Credit bureaus got their start by only reporting information about bad debtors.) The bureaus only store on your file what gets reported to them by the institution who extended you the credit. This reporting tends to happen at 30, 60 or 90-day intervals, depending on the contract the bureau has with that institution. All credit accounts are \"\"real\"\" from the day you open them. I suspect the banker might be under the misguided impression the account doesn't show up on your report (become \"\"real\"\") until you miss a payment, which forces the institution to report it, but this is incorrect-- the institution won't report it until the 30-day mark at the earliest, whether or not you miss a payment or pay it in full. The cynic in me suspects this banker might give customers such advice to sabotage their credit so he can sell them higher-interest loans. UDAAP laws were created for a reason.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "300207fb417715762863a5b3d7fa6275", "text": "It's likely that your bill always shows the 24th as the due date. Their system is programmed to maintain that consistency regardless of the day of the week that falls on. When the 24th isn't a business day it is good to error on the side of caution and use the business day prior. It would have accepted using their system with a CC payment on the 24th because that goes through their automated system. I would hazard a guess that because your payment was submitted through your bank and arrived on the 23rd it wasn't credited because a live person would have needed to be there to do it and their live people probably don't work weekends. I do much of my bill paying online and have found it easiest to just build a couple days of fluff into the schedule to avoid problems like this. That said, if you call them and explain the situation it is likely that they will credit the late charge back to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ec98223bf7d147a121185b9f03fae31", "text": "\"There's something wrong with your story. The IBAN contiains two check digits, and the method used to compute them guarantees that any single digit error will be caught. So it's impossible that \"\"HSBC screwed up the last digit of my IBAN\"\" because if that were the case, the resulting IBAN would not be valid and be rejected by the computer when it was entered at your bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aa076ab8960aa77009c1706bff7e023", "text": "I think they're compounding the interest daily. That means you have to look at the number of days between payments to judge how much the interest charge is. From February 3 to March 2 is 28 days (2012 was a leap year). From March 2 to April 3 is 32 days. That's an increase of about 14% in number of days between payments, which accounts reasonably well to the ~$18 difference in interest charge. Daily compounding also explains the minor fluctuations in the other interest charges. I think if you compute interest/day for each month, you'll find that it is, indeed, decreasing over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52723561ae6945cbce68bd27b38fb019", "text": "It allows companies a time after which they can count the vouchers as part of profit in order to balance their books and also minimize internal fraud that could happen using the vouchers. If they didn't have an expiry date it becomes impossible to reconcile the voucher account as they can still possibly be used in future or may not be used. What do you count that as? If they have an expiry date, when the date passes you can count them as money coming in because they have been paid for though have not been used.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af08a3158906d68c230fb7a3822377d6", "text": "I can think of a few good reasons: A company, especially public, usually wants their fourth-quarter earnings to be the strongest of the year. That ends each fiscal year on a high note for the company and its investors, which helps public sentiment and boosts stock prices. So, travel agencies and airlines usually like ending their year in October or March, in the lull between the summer and winter travel seasons with a large amount of that revenue falling within the company's fiscal Q4. Oil companies sometimes do the same because fuel prices are seasonal for much the same reasons. December is a really bad month to try to close out an entire year's accounting books. Accountants and execs are on vacation for large parts of the month, most retail stores are flooded with revenue (and then contra-revenue as items are returned) that takes time to account at the store level and then filter up to the corporate office, etc etc. It also doesn't tell the whole story for most retail outfits; December sales are usually inflated by purchases that are then returned in January after all the hullaballoo. As a result, a fiscal year end in January or even February keeps the entire season's revenues and expenses in one fiscal year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "109c02e73a5b6ca5cb8fb6950efdd18c", "text": "Your bank does not know about any SEPA Mandat you declare, until it gets in use. When the optionees withdraw money from your Account, they have to authenticate with the given Mandat and at this point your bank knows about that Mandat wich has an expiry date. According to the guidelines of the European Central Bank, your bank is not in duty to bookmark the expiration date. However, I'd assume they do anyway due they are allowed to and it makes things easier. Additional, if you can tell who the optionee is, you can block the withdraw before it happened. In any case, you have to call your bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f70265ed3e89fe16f52b76e56bffb18d", "text": "It is because 17th was Friday, 18th-19th were weekends and 20th was a holiday on the Toronto Stock Exchange (Family Day). Just to confirm you could have picked up another stock trading on TMX and observed the price movements.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f1b1c566e68e180bc8d2edd76e7676a", "text": "\"But I have been having a little difficulty to include the expenditure in my monthly budget as the billing cycle is from the 16th to 15th of the next month and my income comes in at the end of the month. Many companies will let you change the statement date if you want, so one way to do this would be to request your bank to have statements due at the end of the month or first of month. You can call and ask, this might resolve your problem entirely. How can I efficiently add the credit card expenditure to my monthly budget? We do this using YNAB, which then means our monthly budget is separate from our actual bank accounts. When we spend, we enter the transaction into YNAB and it's \"\"spent.\"\" Additionally, we just pay whatever our credit card balance is a day before the end of the month so it is at $0 when we do our budget discussion at the end of each month.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be1da953541e9ce40e4598da9a824e4", "text": "\"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, \"\"lag time\"\", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffd1a93e5ba8df50304b578f7aee6402", "text": "As far as I can see, this is an issue of the bank's policy rather than some legal regulation. That means that you'll need to work it out with the bank. To give you a couple of ideas to work with when you talk with them, maybe something from this list will work: Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e87339fb33848438b29492d4293e6df9", "text": "Bank runs very complex software to detect suspicious activity - terrorism financing, money laundering, etc. How would a program know that some person's activity is suspicious? It uses a set of rules. That set might be imperfect (that likely was not intended) - there might be some rule that triggers a warning on your account dominating the fact you've been with them for 15 years. So it's highly likely that an imperfect program triggered a warning on your account and the bank employer didn't dismiss it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4585c86d5566947354fbb2697a2c873", "text": "You're knowingly providing a payment method which has insufficient funds to meet the terms of the contract, because you are too lazy to comply with the contract. That's unethical and fraudulent behavior. Will you get in trouble? I don't know. I'd suggest getting acquainted with an electronic calendar that can remind you to do things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdde16f02a47c59d0ba7b213478cdd88", "text": "Oh yes, it is absolutely the problem of the consumers. After all how is the bank to know how it should be doing business unless the customer explains it to them? Please read the other comments about how the customer has verified receipt of some critical document and then they claim that they don't have it. Sure they are very nice on the phone, but that doesn't help when I have to take time out of my work day to call them repeatedly.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f612eb51ee229c7d190a5c583f9e2616	How does a Non US citizen gain SEC Accredited Investor Status?	[ { "docid": "8730be753a1406fab4444dcbb40296f3", "text": "Here are the SEC requirements: The federal securities laws define the term accredited investor in Rule 501 of Regulation D as: a bank, insurance company, registered investment company, business development company, or small business investment company; an employee benefit plan, within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, if a bank, insurance company, or registered investment adviser makes the investment decisions, or if the plan has total assets in excess of $5 million; a charitable organization, corporation, or partnership with assets exceeding $5 million; a director, executive officer, or general partner of the company selling the securities; a business in which all the equity owners are accredited investors; a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person’s spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase, excluding the value of the primary residence of such person; a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year; or a trust with assets in excess of $5 million, not formed to acquire the securities offered, whose purchases a sophisticated person makes. No citizenship/residency requirements.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6e9ebc57e4df203c6ab584cc9e5ec0ed", "text": "\"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the \"\"underclass\"\" and the \"\"upperclass\"\". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a8733d681a4084e4ea7750776f7b865", "text": "you dont need any permits or be inside the US to trade the exact same securities on US exchanges. you can literally move your bitcoin from a chinese exchange to us exchange in seconds. i don't see how you can possibly run into legal issues if anyone from outside the country can trade bitcoins on an exchange inside the country without any permit. a lot of these exchanges dont ask for ID or social security number anyways. none of it is government regulated. also trading anything is never a passive income. theres no such thing as an easy or obvious investment. there are always risks- and the actual risk is often deceivingly low", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2343c02755c49de7b8008466b7274762", "text": "You don't need a visa to invest in US equity. You don't need a visa to profit from US equity. There may be other legal considerations, but they aren't visa related, hope that helps", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aad964023bfe20997bec03f865987ce6", "text": "\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2068ef56056bfdd3913276260dcb0db7", "text": "As far as I know, with ADRs you're essentially trading by proxy -- a depository bank is holding the actual stock certificate, and must provide you with the actual stock on demand. The one thing that is different is that in the event that the ADR is terminated (which sometimes happens with mergers), you have a limited period of time to sell the shares -- otherwise, you get the actual foreign stock that you may or may not be able to trade without transferring to a different broker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e71aab4db2eebd2a6cc2e519ded63c7", "text": "\"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \"\"street name\"\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \"\"unoted\"\" (never heard of this term before) and \"\"regular\"\" stocks is that the \"\"unoted\"\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a4108de7a8c8f8819cef2931d529cda", "text": "There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected. There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible to do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a1eeb8bc084a1d378814a548ab4109a", "text": "Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27fcc343ed9d01eac9eb28343ef02044", "text": "\"The IRS W-8BEN form (PDF link), titled \"\"Certificate of Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax Withholding\"\", certifies that you are not an American for tax purposes, so they won't withhold tax on your U.S. income. You're also to use W-8BEN to identify your country of residence and corresponding tax identification number for tax treaty purposes. For instance, if you live in the U.K., which has a tax treaty with the U.S., your W-8BEN would indicate to the U.S. that you are not an American, and that your U.S. income is to be taxed by the U.K. instead of tax withheld in the U.S. I've filled in that form a couple of times when opening stock trading accounts here in Canada. It was requested by the broker because in all likelihood I'd end up purchasing U.S.-listed stocks that would pay dividends. The W-8BEN is needed in order to reduce the U.S. withholding taxes on those dividends. So I would say that the ad revenue provider is requesting you file one so they don't need to withhold full U.S. taxes on your ad revenue. Detailed instructions on the W-8BEN form are also available from the IRS: Instruction W-8BEN (PDF link). On the subject of ad revenue, Google also has some information about W8-BEN: Why can't I submit a W8-BEN form as an individual?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b0513ea719821872a14f80eda6c8c71", "text": "ACWI refers to a fund that tracks the MSCI All Country World Index, which is A market capitalization weighted index designed to provide a broad measure of equity-market performance throughout the world. The MSCI ACWI is maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is comprised of stocks from both developed and emerging markets. The ex-US in the name implies exactly what it sounds; this fund probably invests in stock markets (or stock market indexes) of the countries in the index, except the US. Brd Mkt refers to a Broad Market index, which, in the US, means that the fund attempts to track the performance of a wide swath of the US stock market (wider than just the S&P 500, for example). The Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, the Wilshire 5000 index, the Russell 2000 index, the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and the CRSP US Total Market Index are all examples of such an index. This could also refer to a fund similar to the one above in that it tracks a broad swath of the several stock markets across the world. I spoke with BNY Mellon about the rest, and they told me this: EB - Employee Benefit (a bank collective fund for ERISA qualified assets) DL - Daily Liquid (provides for daily trading of fund shares) SL - Securities Lending (fund engages in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) Non-SL - Non-Securities Lending (fund does not engage in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) I'll add more detail. EB (Employee Benefit) refers to plans that fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which are a set a laws that govern employee pensions and retirement plans. This is simply BNY Mellon's designation for funds that are offered through 401(k)'s and other retirement vehicles. As I said before, DL refers to Daily Liquidity, which means that you can buy into and sell out of the fund on a daily basis. There may be fees for this in your plan, however. SL (Securities Lending) often refers to institutional funds that loan out their long positions to investment banks or brokers so that the clients of those banks/brokerages can sell the shares short. This SeekingAlpha article has a good explanation of how this procedure works in practice for ETF's, and the procedure is identical for mutual funds: An exchange-traded fund lends out shares of its holdings to another party and charges a rental fee. Running a securities-lending program is another way for an ETF provider to wring more return out of a fund's holdings. Revenue from these programs is used to offset a fund's expenses, which allows the provider to charge a lower expense ratio and/or tighten the performance gap between an ETF and its benchmark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7b7c93adacde6bc4f0f5a51f59f48c9", "text": "All securities must be registered with the SEC. Securities are defined as (1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. thus currencies are not defined as securities. While OTC transactions of securities is not outright forbidden, there are numerous regulations issued by the SEC as a result of the 1943 Exchange Act and others that make this difficult and/or costly. Many other securities are exempted from registration thus trade in a way that could be called OTC. Different countries have variances upon US law but are very similar. Any security could be traded OTC, but law prohibits it expressly or in such a way to make it relatively expensive; further, stock options are so tightly regulated that expiration dates, expiration intervals, strike intervals, and minimum ticks are all set by the authorities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d9303a97a7532a9f39858d68b75bf2a", "text": "Without knowing the specifics it is hard to give you a specific answer, but most likely the answer is no. If they limit the participation in the site to accredited investors, this is probably not something they are doing willingly, but rather imposed by regulators. Acredited investors have access to instruments that don't have the same level of regulatory protection & scrutiny as those offered to the general public, and are defined under Regulation D. Examples of such securities are 144A Shares, or hedgefunds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba94b1b00e70a6501fe7dbcae3af0781", "text": "The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19c215406af14db05a1acffe9423ae75", "text": "Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fd6d379a23acdd8369d63e87fb51d0e", "text": "You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction. Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8f3cd5e541542469e7d4feeda4744f73	Learning investment--books to read? Fundamental/Value/Motley Fool	[ { "docid": "54ce4f503afc151425f30f55a31e5e08", "text": "You are smart to read books to better inform yourself of the investment process. I recommend reading some of the passive investment classics before focusing on active investment books: If you still feel like you can generate after-tax / after-expenses alpha (returns in excess of the market returns), take a shot at some active investing. If you actively invest, I recommend the Core & Satellite approach: invest most of your money in a well diversified basket of stocks via index funds and actively manage a small portion of your account. Carefully track the expenses and returns of the active portion of your account and see if you are one of the lucky few that can generate excess returns. To truly understand a text like The Intelligent Investor, you need to understand finance and accounting. For example, the price to earnings ratio is the equity value of an enterprise (total shares outstanding times price per share) divided by the earnings of the business. At a high level, earnings are just revenue, less COGS, less operating expenses, less taxes and interest. Earnings depend on a company's revenue recognition, inventory accounting methods (FIFO, LIFO), purchase price allocations from acquisitions, etc. If you don't have a business degree / business background, I don't think books are going to provide you with the requisite knowledge (unless you have the discipline to read textbooks). I learned these concepts by completing the Chartered Financial Analyst program.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c2ef4b2ccfc7d4cf242313750d63b89c", "text": "I learned most of this stuff from 3 textbooks in school probably totaling $900 between the 3. I imagine you don't want to spend the cash on that. I would suggest finding a source online. A lot of the surface level stuff you are looking for can be found online on websites like Investopedia. They are a great resource and are free usually.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5133e8a0da48d7a0a7bccf8988781a6a", "text": "Well, that is why I am asking questions, and seeing if there is any catch. I want to read up before I actually trade. Before I trades stocks I read for like 2 years, learning as much as I could. I am not about to jump in, but it is something I would like to trade eventually. I know I need to do my due diligence on it. The reason I came here was to get information on the topic before I decided on anything, including books and websites.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1186534fe3cabcce55f68329a7b594c2", "text": "I recall the name Martin Pring. As my fundamental analysis book from grad school was the work of Graham and Dodd titled Security Analysis, Pring was the author of the books I read on technical analysis. If you've not read his work, your education has a ways to go before you hit the tools.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a8369588b9b80b75f59f546e868ce3c", "text": "Don't be ridiculous. You are competing with the best graduates out of the harvards in the world and you think reading a couple self help financial books will put you on level playing field? Don't waste your time with bcg or McKinsey.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a930633f9779b2b637ac4e96d4b0fa93", "text": "\"What part of finance does he want to get into? Investments, Equities and trading, derivatives, finance as a whole, corporate finance? Most academic textbooks are ridiculously priced so if he is looking to learn technical skills he might have to look at splashing out or looking elsewhere... Fundamentals of Corporate Finance 7th is a good one. Covers a lot of the core parts of finance which then extend to all the other areas of finance, starting at the basics of Time Value of Money (though it does gloss over some of the more complex parts). However, it is pretty expensive. This is an academic textbook. On the non-technical side, there are a number of books with which he could get started. Benjamin Graham's \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a popular and affordable one, but it won't teach much about the technical side of finance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed94c996ea2eda52c332ab82b4541cd4", "text": "I really like Value Investing by Bruce Greenwald. It's not a textbook so you can probably pick it up for about $20. While it is dense, I think with some patience you might be able to understand it at the undergrad level. The process outlined in the VI book is very different from the conventional corp finance way of valuing a company. A typical corp finance model would probably have you model cash flows 5 or 10 years out and then assume some sort of terminal growth. The VI book argues that it's nearly impossible to predict things that far out accurately so build your valuation on what we know. Start with the balance sheet. Then look at this year's earnings. Is that sustainable? This is a simplification of course but I describe it only so you can get the idea. I think it's definitely a worthwhile read.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66b416b5a7b2262ada678903c3bbc1af", "text": "First The Intelligent Investor and then the 1962 edition Security Analysis - which is out of print, you can get it on Amazon.com used or ebay. Then you can read the edition backward but the 1962 edition is the best - IMHO. And don't forget The Rediscovered Benjamin Graham and Benjamin Graham on Value Investing by Jane Lowe", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7739215dc5ad176dd502605902b72e7a", "text": "As a follow-up, I ended up buying: * Financial Modeling and Valuation: A Practical Guide to Investment Banking and Private Equity (Pignataro, Paul; Hardcover) * Mergers, Acquisitions, Divestitures, and Other Restructurings, + Website (Pignataro, Paul; Hardcover) * The Essential CFO: A Corporate Finance Playbook (Nolop, Bruce P.; Paperback)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "707b61081a6c7cf8ec495fe81bd48389", "text": "Reading financial statements is important, in the sense that it gives you a picture of whether revenues and profits are growing or shrinking, and what management thinks the future will look like. The challenge is, there are firms that make computers read filings for them and inform their trading strategy. If the computer thinks the stock price is below the growth model, it's likely to bid the stock up. And since it's automated it's moving it faster than you can open your web browser. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? In a sense, no. The only sensible trading strategy is to assume you hold things for as long as their fundamentals exceed market value. Financial statements are where you find those fundamentals. So you should read them. But your question is, is it worth it for investors? My answer is no; the market generally factors information in quickly and efficiently. You're better off sticking to passive mutual funds than trying to trade. The better reason to learn to read these filings is to get a better sense of your employer, potential employers, competitors and even suppliers. Knowing what your margins are, what your suppliers margins and acquisitions are, and what they're planning can inform your own decision making.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80d022fd1fffce9b8a0474924205f9a7", "text": "\"Thanks! I came across many books on credit risk in my google searches - what I'm really looking for is which one is the \"\"industry standard\"\" reading (does that make sense?). For example, in derivatives, everybody recommends John C. Hull's Options... book. Why of all the CRM books, do you recommend those three in particular?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "808551695901e548c97822ec9534711a", "text": "\"Wow, I cannot believe this is a question. Of course reading the 10Ks and 10Qs from the SEC are incredibly beneficial. Especially if you are a follower of the investing gurus such as Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Shelby Davis. Personally I only read the 10K's I copy the pertinent numbers over to my spreadsheets so I can compare multiple companies that I am invested in. I'm sure there are easier ways to obtain the data. I'm a particular user of the discounted free cash flow methodology and buying/selling in thirds. I feel like management that says what they are going to do and does it (over a period of years) is something that cannot be underestimated in investing. yes, there are slipups, but those tend to be well documented in the 10Qs. I totally disagree in the efficient market stuff. I tend to love using methodologies like Hewitt Heisermans \"\" It's Earnings that Count\"\" you cannot do his power-staircase without digging into the 10Qs. by using his methodology I have several 5 baggers over the last 5 years and I'm confident that I'll have more. I think it is an interesting factoid as well that the books most recommended for investing in stocks on Amazon all advocate reading and getting information from 10Ks. The other book to read is Peter Lynch's one-up-wall-street. The fact is money manager's hands are tied when it comes to investing, especially in small companies and learning over the last 6 years how to invest on my own has given me that much more of my investing money back rather than paying it to some money manager doing more trades than they should to get commision fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ac2024a51ee08822de105835d47809c", "text": "\"For learning about finances my main two financial resources are this site, and the Motley Fool. My secondary sources are keeping up with columns by my favourite economic journalists - in the press in the US, Australia, England, and India. Regarding your comment about feeling green on the basics despite the reading - you're not alone. I've been interested in financials for better than 10 years, but there are a lot of questions on this site where I say to myself, \"\"I've no idea of what the answer could be, what are our resident experts saying?\"\" Having said that, there are some topics where I feel as though I can weigh in - and they tend to be where I have a little book knowledge and a lot of personal experience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77c8e1d09e612404240faca6cb5bba6e", "text": "In the intro to the Big Short, the author talks about how he wrote liars poter to steer people away from wall street, but in the end it became a manual for how to work there. I am not trying to steer you away, or towards anything except the facts. If you want to do well in something, the best idea is to understand it; warts and all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f4d2782016a99449f0364ecead401b2", "text": "https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/most-important-finance-books-2017-1 Bloomberg, finacial times, chat with traders, calculated risk, reuters, wsj, cnbc(sucks), bnn (if canadian) Audio books on youtube helped me read a lot of finance books in a short amount of time, listen while working out. One thing that helped me stand out at my student terms (4th year here) was learning outside of the classroom and joining an investment club. Learning programming can help if thats a strength, but its really not needed and it can waste time if yoi wont reach a point to build tools. Other than that at 18 you have more direction than i did, good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e0cc6474e82e1d2d036cd295fc54b37", "text": "\"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio. I agree 110%. If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each. From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice. Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc. Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago. Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, \"\"The Nature of the Portfolio\"\", that address some of the points you've asked about. All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation process] is not really that hard: The investor only makes two important decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a higher portion of stocks because they have the ability to apply their regular savings to the markets at depressed prices. More precisely, young investors possess more \"\"human capital\"\" than financial capital; that is, their total future earnings dwarf their savings and investments. From a financial perspective, human capital looks like a bond whose coupons escalate with inflation. Page 78: The most important asset allocation decision is the overall stock/bind mix; start with age = bond allocation rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance. If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets] This process, called \"\"rebalancing,\"\" provides the investor with an automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually – but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction is the combination of asset classes that move in different directions at least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future allocation, which offers the maximum return for the minimum risk? No, but people still try. [... continues with description of Markowitz's \"\"mean-variance analysis\"\" technique...] It took investment professionals quite a while to realize that limitation of mean-variance analysis, and other \"\"black box\"\" techniques for allocating assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bb58d9e3f1394664735d7a5d3cdbb9b7	Question about dividends and giant companies [duplicate]	[ { "docid": "0fd8ecaa4e48f0176054c42c39d7c412", "text": "\"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it \"\"wasting money\"\" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0a9a32beb28f2649cd2fb43acf5ee56", "text": "I see a false assumption that you are making. (Almost always) When you buy stock the cash you spend does not go to the company. Instead it goes to someone else who is selling their shares. The exception to this is when you buy shares in an IPO. Those of us who have saved all our lives for retirement want income producing investments once we retire. (Hopefully) We have saved up quite a bit of money. To have us purchase their stock companies have to offer us dividends.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "af4679f4a8afd4be7e354e3d1b5d4410", "text": "Small companies need not pay out heft dividends. It makes much more sense to invest it directly in to the company to build a stronger company and produce future results. For example just say Mike see's a company called Milk Inc. Milk inc is doing very well and for the last three year's the amount the profits are increasing by has been going up by 10% the company is still small and doesn't do dividends. Mike see's opportunity and snatches up 1000 at 2.20 , He knows this company does not pay dividends. 10 years pass and this company is absolutely booming profits are still going up the company has decided to start paying hefty dividends as it no longer needs as much money to invest in it's growth. Shares are now valued at 6.80 . Mike banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61a3236acf34529cae6bfa96e07ccccb", "text": "\"As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your \"\"S&P 500\"\" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95016e01b71321938f2cd9859aed3f34", "text": "If you have a public company and shareholder A owns 25% and shareholder B owns 25%, and lets say the remaining 50% is owned by various funds/small investors. Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "972477431e58893d9d8e5cb7f9dea618", "text": "\"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely \"\"make out\"\" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become \"\"mature.\"\" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "170633134dd6ddb1de23ee94c3c3f679", "text": "Best as i can tell, the simple answer is: the smartest approach to investing for dividends is to pick a company that is, has, and will continue to make a solid profits. there are lots of them out there. specifically, companies with no debt, a history of long-term and steady growth and a stable market share will, almost always recoup any drop in stock valuation due to a dividend payout...and usually in short order. this is why dividends were created...as a mechanism for distributing profits back to investor without diminishing thier stake in the company. the trick then, is to find such companies with the best ratio between stock price and dividend payout. and again, there are a lot of good options out there. All the trepidation is justified however, as many unscrupulous companies will try to pull investors in with high dividends as a means to simply generate capital. these companies have few of the quality attributes mentioned above. instead, High debt, fluctuating or negative profits, minimal market share or diminishing growth present a very risky long term play and will be avoided by this conservative investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b197fde811ce81c3d417db1ae47b52d", "text": "Depends on if the stock pays a dividend or not. Some companies in their early years may choose to not pay dividends. Your calculations are off as the dividend stated is annual that you'd have to divide by 4 to get what the quarterly amount would be and there can be variances as Ellison's compensation package may well include options so that the number of shares he owns could fluctuate over the course of a year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "412af011c70132f78f47a1037f0fc2cd", "text": "Nominal. What you say is true, but I'm guessing it would be too complicated to modelate. Plus, a shareholder of a very large company would not necessarily experience said loss if he/she sells the stock in small chunks at a time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac97477afe8baf421d2bcf1b23bf05dd", "text": "You have a misunderstanding about what it is. Absent differential tax treatment buybacks and dividens are the exact same. period. You're saying it yourself, not buying back stock so they can pay out dividends. What the impetus might be is irrelevant. Dividends are a use of funds competing equally with investments or higher salary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2c022b1449e01b86edb8c305f5f463c", "text": "\"Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue. When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is \"\"selling\"\" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous. As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a855468c03562cdb97effe4bd913e03d", "text": "Are we still discussing Amazon? Their net income has hovered around $1 billion per year for the past three years. If that's profit-free, sign me up. They do have very thin margins, but it's clearly by design. And you really do have to take into account the massive volume of sales they do. Still, like you, I'm curious to see if they'll ever turn into a mature, dividend-paying company. For example, it's been interesting to see Microsoft hike their dividend to a fairly competitive level while Yahoo resists being seen as anything other than a growth story.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ff4b83c8e5627b710d84964fc9b0a85", "text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ae7681cfe1d319898337f727b749fc4", "text": "Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bd14724d83214a490d517282be12cd3", "text": "I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07bfc4bf7cdff666fb929873475d0159", "text": "Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question. Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a732d29b5bdf5178f0c483a2cbbe10aa", "text": "Gotcha. So they essentially are just your normal dude that puts money in the stock market, just bigger money. For example, I may buy a few stocks in Apple in the hopes that I can exit at a higher price and have higher dividends. Those big investors are doing the same thing for the 2 benefits I said earlier, but they have more money to invest. Or do they get other benefits that us average stock holders dont get? Thanks for the first reply.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5c351c4d77761a0c99ec477c69e50156	Why can't 401(k) statements be delivered electronically?	[ { "docid": "286f3c2c2f1e29bc738069cc7684932a", "text": "\"There are a lot of unintended consequences of fairly arbitrary IRS guidelines when it comes to 401Ks, they both close and create tons of loopholes and many companies are left to implement their own policy around these laws. Ultimately what you are left with are a lot of random things, interpreted differently by every single company in the country, that aren't directly codified by the IRS or Congress. If you have a choice regarding what brokerage firm manages your 401(k), then just call around. Be sure to ask the pencil pusher on the phone to double check because they might say \"\"OF COURSE you can get paperless statements it is 2015\"\" but then when you sign up it becomes \"\"ooohhh sorry due to recent guidelines this kind of account isn't eligible for paperless statements\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e20ac0d3405216c3a1019c91e4fbfbf0", "text": "\"Glad my question got bumped. I took it as a sign to get a solid answer out of Schwab. First the rep gave me the same line that it was impossible to provide paperless statements for a 401(k) plan because of \"\"regulations\"\". I pressed the issue and got this from the rep: I just spoke with our dedicated small business plan team. They told me that there are regulations that state that a Qualified Plan, such as this, require to have a statement sent. It is a Schwab policy that we have decided to only allow paper statements for this account type. So to clarify, it is a Schwab business decision to have the statements available only by mail. Hope someone from Schwab with some authority sees this post and is pushed toward helping change their policy. I can't imagine what a colossal waste of paper, postage, and hassle it is for everyone involved.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "da87ad09f8ea417326955b272c8086e8", "text": "\"To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point. The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated. I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates. The \"\"deposit to get the matching funds\"\" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach. Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis. I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)? Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47534fd1bf4464af31de30979d1441d3", "text": "\"The \"\"must be postmarked\"\" language might be just from the old bank itself, not from the IRS. The language I see in Publication 969 only says \"\"You can make contributions to your HSA for 2014 until April 15, 2015.\"\" In this case, it is understandable that the credit union you have the new account with does not want to accept the contribution for tax year 2014. You didn't have an account with them in 2014. You didn't even send out the paperwork to them to open the account until last week, and they didn't open your account until this week, after the deadline. It is unfortunate, but I don't think you'll be able to force them to do anything differently here. It is just too late. I do know how that feels. I had a somewhat similar circumstance with my HSA, the first year I had the account. I contributed money to the HSA using my credit union's website, transferring money from my checking account into my HSA, as I was told to do. In January and February of the following year, I made more contributions this way, thinking that I was making them for the previous tax year. However, they never got coded correctly by the credit union, and I later found out that the credit union counted those as contributions for the current year. As a result, I was essentially denied the full contribution limit for that year, and had a bit of a paperwork nightmare. Now, if I have to make a prior year contribution, I only make it in person, and they have a form they have me fill out each time I do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3310ca6438c55b037eeda66f77b51d14", "text": "\"It becomes \"\"yours\"\" when it leaves the trust. Until that point the Trust owns the shares attributable to your account. There are some different arrangements out there, in the cases of some of the smaller 401(k) providers, where the assets are held in annuity products, or even individual annuities in the case of 403(b) plans. To further answer the question, the trust and trustee own and hold the account before you take a distribution. In a lot of cases the 401(k) recordkeeper has a trust company that they use to serve as the custodian (person or entity who retains the assets). In some plans you have an individual Trustee or a Corporate Trustee. Those setups are not good for that person or company because they are ultimately responsible for backing the assets in the plan, and as you can imagine, leaving that responsibility to one person is not safe for that individual. Hope that helps, glad to answer any other questions you have!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "034e29cd4e755643f5e95ac6daae8337", "text": "I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbb47ed381e77ebd0388498fc1456ac", "text": "For this rollover, there are no restrictions of age/income/etc. You need to know - the transfer must be direct, i.e. if you get a physical check, it should be payable not to you, but to the new custodian (broker) for your benefit. Direct is preferable and faster. The assets may not be transferable 'in kind.' This phrase simply means that you may move the value, but if the assets are not shares that are held by the public, but special 401(k) class shares, they must be liquidated before moving, and moved as cash. This is a risk people with large accounts take should the market move dramatically during the time they are liquidated, and why, for them, I suggest doing it piecemeal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95dc6c3cf5a52f93fcd1b3e9d148ab64", "text": "\"You mean \"\"I don't understand why someone would sign a contract expecting the employer to observe it\"\"? Pensions are contractual obligations. It's only the massive mismanagement, lack of fiscal responsibility, and evisceration of employee bargaining power that puts us in a position to think that employers wouldn't observe their contractual obligations. I mean, if this were the mortgage market, you would be arguing to banks \"\"What the hell made you think this homeowner would keep paying you 6% interest on this money when you're not providing any kind of value twenty years later?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "490bb8b4274d1c87b42ffd73851a06fd", "text": "\"This article fails to explain that paper gold doesn't \"\"necessarily\"\" guarantee the owner to physical gold. An index fund tracking the price of gold per ounce guarantees the owner the market value of gold at the termination of the contract. This keeps markets liquid, and allows investors to diversify into precious metals without the inconvenience of storage and delivery fees. As long as we are using currency that can be exchanged for gold this shouldn't pose a problem. If we move to a post currency world of barter and trade, you're better invested in weapons and ammunition.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "290c7fe6754d823f4f4597f866625b86", "text": "It is typically very easy to roll a 401(k) into an IRA. Companies that provide IRA's are very experienced with it, and I would expect that they will take your calls from overseas. You will likely be able to do it over the internet without using a phone at all. Just open an IRA with any brokerage company (Scottrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Schwab, Ameritrade, etc.) and follow instructions to roll your 401(k) into it. Most likely they will need your signature, but usually a scan of a form you have filled out will do. Be sure to have information on your 401(k) provider, including your account number there, on hand. These companies are all very reputable and this is not a difficult transaction. There's really no downside to rolling into an IRA. 401(k) plans usually have more limited options and/or worse fee structures and are frequently harder to work with, as you have observed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b4a6de4abd5979bec69ee4ab7328788", "text": "The 401(k) contribution is Federal tax free, when you make the contribution, and most likely State too. I believe that is true for California, specifically. There was a court case some years ago about people making 401(k) or IRA contributions in New York, avoiding the New York state income tax. Then they moved to Florida (no income tax), and took the money out. New York sued, saying they had to pay the New York income tax that had been deferred, but the court said no. So you should be able to avoid California state income tax, and then later if you were to move to, for example, Texas (no income tax), have no state income tax liability. At the Federal level, you will have different problems. You won't have the money; it will be held by the 401(k) trustee. When you try to access the money (cash the account out), you will have to pay the deferred taxes. Effectively, when you remove the money it becomes income in the year it is removed. You can take the money out at any time, but if you are less than 59 1/2 at the time that you take it, there is a 10% penalty. The agreement is that the Feds let you defer paying the tax because it is going to finance your retirement, and they will tax it later. If you take it out before 59 1/2, they figure you are not retired yet, and are breaking your part of the agreement. Of course you can generally leave the money in the 401(k) plan with your old employer and let it grow until you are 59.5, or roll it over into another 401(k) with a new employer (if they let you), or into an IRA. But if you have returned to your own country, having an account in the U.S. would introduce both investment risk and currency risk. If you are in another country when you want the money, the question would be where your U.S. residence would be. If you live in California, then go to, say France, your U.S. residence would still be California, and you would still owe California income tax. If you move from California to Texas and then to France, your U.S. residence would be Texas. This is pretty vague, as you might have heard in the Rahm Emanual case -- was he a resident of Chicago or Washington, D.C.? Same problem with Howard Hughes who was born in Texas, but then spent most his life in California, then to Nevada, then to Nicaragua, and the Bahamas. When he died Texas, California and Nevada all claimed him as a resident, for estate taxes. The important thing is to be able to make a reasonable case that you are a resident of where ever you want to be -- driver's license, mailing address, living quarters, and so on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fdb07dc08015b2b1f9f1c3c89777d96", "text": "\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4f82f6c6877348cee75b199a41339f1", "text": "\"Is it really all that much for me to ask that exchanges not be complicit in my 401k being front-run? I really don't get how you can argue it's a good thing. I guess I should instead be mad at the my 401k management firm for not dragging their own private fiber networks and allowing my 401k to get shaved by \"\"smarter\"\" traders that do. You're ridiculous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c13247d22b07329cfee1a80df0f5e770", "text": "OK, so first of all, employers don't set up IRAs. IRA stands for Individual Retirement Account. You can set up a personal IRA for yourself, but not for employees. If that is what you're after, then just set one up for yourself - no special rules there for self employment. As far as setting up a 401(k), I'd suggest checking with benefits management companies. If you're small, you probably don't have an HR department, so managing a 401(k) yourself would likely be overly burdensome. Outsourcing this to a company which handles HR for you (maybe running payroll, etc. also), would be the best option. Barring that, I'd try calling a large financial institution (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) for clear guidance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe3622b074be22e2f759e81ccf1b5611", "text": "\"For 401(k) and regular IRA, you pay income tax on withdrawals from the account. At a certain age, there is a \"\"required minimum distribution\"\". This is an amount you must withdraw from the account or you face penalties. I've also read about, but am not familiar with, mechanisms by which you can retire early and start taking withdrawals before the regular official retirement age. (These may or may not be legit, I didn't do any research on it.) A Roth IRA, which is not \"\"tax deferred\"\" and thus not technically covered by your question, there is no tax on withdrawals (assuming you are at retirement age) and no required minimum distribution. Something to watch out for on your accounts are fees that they charge for withdrawals. I was in a 401(k) once that had a $50 fee per-withdrawal. A monthly check from this account would eat your money! I paid the fee once, when I rolled it into an account at a brokerage after leaving the company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8a45a3e2b81cc0f49f2d5dd2fa11139", "text": "Not really practical... The real problem is getting the money into a form where you can invest it in something. It's not like E\\Trade will let you FedEx them a briefcase of sequentially numbered hundreds and just credit your account, no questions asked. That is* the hard part.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f55e29b5b419a1fa47ae9f6fc7d40bd7", "text": "Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f117970f905f4390fa4a9635f454a929	Form 1040 - where to place my stipend?	[ { "docid": "a403d7de68675f08817c02e9104ea567", "text": "If you're correct that it's not taxable because it's non-taxable reimbursement (which is supported by your W-2), then it should not go on your 1040 at all. If it is taxable, then it really should have appeared on your W-2 and would probably end up on Line 7 of your Form 1040.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7dda4d298962e5676469e1351ccb15d", "text": "\"Some of the 45,000 might be taxable. The question is how was the stipend determined. Was it based on the days away? The mile driven? The cities you worked in? The IRS has guidelines regarding what is taxable in IRS Pub 15 Per diem or other fixed allowance. You may reimburse your employees by travel days, miles, or some other fixed allowance under the applicable revenue procedure. In these cases, your employee is considered to have accounted to you if your reimbursement doesn't exceed rates established by the Federal Government. The 2015 standard mileage rate for auto expenses was 57.5 cents per mile. The rate for 2016 is 54 cents per mile. The government per diem rates for meals and lodging in the continental United States can be found by visiting the U.S. General Services Administration website at www.GSA.gov and entering \"\"per diem rates\"\" in the search box. Other than the amount of these expenses, your employees' business expenses must be substantiated (for example, the business purpose of the travel or the number of business miles driven). For information on substantiation methods, see Pub. 463. If the per diem or allowance paid exceeds the amounts substantiated, you must report the excess amount as wages. This excess amount is subject to income tax with-holding and payment of social security, Medicare, and FUTA taxes. Show the amount equal to the substantiated amount (for example, the nontaxable portion) in box 12 of Form W-2 using code “L\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c2796ecbc91f8c0146494e2f952bc726", "text": "\"Well a definitive answer would require a lot of information. Instead of posting that kind of info online, you should take a look at the instructions for Form 2210 and in particular \"\"Schedule AI -- Annualized Income Installment Method,\"\" which corrects the penalty for highly variable income. Using this form you will likely be able to avoid the penalty, but it is hard to know for sure.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65783e7cedfca85f8a5147c9863f6575", "text": "\"I have an indirect answer for you. It is not a numeric answer but it is a procedure. The challenge with paying taxes for an employee besides their share of Social security and Medicare is that you have no idea what their state and Federal taxes are. Are they married, single, head of household? Is this their entire families income, or is it extra money to make ends meet? What about state taxes? It looks like you will need a W-4 from them. As you know the IRS Tax topic 756 has all the info you need. Federal Income Tax Withholding You are not required to withhold federal income tax from wages you pay to a household employee. However, if your employee asks you to withhold federal income tax and you agree, you will need a completed Form W-4 (PDF), Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate from your employee. See Publication 15, (Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide, which has tax withholding tables that are updated each year. Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement If you must withhold and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, or if you withhold federal income tax, you will need to complete Form W-2 (PDF), Wage and Tax Statement, for each employee. You will also need a Form W-3 (PDF), Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statement. See \"\"What Forms Must You File?\"\" in Publication 926 (PDF) for information on when and where to furnish and file these forms. To complete Form W-2 you will need an employer identification number (EIN) and your employees' Social Security numbers. If you do not already have an EIN, you can apply for one using the online EIN application available on IRS.gov. This service is available Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time. You can also apply for an EIN by mailing or faxing a completed Form SS-4 (PDF), Application for Employer Identification Number. International applicants may apply by calling 267-941-1099 (not a toll-free number) Monday through Friday, 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern time to obtain their EIN. Refer to Topics 752 and 755 for further information. Don't forget Federal Unemployment Tax. Pub 15 will have tables so you can determine how much you should have been withholding if you had gone that route. It will be easiest to use a spreadsheet to do the calculations so that what you gave them in their checks is their net pay not their gross. The tables are constructed under the assumption you know their gross pay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36fcccad5602fec5364f2c1f4e6d3235", "text": "Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a89ab2d6bd9760664b9f5741aabdd05f", "text": "I know nothing about this, but found this link which suggests for H&R Block specifically: I kept searching and I found the section. It's at the end in the Credits section under 'other backup withholding'. Hopefully this helps someone else in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78619ef0b9c3bb98ba6bd974ee9cb02e", "text": "The purpose of the W-4 form is to allow you to adjust the withholding to meet your tax obligations. If you have outside non-wage income (money from tutoring) you will have to fill out the W-4 to have extra taxes withheld. If you have deductions (kids, mortgages, student loan interest) then you need to adjust the form to have less tax taken out. Now if yo go so far that you owe too much in April, then you can get hit with penalties and a requirement to file your taxes quarterly the next year. Most years I adjust my W-4 to reflect changes to my situation. The idea is to use it to manage your withholding so that you minimize your refund without triggering the penalties. The HR department has advised you well. How to adjust: If you want to decrease withholding (making the refund smaller) add one to the number on the worksheet. In 2014 a change by 1 exemption is equal to a salary adjustment of $3,950. If this was spread over 26 paychecks that would be the same as lowering your salary by ~$152. If you are in the 15% tax bracket that increases your take home pay by ~10 a check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d4ba8a949e4138c61188e7132d74980", "text": "You need to file IRS Form 1040-NR. The IRS's website provides instructions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4faf049ea1214f376c1b3ba4effb521", "text": "\"Look at how much tax you paid last year, including withholding and any additional amount that might have been due with the tax return. Look at the instructions for the W-4 form, which sets how much tax you want your employer to withhold. Adjust the numbers on that form until the total withheld during the year is close to what you expect this year's total to be -- remember, though, that there's no penalty for over-withholding but could be for under-withholding. Submit the W-4 form to your employer. Remember that we're a few weeks into the year, so even if you adjust withholding now there will have been several paychecks at the prior setting; you can try to build that into your guesstimate of how to reset the withholding, or just not worry about it. Do the same with your state's withholding adjustments form. Repeat on a yearly basis, to account for raises, changes in other income, changes in filing status, etc. until it's close enough that you're satisfied with it. Then reconsider if/when your financial situation changes. Personally I find that exercise more effort than it's worth, and have simply set my withholding at \"\"close enough\"\". I usually get some money back from the feds and owe some to the state, but either is handled happily by my normal bank account balance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fb392db66de88a0af8f251d21c68b04", "text": "\"IRA distributions are reported on line 15b on the standard form 1040. That is in the same Income section as most of your other income (including that 1099 income and W2 income, etc.). Its income is included in the Line 22 \"\"Total Income\"\", from which the Personal Exemption (calculated on 6d, subtracted from the total in line 42) and the Standard Deduction (line 40 - also Itemized Deduction total would be here) are later reduced to arrive at Line 43, \"\"Taxable Income\"\". As such, yes, he might owe only the 10% penalty (which is reported on line 59, and you do not reduce this by the deductions, as you surmised).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6851122f48b8fd967b1633e2c0bdc341", "text": "Do you get cash (or a deposit into your bank account) of your PhD stipend and then you immediately send the university a check to pay the tuition fee (which might be more than the cash you get from the University)? Or does the University simply keep the stipend money, transferring it from one pocket to another in essence, and say, OK, you have paid your tuition except for $X that you still owe us? Or does the university grant you a tuition waiver as part of your assistantship and reports this as income on Form 1099-MISC? In all of these cases, the money reported on Form 1099-MISC is not taxable income to you, and it is neither subject to Self-Employment tax (basically, Social Security and Medicare tax -- both the employee's share and the employer's share) nor to (Federal) income tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "177452e08f5bcd1a5ccb6fada4720bcd", "text": "\"(Insert the usual disclaimer that I'm not any sort of tax professional; I'm just a random guy on the Internet who occasionally looks through IRS instructions for fun. Then again, what you're doing here is asking random people on the Internet for help, so here goes.) The gigantic book of \"\"How to File Your Income Taxes\"\" from the IRS is called Publication 17. That's generally where I start to figure out where to report what. The section on Royalties has this to say: Royalties from copyrights, patents, and oil, gas, and mineral properties are taxable as ordinary income. In most cases, you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you hold an operating oil, gas, or mineral interest or are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040). It sounds like you are receiving royalties from a copyright, and not as a self-employed writer. That means that you would report the income on Schedule E, Part I. I've not used Schedule E before, but looking at the instructions for it, you enter this as \"\"Royalty Property\"\". For royalty property, enter code “6” on line 1b and leave lines 1a and 2 blank for that property. So, in Line 1b, part A, enter code 6. (It looks like you'll only use section A here as you only have one royalty property.) Then in column A, Line 4, enter the royalties you have received. The instructions confirm that this should be the amount that you received listed on the 1099-MISC. Report on line 4 royalties from oil, gas, or mineral properties (not including operating interests); copyrights; and patents. Use a separate column (A, B, or C) for each royalty property. If you received $10 or more in royalties during 2016, the payer should send you a Form 1099-MISC or similar statement by January 31, 2017, showing the amount you received. Report this amount on line 4. I don't think that there's any relevant Expenses deductions you could take on the subsequent lines (though like I said, I've not used this form before), but if you had some specific expenses involved in producing this income it might be worth looking into further. On Line 21 you'd subtract the 0 expenses (or subtract any expenses you do manage to list) and put the total. It looks like there are more totals to accumulate on lines 23 and 24, which presumably would be equally easy as you only have the one property. Put the total again on line 26, which says to enter it on the main Form 1040 on line 17 and it thus gets included in your income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df1e56fb20ac2062c3ea4d7c85015ded", "text": "\"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \"\"young\"\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58fd1222e8565395bee7290f7a71a3e3", "text": "\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c645485700df18057afcf52108eca4f2", "text": "In this situation I would recommend figuring out about what you would need to pay in taxes for the year. You have two figures (your salary and dependents) , but not others. Will you contribute to a 401K, do you itemize deductions, etc... If things are uncertain, I would figure my taxes as if I took the standard deduction. For argument's sake let's assume that comes out to $7300. I would then add $500 on to my total to cover potential increases in taxes/fees. You can adjust this up or down based on your ability to absorb having to pay or the uncertainty in your first calcuation. So now $7800, divide by 26 (the amount of paychecks you receive in a year) = $300 Then I would utilize a payroll calculator to adjust my exemptions and additional witholding so my federal withholding is as close as possible to this number. Or you can sit with your payroll department and do the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8c569996a42b57bb6a892abe0f18a17", "text": "Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fca04554645e605e1908186d142ee401", "text": "\"This does not apply to Roth IRAs. It defines the difference between the two depending on what your age is when this happens. If you are 59 or younger, you have a 10% penalty in addition to taxes. If you are between 59.5 and 70, there is no penalty, but you do have to pay taxes. If you are 70.5 or older, then you MUST withdraw money, and that withdrawal is called the \"\"required minimum distribution\"\" and you pay taxes on it as if it were income. In terms of investments, the two are the same in that the earnings you make on your investments grow tax free. Here is more information between the two. *Improvements are welcome for my answer.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9382414b39110a301182bc7da416756b	How to properly report income without 1099-MISC	[ { "docid": "b21dfeda453e019b67382d2c7e496610", "text": "You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1406ad7d12bc3a17399d0be238045b5b", "text": "I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fb8ad9020bf14fbf901fe9c1f18a4c4", "text": "\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \"\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).\"\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \"\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11aa0d830ce41e174690756c06ce534f", "text": "(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b45d5ec4b229bc9bf365f2b849ee8988", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e863c8d274a0822740d59a90181625e4", "text": "Per IRS regulations, if your stipend is not paying you for qualified expenses (primarily, tuition and books; explicitly not room and board or travel), it is taxable. It doesn't require self-employment taxes (which are Medicare and FICA, normally paid in part by an employer), but it is taxable income from an income tax perspective. You can generally deduct your books and such if you have your receipts - expenses 'required' by the institution for the coursework. Do verify that the amount on the 1099-MISC reflects what you actually received in cash above and beyond the tuition waiver - don't assume the college did this the way you expect, or even properly. Your bank statements should match the amount on the form. You should definitely include it in your gross income and pay taxes on it. If you received alternate instruction, you should clarify that with the people doing the filing, and follow up with a supervisor perhaps (it's possible the volunteers helping at an event like this aren't familiar with this part of tax preparation). (Source, in addition to IRS regulations - I was my wife's tax preparer many of the years she was in her Ph.D. program.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3af1afbfbdf47f2c1f93b4371879912", "text": "There are many different types of 1099 forms. Since you are comparing it to a W-2, I'm assuming you are talking about a 1099-MISC form. Independent contractor income If you are a worker earning a salary or wage, your employer reports your annual earnings at year-end on Form W-2. However, if you are an independent contractor or self-employed you will receive a Form 1099-MISC from each client that pays you at least $600 during the tax year. For example, if you are a freelance writer, consultant or artist, you hire yourself out to individuals or companies on a contract basis. The income you receive from each job you take should be reported to you on Form 1099-MISC. When you prepare your tax return, the IRS requires you to report all of this income and pay income tax on it. So even if you receive a 1099-MISC form, you are required to pay taxes on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a4ea401a7db431a02f515cee6f65660", "text": "\"You can report it as illegal income and you don't have to elaborate any further. For instance, spirit the cash off to a state where pot is legal and set up a dispensary. That is not legal at the Federal level, so it is in fact \"\"illegal income\"\" vis-a-vis your Form 1040 and that's all you say. Make sure you look, walk, and quack like a fairly successful pot distributor. That will most likely be the end of their inquiry, since they're not terribly driven to investigate the income you do report. Having to give 33% of it to the IRS is generally strong motivation for folks to not report fake income. You're not claiming the money is from pot, you're allowing them to infer it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5439eccba9927dbad2c3edb01e31dd", "text": "Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b9fe28c51270b476811f2bf99389add", "text": "The correct, legal way to handle this would be to file an amended return for that year (probably best to talk to a CPA). If you don't have the 1099, the IRS has a process to handle that here. It sounds like they would just try to contact the employer themselves, but it doesn't say exactly what would happen if the employer is out of business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f26c99c0f284399995f478057ab7b24", "text": "One of the triggers for audit is when the IRS can't match 1099 income to the tax return. Whoever got the 1099 in her name should include that income on her return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45390f1ecd215cbde66ecaa8e7578bd6", "text": "\"Gifts given and received between business partners or employers/employees are treated as income, if they are beyond minimal value. If your boss gives you a gift, s/he should include it as part of your taxable wages for payroll purposes - which means that some of your wages should be withheld to cover income, social security, and Medicare taxes on it. At the end of the year, the value of the gift should be included in Box 1 (wages) of your form W-2. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to do anything special. A 1099-MISC would not be appropriate because you are an employee of your boss - so the two of you need to address the full panoply of employment taxes, not just income tax, which would be the result if the payment were reported on 1099-MISC. If the employer wants to cover the cost to you of the taxes on the gift, they'll need to \"\"gross up\"\" your pay to cover it. Let's say your employer gives you a gift worth $100, and you're in a 25% tax bracket. Your employer has to give you $125 so that you end up with a gain of $100. But the extra $25 is taxable, too, so your employer will need to add on an extra $6.25 to cover the 25% tax on the $25. But, wait, now we've gotta pay 25% tax on the $6.25, so they add an extra $1.56 to cover that tax. And now they've gotta pay an extra $.39 . . . The formula to calculate the gross-up amount is: where [TAX RATE] is the tax rate expressed as a percentage. So, to get the grossed-up amount for a $100 gift in a 25% bracket, we'd calculate 1/(1-.25), or 1/.75, or 1.333, multiply that by the target gift amount of $100, and end up with $133.33. The equation is a little uglier if you have to pay state income taxes that are deductible on the federal return but it's a similar principle. The entire $133.33 would then be reported as income, but the net effect on the employee is that they're $100 richer after taxes. The \"\"gross-up\"\" idea can be quite complicated if you dig into the details - there are some circumstances where an additional few dollars of income can have an unexpected impact on a tax return, in a fashion not obvious from looking at the tax table. If the employer doesn't include the gift in Box 1 on the W-2 but you want to pay taxes on it anyway, include the amount in Line 7 on the 1040 as if it had been on a W-2, and fill out form 8919 to calculate the FICA taxes that should have been withheld.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9346e3e432cbd31c696b86e795de9aa7", "text": "Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b01955977794a02a7d27bdbfa46c7c1", "text": "Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4bdf77bd6c433338ae2798676b50331", "text": "\"There are many people who have deductions far above the standard deduction, but still don't itemize. That's their option even though it comes at a cost. It may be foolish, but it's not illegal. If @littleadv citation is correct, the 'under penalty of perjury' type issue, what of those filers who file a Schedule A but purposely leave off their donations? I've seen many people discuss charity, and write that they do not want to benefit in any way from their donation, yet, still Schedule A their mortgage and property tax. Their returns are therefore fraudulent. I am curious to find a situation in which the taxpayer benefits from such a purposeful oversight, or, better still, a cited case where they were charged with doing so. I've offered advice on filings return that wasn't \"\"truthful\"\". When you own a stock and cannot find cost basis, there are times that you might realize the basis is so low that just entering zero will cost you less than $100 in extra tax. You are not truthful, of course, but this kind of false statement isn't going to lead to any issue. If it gets noticed within an audit, no agent is going to give it more than a moment of time and perhaps suggest, \"\"you didn't even know the year it was bought?\"\" but there would be no consequence. My answer is for personal returns, I'm sure for business, accuracy to the dollar is actually important.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa54fda0a92cf027e4c6bb162493e245", "text": "The higher the debt, the higher inflation needs to be to wash the debt away. This is why the debt and US equities move upward hand in hand. The same goes for US housing. Just as homeowners borrow money through mortgages so that house prices rise, the banks borrow the money for mortgages through the central banks. Thus, the cycle circulates. The more debt, the higher the prices! Everybody makes money from debt. That is why the US has the highest external debt on the globe, yet they are considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d0ea3bd6e63f545ef67402cdc21057c7	Is the return on investment better with high or low dividends?	[ { "docid": "3b24411e84ecc56597e67ce068060d8d", "text": "It is a bit more complicated than whether it pays more or less dividends. You should make your decision based on how well the company is performing both fundamentally and technically. Concentrating mainly on the fundamental performance for this question, most good and healthy companies make enough profits to both pay out dividends and invest back into the company to keep growing the company and profits. In fact a good indication of a well performing company is when their dividend per share and earnings per share are both growing each year and the dividends per share are less than the earnings per share (that way you know dividends are being paid out from new profits and not existing cash holdings). This information can give you an indication of both a stable and growing company. I would rather invest in a company that pays little or no dividends but is increasing profits and growing year after year than a company that pays higher dividends but its profits are decreasing year after year. How long will the company continue to pay dividends for, if it starts making less and less profits to pay them with? You should never invest in a company solely because they pay dividends, if you do you will end up losing money. It is no use making $1 in dividends if you lose $2+ because the share price drops. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more for a stable and growing company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92388431b9fc8ad3f676a1f056912571", "text": "Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated). You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A. However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ed058f7de8d238c01c3ce90f9ae86b7", "text": "\"Someone (I forget who) did a study on classifying total return by the dividend profiles. In descending order by category, the results were as follows: 1) Growing dividends. These tend to be moderate yielders, say 2%-3% a year in today's markets. Because their dividends are starting from a low level, the growth of dividends is much higher than stocks in the next category. 2) \"\"Flat\"\" dividends. These tend to be higher yielders, 5% and up, but growing not at all, like interest on bonds, or very slowly (less than 2%-3% a year). 3) No dividends. A \"\"neutral\"\" posture. 4) Dividend cutters. Just \"\"bad news.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "db351fb142066f802e9dfed69b44acb6", "text": "In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff6a6b8b9211bde03bed2c76076b87f7", "text": "Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e05a30c4c2dd0cf27738493f5d1a2b47", "text": "This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa896ef199e1088f7bdc3a379dbc2767", "text": "Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e3c8d461b7b18ae5317d268334ae9b0", "text": "Dividend Stocks like any stock carry risk and go both up and down. It is important to choose a stock based on the company's potential and performance. And, if they pay a dividend it does help. -RobF", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9", "text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07bfc4bf7cdff666fb929873475d0159", "text": "Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question. Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fd4f52a70a3ab8bb2cfc60c534f5106", "text": "Also keep in mind that most REITs have high dividend yields. If you short, you are responsible for payment of the dividend to the party you are borrowing the shares from. This can add costs to your position over time. Short REITS for a long time period is not necessarily an optimal strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae148a4b9aca1e2103a1c57a04f56f16", "text": "This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12ba592d2f049943973920988ce2b57c", "text": "The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03b5874b3cdae035a4a2bfba3261aedd", "text": "Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2644f6e1393dd5456a5622d75f2ca7f", "text": "Yep, there just is no free lunch. So called high dividend stocks are usually from companies that have stable cash flows but relatively little or moderate growth potential. Utility companies come to mind, let's take telecommunications as an example. Such stocks, usually, indeed are considered more conservative. In a bull market, they won't make high jumps, and in a bear market they shouldn't experience deep falls. I mean, just because the stock market fell by 10%, you're not going to stop using your phone. The stock might suffer a bit but the divided is still yielding you the same. However, fundamental data can have a significant impact. Let's say a recession hits the country of the telco. People might not get the newest iPhone and lock in to an expensive contract anymore, they might use cheaper forms of communication, they might stop paying bills, go bankrupt etc. This will have a severe impact on the company's cash flow and thus hit the stock in a double whammy: One, the dividend is gone. Two, the price will fall even further. There are basically two scenarios after that. Either the recession is temporary and your stock became a regular growth stock that at some point might bounce back and re-establish at the previous levels. Or the economy has contracted permanently but regained stability in which case you will again have a stock with a high dividend yield but based on a lower price. In conclusion: High dividend stocks make sense in a portfolio. But never consider their income to be safe. Reduce your risk by diversifying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef5f93bc5a831258afd86f1561b402ba", "text": "\"The difference between dividend and growth in mutual funds has to do with the types of stocks the mutual fund invests in. Typically a company in the early stages are considered growth investments. In this phase the company needs to keep most of its profits to reinvest in the business. Typically once a company gets a significant size the company's growth prospects are not as good so the company pays some of its profits in the form of a dividend to the shareholders. As far as which is the best buy is totally a personal choice. There will be times when one is better then the other. Most likely you will want to \"\"diversify\"\" and invest in both types.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22dfc1874b671568caacf18252b7cbd0", "text": "Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too) Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce", "text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3d549188aed15cd226184261715924f2	Where can I find accurate historical distribution data for mutual funds?	[ { "docid": "148fe3c6b836d3b733d3f1f75a6f917a", "text": "\"In the case of a specific fund, I'd be tempted to get get an annual report that would disclose distribution data going back up to 5 years. The \"\"View prospectus and reports\"\" would be the link on the site to note and use that to get to the PDF of the report to get the data that was filed with the SEC as that is likely what matters more here. Don't forget that mutual fund distributions can be a mix of dividends, bond interest, short-term and long-term capital gains and thus aren't quite as simple as stock dividends to consider here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "835aea544af9ee19eb114bf793e8f425", "text": "\"I keep spreadsheets that verify each $ distribution versus the rate times number of shares owned. For mutual funds, I would use Yahoo's historical data, but sometimes shows up late (a few days, a week?) and it isn't always quite accurate enough. A while back I discovered that MSN had excellent data when using their market price chart with dividends \"\"turned on,\"\" HOWEVER very recently they have revamped their site and the trusty URLs I have previously used no longer work AND after considerable browsing, I can no longer find this level of detail anywhere on their site !=( Happily, the note above led me to the Google business site, and it looks like I am \"\"back in business\"\"... THANKS!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eec00fac4023bd89d4a52ab034993c41", "text": "If you want to go far upstream, you can get mutual fund NAV and dividend data from the Nasdaq Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). This isn't for end-users but rather is offered as a part of the regulatory framework. Not surprisingly, there is a fee for data access. From Nasdaq's MFQS specifications page: To promote market transparency, Nasdaq operates the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). MFQS is designed to facilitate the collection and dissemination of daily price, dividends and capital distributions data for mutual funds, money market funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), annuities and structured products.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e8050a204949864b98ceb2a99091d727", "text": "Hey Sheehan, I believe Schwab provides this info. None of the online free portfolio managers I know of gives you this info. The now defunct MS Money used to have this. The best thing to do is to use a spreadsheet. Or you could use the one I use. http://www.moneycone.com/did-you-beat-the-market-mr-investor/ . (disclaimer: that's my blog)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d94213b22892d8c0384ec8dfa260408f", "text": "On Monday, the 27th of June 2011, the XIV ETF underwent a 10:1 share split. The Yahoo Finance data correctly shows the historic price data adjusted for this split. The Google Finance data does not make the adjustment to the historical data, so it looks like the prices on Google Finance prior to 27 June 2011 are being quoted at 10 times what they should be. Coincidentally, the underlying VIX index saw a sudden surge on the Friday (24 June) and continued on the Monday (27 June), the date that the split took effect. This would have magnified the bearish moves seen in the historic price data on the XIV ETF. Here is a link to an article detailing the confusion this particular share split caused amongst investors. It appears that Google Finance was not the only one to bugger it up. Some brokers failed to adjust their data causing a lots of confusion amongst clients with XIV holdings at the time. This is a recurring problem on Google Finance, where the historic price data often (though not always) fails to account for share splits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc9a3d345cfffb929751b0151c33abe", "text": "\"If you're looking to generate your own charts, you can get up-to-date TSP fund share prices in a Google Docs spreadsheet by \"\"scraping\"\" the data from the HTML of certain TSP webpages. You'll need to do this because the GoogleFinance function does not recognize \"\"private\"\" funds or collective trusts like those of the TSP. See this thread for tips: Bogleheads • View topic - GoogleFinance price quotes for TSP Funds\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2b2cd5d67aa4c7040942dcefbcbc302", "text": "The biggest issue with Yahoo Finance is the recent change to the API in May. The data is good quality, includes both dividend/split adjusted and raw prices, but it's much more difficult to pull the data with packages like R quantmod than before. Google is fine as well, but there are some missing data points and you can't unadjust the prices (or is it that they're all unadjusted and you can't get adjusted? I can't recall). I use Google at home, when I can't pull from Bloomberg directly and when I'm not too concerned with accuracy. Quandl seems quite good but I haven't tried them. There's also a newer website called www.alphavantage.co, I haven't tried them yet either but their data seems to be pretty good quality from what I've heard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93272704c3255f614b4bc281253cb3a1", "text": "The Telegraph had an interesting article recently going back 30 years for Mutual's in the UK that had beaten the market and trackers for both IT and UT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11489789/The-funds-that-have-returned-more-than-12pc-per-year-for-THIRTY-years.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4abb004cd0c36e66aa7992fff17d8e99", "text": "\"The full holdings will be listed in the annual report of the fund, obviously the holdings would only be completely accurate as of the date of the reporting. This is the most recent annual report for FMAGX. I got it from my Schwab research section under \"\"All Fund Documents\"\" but I'm sure you can find it other ways. When I use google to search for \"\"fmagx annual report\"\" this link was the first result.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3834023eee46345c1a76dc2fc03ec2f", "text": "Here is one the links for Goldmansachs. Not to state the obvious, but most of their research is only available to their clients. http://www.goldmansachs.com/research/equity_ratings.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "949551126783dc387e3ca4d8f8389f3b", "text": "What you want is the distribution yield, which is 2.65. You can see the yield on FT as well, which is listed as 2.64. The difference between the 2 values is likely to be due to different dates of updates. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CORP:LSE:USD", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63980f924fc504831cdf2dbc4767afaf", "text": "Yahoo provides dividend data from their Historical Prices section, and selecting Dividends Only, along with the dates you wish to return data for. Here is an example of BHP's dividends dating back to 1998. Further, you can download directly to *.csv format if you wish: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=BHP.AX&a=00&b=29&c=1988&d=06&e=6&f=2015&g=v&ignore=.csv", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d65e2d5329fa3d2f3b1c4b2a853847b7", "text": "\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cce033f385da61f67b0c492443451b1d", "text": "\"It's easy for me to look at an IRA, no deposits or withdrawal in a year, and compare the return to some index. Once you start adding transactions, not so easy. Here's a method that answers your goal as closely as I can offer: SPY goes back to 1993. It's the most quoted EFT that replicates the S&P 500, and you specifically asked to compare how the investment would have gone if you were in such a fund. This is an important distinction, as I don't have to adjust for its .09% expense, as you would have been subject to it in this fund. Simply go to Yahoo, and start with the historical prices. Easy to do this on a spreadsheet. I'll assume you can find all your purchases inc dates & dollars invested. Look these up and treat those dollars as purchases of SPY. Once the list is done, go back and look up the dividends, issues quarterly, and on the dividend date, add the shares it would purchase based on that day's price. Of course, any withdrawals get accounted for the same way, take out the number of SPY shares it would have bought. Remember to include the commission on SPY, whatever your broker charges. If I've missed something, I'm sure we'll see someone point that out, I'd be happy to edit that in, to make this wiki-worthy. Edit - due to the nature of comments and the inability to edit, I'm adding this here. Perhaps I'm reading the question too pedantically, perhaps not. I'm reading it as \"\"if instead of doing whatever I did, I invested in an S&P index fund, how would I have performed?\"\" To measure one's return against a benchmark, the mechanics of the benchmarks calculation are not needed. In a comment I offer an example - if there were an ETF based on some type of black-box investing for which the investments were not disclosed at all, only day's end pricing, my answer above still applies exactly. The validity of such comparisons is a different question, but the fact that the formulation of the EFT doesn't come into play remains. In my comment below which I removed I hypothesized an ETF name, not intending it to come off as sarcastic. For the record, if one wishes to start JoesETF, I'm ok with it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f40ce647ec1934ec570d35784baa2775", "text": "James Roth provides a partial solution good for stock picking but let's speed up process a bit, already calculated historical standard deviations: Ibbotson, very good collection of research papers here, examples below Books", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13b60ae729cdff6623eb64f3477e3dc9", "text": "\"I've just started using Personal Capital (www.personalcapital.com) after seeing the recommendation at several places. I believe it gives you what you want to see, but I don't think you can back populate it with old information. So if you log in and link accounts today, you'll have it going forward. I only put in my investment accounts as I use another tool to track my day-to-day spending. I use Personal Capital to track my investment returns over time. How did my portfolio compare to S&P 500, etc. And here is a shot of the \"\"You Index\"\" which I think is close to what you are looking for:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e81e513209a8bafc75b1ded70705dada", "text": "For safety. If something catastrophic happens to your bank and your money is in there you will lose any not covered by FDIC. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. I also literally just posted this in another thread: Certain rules and regulations penalize companies or institutions for holding cash, so they are shifting to bonds and bills. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d5576aaeb2e53cae59db6dbc7a6bf75", "text": "I received an allowance growing up. There were stipulations on what I had to do with it that helped instill the values my parents wanted - in their case they were hoping to teach me to give money to my church, so I had a mandatory amount that I had to give when I received the allowance. To this day I still give money to the church, so I guess it stuck. The allowance was tied to my doing some basic chores around the house - but loosely. It wasn't a reward for doing those chores, but it would be taken away if I didn't do them. Before I was of a legal working age I could do larger unusual tasks around the house for more money. The relationship between chores and some form of allowance is, I think, tricky. I don't think kids should be taught that the only reason to work is to earn money. They won't earn money for keeping their future homes clean or by volunteering at the local food bank, but these are both good things to do. At the same time it is good to teach that work has a reward and that lack of work means lack of a reward. My parents set up a savings account for me quite early. Largely what went in there was birthday cash from relatives (a great thing to talk to any family members who might give your kids gifts about) and the income from my once-yearly sale of baked goods at a craft fair. These were bigger amounts of money that I could take pride in depositing, and keeping them in a bank helped prevent me from spending them willy-nilly. I also got a credit card at the age of 16 (only allowed in some states in the US, not sure about internationally). My parents oversaw my spending habits with it and made sure I always paid in full and on time. The money I spent was tied to my summer work in high school and college. I thought it was extremely valuable to learn how to manage a credit card before college when the card companies often seem to prey on young customers.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c97616505eeb29360081b100e0ec3141	Can a single-member LLC have a fiscal year not as the calendar year?	[ { "docid": "ae579dcb50cc14bc3da84900f50b83ed", "text": "I'm no tax expert by any means. I do know that a disreagarded entity is considered a sole proprietor for federal tax purposes. My understanding is that this means your personal tax year and your business tax year must be one and the same. Nevertheless, it is technically possible to have a non-calendar fiscal year as an individual. This is so rare that I'm unable to find a an IRS reference to this. The best reference I could find was this article written by two CPAs. If you really want to persue this, you basically need to talk with an accountant, since this is complicated, and required keeping propper accounting records for your personal life, in addition to your business. A ledger creqated after-the-fact by an accountant has been ruled insufficent. You really need to live by the fiscal year you choose.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6432fad29596f439ee22fa8e198a067c", "text": "No, you can not use Schedule C for a Corporation. If you treat the business as a sole proprietorship, i.e.: not a separate legal entity and not a separate financial entity - then you can. If that's how you treat your corporation, then you can continue using Schedule C, but there's no reason whatsoever to continue being a corporation either since the corporate liability protection veil is likely to be long gone. Generally, corporations file form 1120, S-Corporations file form 1120S.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f085e2fe7f632284bbea9f6955ebc0e", "text": "If it is a sole proprietorship and you didn't make another mistake by explicitly asking the IRS to treat it as a corporation - there are no IRS forms to fill. You'll need to dissolve the LLC with your State, though, check the State's department of State/Corporations (depending on the State, the names of the departments dealing with business entities vary).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf1c0c8f4ce07239858da167fbbcade1", "text": "You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3971966a0f7a37feebc830ddfeaeca7c", "text": "Yes. But once you chose the method (on your first tax return), you cannot change it without the IRS approval. Similarly the fiscal year. For individuals, I can't think of any reason why would accrual basis be better than cash, or why would an individual use a fiscal year other than the calendar year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ef47ed887fa8f884430c6b071e1e720", "text": "This answer assumes you're asking about how to handle this issue in the USA. I generally downvote questions that ask about a tax/legal issue and don't bother providing the jurisdiction. In my opinion it is extremely rude. Seeing that you applied for an LLC, I think that you somehow consider it as a relevant piece of information. You also attribute some importance to the EIN which has nothing to do with your question. I'm going to filter out that noise. As an individual/sole-proprietor (whether under LLC or not), you cannot use fiscal years, only calendar years. It doesn't matter if you decide to have your LLC taxed as S-Corp as well, still calendar year. Only C-Corp can have a fiscal year, and you probably don't want to become a C-Corp. So the year ends on December 31, and whether accrual or cash - you can only deduct expenses you incurred until then. Also, you must declare the income you got until then, which in your case will be the full amount of funding - again regardless of whether you decided to be cash-based or accrual based. So the main thing you need to do is to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and learn about the tax law relevant to your business and its implications on your actions. There may be some ways to make it work better, and there are some ways in which you can screw yourself up completely in your scenario, so do get a professional advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7925c388a4ae383d3f58c8a67ecb5e9", "text": "Maybe it's just because of the foundation date. If I start a company on August 1st, I would like its FY starts on that date too, in order to track my first whole year. Would be quite useless to finish my year on December, after just five months. I want to have data of my first year after a twelve months activity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54f174f29e2d2d7d644ab1b8ced2a5f7", "text": "Form 10-K is filed by corporations to SEC. You must be thinking of form 1065 (its schedule K) that a partnership (and multi-member LLC) must file with the IRS. Unless the multi-member LLC is legally dissolved, it must file this form. You're a member, so it is your responsibility, with all the other members, to make sure that the manager files all the forms, and if the manager doesn't - fire the manager and appoint another one (or, if its member managed - chose a different member to manage). If you're a sole member of the LLC - then you don't need to file any forms with the IRS, all the business expenses and credits are done on your Schedule C, as if you were a sole propriator.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "300c2b236171618b127627cb296130ad", "text": "Through your question and then clarification through the comments, it looks like you have a U.S. LLC with at least two members. If you did not elect some other tax treatment, your LLC will be treated as a partnership by the IRS. The partnership should file a tax return on Form 1065. Then each partner will get a Schedule K-1 from the partnership, which the partner should use to include their respective shares of the partnership income and expenses on their personal Forms 1040. You can also elect to be taxed as an S-Corp or a C-Corp instead of a partnership, but that requires you to file a form explicitly making such election. If you go S-Corp, then you will file a different form for the company, but the procedure is roughly the same - Income gets passed through to the owners via a Schedule K-1. If you go C-Corp, then the owners will pay no tax on their own Form 1040, but the C-Corp itself will pay income tax. As far as whether you should try to spend the money as business expense to avoid paying extra tax - That's highly dependent on your specific situation. I'd think you'd want to get tailored advice for that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d12a52d03a621e3d9f0f92a4ca323b5", "text": "Your CPA doesn't need to file anything, so don't worry about him being sidetracked. You are the one doing the filing. Since the amended returns have to be filed on paper, you'll actually go and mail a package to the IRS (each return in a separate envelope). The reason the CPA suggests to file the amended returns after the current one, is to ensure the NOL is registered in the system before the amended returns are processed. The IRS doesn't have to automatically accept the amended returns, and if there's no NOL on the current year they may just bounce the amended returns back to you. Keep in mind that since you haven't filed your return by the due date (including extensions), you're now unable to forego the carry-back. I don't know if you discussed this with your CPA, but you're allowed, if you chose so, to not apply the NOL to prior years, and instead to apply it forward for the next 20 years (or until it runs out). Depending on your income pattern, that might have been something you could have considered, but you can only chose this if you file a statement before the due date (with extensions), which is now passed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac59ace4d85551d12cfedf3a65cd4df0", "text": "\"Your corporation would file a corporate income tax return on an annual basis. One single month of no revenue doesn't mean much in that annual scheme of things. Total annual revenue and total annual expenses are what impact the results. In other words, yes, your corporation can book revenues in (say) 11 of 12 months of the year but still incur expenses in all months. Many seasonal businesses operate this way and it is perfectly normal. You could even just have, say, one super-awesome month and spend money the rest of the year. Heck, you could even have zero revenue but still incur expenses—startups often work like that at first. (You'd need investment funding, personal credit, a loan, or retained earnings from earlier profitable periods to do that, of course.) As long as your corporation has a reasonable expectation of a profit and the expenses your corporation incurs are valid business expenses, then yes, you ought to be able to deduct those expenses from your revenue when figuring taxes owed, regardless of whether the expenses were incurred at the same approximate time as revenue was booked—as long as the expense wasn't the acquisition of a depreciable asset. Some things your company would buy—such as the computer in your example—would not be fully deductible in the year the expense is incurred. Depreciable property expenses are deducted over time according to a schedule for the kind of property. The amount of depreciation expense you can claim for such property each year is known as Capital Cost Allowance. A qualified professional accountant can help you understand this. One last thing: You wrote \"\"write off\"\". That is not the same as \"\"deduct\"\". However, you are forgiven, because many people say \"\"write off\"\" when they actually mean \"\"deduct\"\" (for tax purposes). \"\"Write off\"\", rather, is a different accounting term, meaning where you mark down the value of an asset (e.g. a bad loan that will never be repaid) to zero; in effect, you are recognizing it is now a worthless asset. There can be a tax benefit to a write-off, but what you are asking about are clearly expense deductions and not write-offs. They are not the same thing, and the next time you hear somebody using \"\"write off\"\" when they mean \"\"deduction\"\", please correct them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "532ccb785de284ab88f3b35849ce2e55", "text": "No. But the scenario is unrealistic. No bank will give the LLC any loan unless the members personally co-sign to guarantee it. In which case, the members become personally liable in addition to the LLC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b15d163a90235fed85ed81ab71d178ac", "text": "\"Do I understand correctly, that we still can file as \"\"Married filing jointly\"\", just add Schedule C and Schedule SE for her? Yes. Business registration information letter she got once registered mentions that her due date for filing tax return is January 31, 2016. Does this prevent us from filing jointly (as far as I understand, I can't file my income before that date)? IRS sends no such letters. IRS also doesn't require any registration. Be careful, you might be a victim to a phishing attack here. In any case, sole proprietor files a regular individual tax return with the regular April 15th deadline. Do I understand correctly that we do not qualify as \"\"Family partnership\"\" (I do not participate in her business in any way other than giving her money for initial tools/materials purchase)? Yes. Do I understand correctly that she did not have to do regular estimated tax payments as business was not expected to generate income this year? You're asking or saying? How would we know what she expected? In any case, you can use your withholding (adjust the W4) to compensate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eee794d1fa47d5da44a6d71f612dcd0", "text": "Well, consult with a CPA, but I guess you don't have to pay taxes on 2012 with a correct accounting system since this is the money you are going to completely earn within 2013 so you can record it as future earning which is called deferred revenue or advance payments or unearned revenue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cef447bc5079cc943ed5c464ac8dc883", "text": "Most likely your accounting is cash basis, not accrual, so it's pretty tough to do unless you resort to the dodgy methods discussed so often by the tax avoidance enthusiasts. There is a difference between a CPA service and a tax lawyer, perhaps you need to know one of the latter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d434bac93e59b6bc54b351997abe1226", "text": "\"(I'm assuming USA tax code as this is untagged) As the comments above suggest there is no \"\"right\"\" answer or easy formula. The main issue is that you likely got into business to make money and if you make money consistently you will pay taxes. Reinvesting generally should be a business decision where the main concern is revenue growth and taxes are an important but secondary concern. Taxes can be complicated, but for a small LLC shouldn't be that bad. I highly recommend that you take some time closely analyze your business and personal taxes for the previous year. Once you understand the problem better, you can optimize around it. If it is a big concern, some companies buy software so they can estimate their taxes periodically through the year and make better decisions.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0efd66b77955f70e381b7172d38057dc	How do small cap stocks perform vs. large cap stocks (like Dow constituents) during bear trends?	[ { "docid": "b83a3611deb97cfa58b7ba4e4c074fc7", "text": "To a certain extent, small cap companies will in general follow the same trends as large cap companies. The extent of this cointegration depends on numerous factors, but a prime reason is the presence of systemic risk, i.e. the risk to the entire market. In simple terms, sthis is the risk that your portfolio will approach asymptotically as you increase its diversification, and it's why hedging is also important. That being said, small cap businesses will, in general, likely do worse than large cap stocks, for several reasons. This was/is certainly the case in the Great Recession. Small cap businesses have, on average, higher betas, which is a measure of a company's risk compared to the overall market. This means that small cap companies, on average outperform large cap companies during boom times, but it also means that they suffer more on average during bear times. The debate over whether or not the standard beta is still useful for small cap companies continues, however. Some economists feel that small cap companies are better measured against the Russell 2000 or similar indexes instead of the S&P 500. Small cap companies may face problems accessing or maintaining access to lines of credit. During the Great Recession, major lenders decreased their lending to small businesses, which might make it harder for them to weather the storm. On a related point, small businesses might not have as large an asset base to use as collateral for loans in bad times. One notable large cap company that used its asset base to their advantage was Ford, which gave banks partial ownership of its factories during hard times. This a) gave Ford a good amount of cash with which to continue their short-term operations, and b) gave the banks a vested interest in keeping Ford's lines of credit open. Ford struggled, but it never faced the financial problems of GM and Chrysler. Despite political rhetoric about Main Street vs. Wall Street, small businesses don't receive as much government aid in times of crisis as some large cap companies do. For example, the Small Business Lending Fund, a brilliant but poorly implemented idea in 2010, allocated less than $30 billion to small businesses. (The actual amount loaned was considerably less). Compare that to the amounts loaned out under TARP. Discussions about corporate lobbying power aside, small businesses aren't as crucial to the overall stability of the financial system Small businesses don't always have the manpower to keep up with changes in regulation. When the Dodd-Frank Act passed, large banks (as an example), could hire more staff to understand it and adapt to it relatively easily; small banks, however, don't always have the resources to invest in such efforts. There are other reasons, some of which are industry-specific, but these are some of the basic ones. If you want visual confirmation that small cap businesses follow a similar trend, here is a graph of the Russell 2000 and S&P 500 indexes: Here is a similar graph for the Russell 2000 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If you wanted to confirm this technically and control for the numerous complicated factors (overlap between indexes, systemic risk, seasonal adjustment, etc.), just ask and I'll try to run some numbers on it when I have a chance. Keep in mind, too, that looking at a pretty picture is no substitute for rigorous financial econometrics. A basic start would be to look at the correlation between the indexes, which I calculate as 0.9133 and 0.9526, respectively. As you can see, they're pretty close. Once again, however, the reality is more complicated technically, and a sufficiently detailed analysis is beyond my capabilities. Just a quick side note. These graphs show the logarithm of the values of the indexes, which is a common statistical nuance that is used when comparing time series with radically different magnitudes but similar trends. S&P500 and Russell 2000 data came from Yahoo! Finance, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average data came from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) Per usual, I try to provide code whenever possible, if I used it. Here is the Stata code I used to generate the graphs above. This code assumes the presence of russell2000.csv and sp500.csv, downloaded from Yahoo! Finance, and DJIA.csv, downloaded from FRED, in the current directory. Fidelity published an article on the subject that you might find interesting, and Seeking Alpha has several pieces related to small-cap vs. large-cap returns that might be worth a read too.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7dba0900e0c8d2e5b352741e92b3abfd", "text": "Equal weighted indexes are not theoretically meant to be less volatile or less risky; they're just a different way to weigh stocks in an index. If you had a problem that hurt small caps more than large caps, an equal weighted index will be hurt more than a market-cap weighted one. On the other hand, if you consider that second rung companies have come up to replace the top layer, it makes sense to weigh them on par. History changes on a per-country basis - in India, for instance, the market's so small at the lower-cap end that big money chases only the large caps, which go up more in a liquidity driven move. But in a more secular period (like the last 18 months) we see that smaller caps have outperformed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d004b1d7e0b8e2309af0ee4e6b08f4d", "text": "Volumes are used to predict momentum of movement, not the direction of it. Large trading volumes generally tend to create a price breakout in either positive or negative direction. Especially in relatively illiquid stocks (like small caps), sudden volume surges can create sharp price fluctuations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9372e6dd41524dc78d7511dbcc45a15", "text": "It really varies based on the stock (volatility is the main determining factor), and whether you are talking about temporary or permanent price impact, how long you are trading, etc. The below paper fits a functional form to a set of Citigroup data and estimates for a 10% dtv trade in a large cap like IBM the price would move on the order of 30bps. Presumably smallcaps would be more expensive. Their estimate seems a bit low to me but I'm more familiar with futures, so maybe it's not unreasonable https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=JjDsU_L-CI33yQSh4oKQDA&url=http://www.math.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/costestim.pdf&cd=3&ved=0CCQQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNGN6LmPb9sHR5dljcJJ2rV4bNE4Jg&sig2=WYhcCUFr8WcRfetA24wXLg", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea17710a4fd7f5570df071d180f65a63", "text": "\"It appears that there's a confusion between the different types of average. Saying \"\"the average investor\"\" generally means the most common type of small-scale unsophisticated investor - the mode (or possibly median) investor. However, while this class of investors is numerous, each of them has assets that are quite small compared to some other types of investors; and the market average performance is determined proportionally to the amount of assets held, not to the number of holders; so the performance of large investors \"\"counts\"\" that much more. For any measure, the mode of performance can be (and often is) different from the mean performance - in this case, Dalbar is saying that the most common results are lower than the (weighed) average results.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0bae64c25e149c26be7133c595e6050", "text": "What it is trying to describe is the psychology around the current price of the stock. In candlestick charts for example, if you get what is called a Bearish Engulfing Candle (where the open is higher than the previous day's close and the close is lower than the previous day's open) at the top of an uptrend, this could mean that the top may have been reached and the bears are taking over the bulls. A Bearish Engulfing candle is seen as a bearish reversal pattern, as the bulls start the day by opening the stock at a higher price than yesterday's close, but by the end of the day the bears have taken over as the price drops below yesterday's open. This reversal pattern can be even more pronounced and effective if it coincides with other chart indicators, such as an overbought momentum indicator. If you want to learn more look up about the Psychology of the market and Candlestick Charting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76bd5b548350bd4dc9468e92b1c95d13", "text": "I agree. I think that is a good point, and that is also why I wanted to post and ask. If I could do this in a bear market I bet I could be Warren Buffett by the time my heart stops. I use my benchmark as a mix of S&P, Nasdaq, and Russell 3000. I got a near flat market for 2015 (only 0.23%). I thought that was decent but yes the rest of the years have been quite bullish", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77709d67eb01b6301a7a4f77c3b801a8", "text": "\"I went to Morningstar's \"\"Performance\"\" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the \"\"compare\"\" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund). According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012. When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean? It means it matters what time period you're looking at. US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009. It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well. If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by \"\"low\"\". According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years. That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap). It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another. To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for. The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods. That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others. If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds. Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years. Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500. But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3c2583945301f8f9b14c9f8f0af19fa", "text": "S & P's site has a methodology link that contains the following which may be of use: Market Capitalization. Unadjusted market capitalization of US$ 4.6 billion or more for the S&P 500, US$ 1.2 billion to US$ 5.1 billion for the S&P MidCap 400, and US$ 350 million to US$ 1.6 billion for the S&P SmallCap 600. The market cap of a potential addition to an index is looked at in the context of its short- and medium-term historical trends, as well as those of its industry. These ranges are reviewed from time to time to assure consistency with market conditions. Liquidity. Adequate liquidity and reasonable price – the ratio of annual dollar value traded to float adjusted market capitalization should be 1.00 or greater, and the company should trade a minimum of 250,000 shares in each of the six months leading up to the evaluation date. Domicile. U.S. companies. For index purposes, a U.S. company has the following characteristics: The final determination of domicile eligibility is made by the U.S. Index Committee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3bf8deef4aa1a57d273ab02cd54fbce", "text": "I'm not sure how detailed of an explanation you're hoping for. Bear ETFs basically just short sell the underlying asset. The more highly levered ETFs will also use a combination of options, futures, and swaps to achieve their target leverage. The inversion isn't perfect though, and their target is usually just to close inverse to the daily return of their underlying asset. If you feel like reading, [here is an example.](http://direxioninvestments.onlineprospectus.net/DirexionInvestments//SPXS/index.html?open=Summary%20Prospectus) You can find the investment overview on page 4.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80ac03554096a16e17336eac7100f440", "text": "\"So you're basically saying that average market fluctuations have an affect on individual stocks, because individual stocks are often priced in relation to the growth of the market as a whole? Also, what kinds of investments would be considered \"\"risk free\"\" in this nomenclature?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c844760b10919a890be503d0f7d801", "text": "\"They don't, actually. Though in some time frames S&P 500 growth out performs S&P 500, it often lags. This is because \"\"growth\"\" doesn't refer to what happens to your account, but rather the type of stock in the index -- roughly speaking, it's the half of the S&P with the best earnings growth. That would be great, except it's not looking for is to see if that growth is worth buying. A stock with a 20% growth rate is a great buy at a P/E of 15, but a terrible buy at P/E/ 50. That leads to what JB King was talking about -- there's also the S&P 500 Value, which is roughly the cheapest stocks relative to earnings. Value does tend to beat the broad index over the long haul, because there's nothing like getting a good deal (note a stock can be in both the growth and value categories). This holds true with other indexes as well like the Russel 2000. All that said, you're not going to see a huge difference between S&P 500 and S&P 500 Growth. I believe this is because the S&P 500 itself leans a bit to the growthy side. PS: With VOOG Vanguard is tracking the S&P 500 Growth Index, which is actually a thing and not Vanguard itself filtering stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a44daf7196d15483dc2a93284ac04b00", "text": "\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0368cb6eed25fe1d2d0b92360ba78eec", "text": "Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Lottery Tickets notes the work of Fama and French who researched the idea of a small-cap premium along with a value premium that may be useful to note in terms of what has outperformed if one looks from 1926 to present. Slice and dice would also be another article about an approach that over weights the small-cap and value sides of things if you want another resource here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59d3168ad54e0a80440d3066acad7246", "text": "This doesn't really make sense, as the small cap indices have a similar rate of growth as the s&p 500. The global scale has some relevance, but exports are included in GDP as well, so it's not the full story. A better answer, as is noted in comments lower down, is that the S&P does not grow at 6%. It returns 6% per year. The dividend yield of the s&p is a bit over 2%. Dividends are not growth, they are simply income; they may also grow themselves, but rarely by 6% per year (in real terms). Additional income that's not paid out in dividends probably amounts to another 1-2%. Growth is the final 1-3%, which makes it roughly match GDP.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54284d2a3c8a95d3298247d368e50224", "text": "\"The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) has this bit to note: The returns of small growth stocks are ridiculously low—just 2.18 percent per year since 1927 (versus 17.47 percent for small value, 10.06 percent for large growth, and 13.99 percent for large value). Where the S & P 500 would be a blend of large-cap growth and value so does that meet your \"\"beat the market over the long term\"\" as 1927-1999 would be long for most people.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a687a094427d9471f2af9372109453a2	1040 or 1040NR this time?	[ { "docid": "1e9be9267b7d796c28f93fb7647721d8", "text": "\"1040 or 1040NR depends on whether you are a resident alien or nonresident alien -- 1040/1040A/1040EZ for resident aliens, and 1040NR/1040NR-EZ for nonresident aliens. Determining whether you are a resident is somewhat complex, and there is not enough information in your question to determine it. Publication 519 is the guide for taxes for aliens. (It hasn't been updated for 2014 yet, so mentally shift all the years in the publication up by one year when you read it.) Since you don't have a green card, whether you are a resident is determined by the Substantial Presence Test. The test says that if (the number of days you were in the U.S. in 2014) + 1/3 of (the number of days you were in the U.S. in 2013) + 1/6 of (the number of days you were in the U.S. in 2012) >= 183 days (half a year), then you are a resident alien for 2014. However, there are exceptions to the test. Days that you are an \"\"exempt individual\"\" are not counted toward the Substantial Presence Test. And \"\"exempt individuals\"\" include international students, trainees, teachers, etc. However, there are exceptions to the exceptions. Students are not \"\"exempt individuals\"\" for a year if they have been exempt individuals for any part of 5 previous calendar years. (Different exceptions apply for teachers and trainees.) So whether you are an \"\"exempt individual\"\" for one year inductively depends on whether you have been an \"\"exempt individual\"\" in previous years. Long story short, if before you came to the U.S. as an F-1 student, you haven't been in the U.S. on F-1 or J-1 status, then you will be a nonresident alien for the first 5 calendar years (calendar year = year with a number, not 365 days) that you've been on F-1. We will assume this is the case below. So if you started your F-1 in 2009 (any time during that year) or before, then you would have already been an exempt individual for 5 calendar years (e.g. if you came in 2009, then 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 are your 5 years), so you would not be an exempt individual for any part of 2014. Since you were present in the U.S. for most of 2014, you meet the Substantial Presence Test for 2014, and you are a resident alien for all of 2014. If, on the other hand, you started your F-1 in 2010 (any time during that year) or after, then you would still be an exempt individual for the part of 2014 that you were on F-1 status (i.e. prior to October 2014. OPT is F-1.). Days in 2014 in H1b status (3 months) are not enough for you to satisfy the Substantial Presence Test for 2014, so you would be a nonresident alien for all of 2014. If you fall into the latter case (nonresident alien), there are some alternative choices you have. If you were in the U.S. for most of those last 3 months, then you are eligible to choose to use the \"\"First-Year Choice\"\". I will not go into the steps to use this choice, but the result is that it makes you dual-status for 2014 -- nonresident until October, and resident since October. If you are single, then making this choice pretty much gives you no benefit. However, if you are married, then making this choice allows you to subsequently make another choice to become a resident for all of 2014. Being resident gives you some benefits, like being able to file as Married Filing Jointly (nonresidents can only file separately), being able to use the Standard Deduction, being able to use many other deductions and credits, etc. Though, depending on what country you're from, it may affect your treaty benefits, so check that before you consider it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d34cb5f443878184b7f7c24914d6b8db", "text": "Since you were a nonresident alien student on F-1 visa then you will be considered engaged in a trade or business in the USA. You must file Form 1040NR. Here is the detailed instruction by IRS - http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Nonresident-Aliens", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c976275b07f08beafa961ce161e4872b", "text": "NRE is better. It's a tax free account, exempt from income tax. NRE account is freely repatriable (Principal and interest earned) while the NRO account has restricted repatriability", "title": "" }, { "docid": "856888a2499d8ea27cb454ac4c6e0f26", "text": "Here's a description. The relevant discussion for tax year 2010 starts on page 22 of the 1040 instructions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c00a274f62e3cfc4e3f99a61e61425e", "text": "There may be differences in different contexts, but here's my general understanding: Rate of Return (or Return on Investment) is the total gain or loss of an investment divided by the initial investment amount. e.g. if you buy stock for $100 and later sell it for $120 you have a 20% Rate of Return. You would have a 20% ROR regardless of if you sell it tomorrow or in a year. Internal Rate of Return is effectively annualized. It is the annual rate at which each of a series of cashflows is discounted that would give you a net present value of 0. Meaning if you spent $100 today and in exactly one year you received $120 back, you would have an IRR of 20%. If you received the $120 back in 6 months, your IRR would be roughly 40%. An IRR calculation can include multiple cashflows at various times, while ROR is (in my mind) the total net gain or loss relative to the investment (irrespective of the time of the cash flows). IRR is more effective when comparing investments that have different time horizons. Spending $100 to get $120 tomorrow is much better (from an IRR perspective) than getting $120 two years from now, since you could take that $20 gain and invest it for the rest of the two years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ee9f8d91bf9c6edf84fc8a1577ed745", "text": "Instead of SSN, foreign person should get a ITIN from the IRS. Instead of W9 a foreigner should fill W8-BEN. Foreigner might also be required to file 1040NR/NR-EZ tax report, and depending on tax treaties also be liable for US taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef3c158a705519262993c7d13c839988", "text": "\"Besides money and time lost, it is pretty clear that most tax advisors are not well versed in non-resident taxes. It seems that their main clients are either US residents or H1B workers (who are required to file as residents). I share your pain on this one. In fact, even for H1B/green card holders or Americans with income/property abroad vast majority of advisers will make mistakes (which may become quite costly). IRS licensing exams for EA/RTRP do not include a single question on non-resident taxation or potential issues, let alone handling treaties. Same goes for the AICPA unified CPA exam (the REG portion of which, in part, deals with taxes). I'm familiar with the recent versions of both exams and I am very disappointed and frustrated by that lack of knowledge requirement in such a crucial area (I am not a licensed tax preparer now though). That said, the issue is very complicated. I went through several advisers until I found the one I can trust to know her stuff, and while at it happened to learn quite a lot about the US tax code (which doesn't make me sleep any better by the least). It is my understanding that preparing a US tax return for a foreign person without a mistake is impossible, but the question is how big is the mistake you're going to make. I had returns prepared by solo working advisers where I found mistakes as ridiculous as arithmetic calculation errors (fired after two seasons), and by big-4 firms where I found mistakes that cost me quite a lot (although by the time I figured that they cost me significant amounts, it was too late to sue or change; fired after 2 seasons as well). As you can see, it is relevant to me as well, and I do not do my own tax returns. I usually ask for the conservative interpretations from my adviser, IRS is very aggressive on enforcement and the penalties, especially on foreigners are draconian (I do not know if it ever went through a judicial review, as I believe some of these penalties are unconstitutional under the 8th amendment, but that's my personal opinion). Bottom line - its hard to find a decent tax adviser, and that's why the good ones are expensive. You get what you pay for. How do I go about locating a CPA/EA who is well versed in non-resident taxes located in the Los Angeles area (Orange County area is not too far away either) These professionals are usually active in large metropolitan areas with a lot of foreigners. You should be able to find decent professionals in LA/OC, SF Bay, Seattle, New York, Boston, and other cities and metropolises attracting foreigners. Also, look for those working in the area of a major university. Specific points: If I find none, can I work with a quaified person who lives in a different state and have him file my taxes on my behalf (electronically or via scans going back and forth) Yes. But that person my have a problem representing you in California (in case you're audited), unless he's an EA (licensed by the Federal government, can practice everywhere) or is licensed as a CPA or Attorney by the State of California. Is there a central registry of such quaified people I can view (preferably with reviews) - akin to \"\"yellow pages\"\" IRS is planning on opening one some time this year, but until then - not really. There are some commercial sites claiming to have that, but they're using the FOIA access to the IRS and states' listings, and may not have updated information. They definitely don't have updated license statuses (or any license statuses) or language/experience information. Wouldn't trust them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2e19aa7de5566d8a29671be19184800", "text": "\"I am looking at a 1040A. Line 11a asks for total IRA distributions. 11b asks for the taxable amount. Enter \"\"QCD\"\" as explanation and remove the Qualified Charitable Deduction amount from 11a to get 11b which is added to your income if there's any positive balance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a89ab2d6bd9760664b9f5741aabdd05f", "text": "I know nothing about this, but found this link which suggests for H&R Block specifically: I kept searching and I found the section. It's at the end in the Credits section under 'other backup withholding'. Hopefully this helps someone else in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f05bf56b4b293ae36f55deb39d23e24", "text": "I have now filed my taxes and am able to report back with precisely what took place. To summarize, my situation was the following (before filing taxes): As it turns out, if I have $4x of NRTC's, it is not $4x that I can redeem. It is 15% of $4x that I can redeem to be able to get a tax refund. For the sake of simplicity, let's say I have $10x NRTC's instead of $4x NRTC's. That gives me $1.5x as the actual redeemable amount. I will get $x back on my refund since I have $1.5x available. Have I understood the system correctly? Since $x is a substantial amount, I want to know if I can factor this in as money that will be coming in. In summary, the only thing I didn't know before filing my taxes was the 15% rule!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abd138c01e6d5a971c99c8f92350dfec", "text": "\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a6861c5a6ac2146025b8a13d9207d3c", "text": "That's pretty typical for introductory problems. It's leading you into an NPV question. They're keeping the cash flows the same to illustrate the time value of money to show you that even though the free cash flow is the same in year 1 and year 4 or whatever when you discount it to present value today's stream is worth more than tomorrow's", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44f7f02ebc9b4bba410c9a805b9ed00d", "text": "\"If you have income - it should appear on your tax return. If you are a non-resident, that would be 1040NR, with the eBay income appearing on line 21. Since this is unrelated to your studies, this income will not be covered by the tax treaties for most countries, and you'll pay full taxes on it. Keep in mind that the IRS may decide that you're actually having a business, in which case you'll be required to attach Schedule C to your tax return and maybe pay additional taxes (mainly self-employment). Also, the USCIS may decide that you're actually having a business, regardless of how the IRS sees it, in which case you may have issues with your green card. For low income from occasional sales, you shouldn't have any issues. But if it is something systematic that you spend significant time on and earn significant amounts of money - you may get into trouble. What's \"\"systematic\"\" and how much is \"\"significant\"\" is up to a lawyer to tell you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19c1bed44c0810777064c3f77e592123", "text": "I edited my W4 over several years, trying to get rid of my refund. It's a balancing act, just be careful to not owe more than about $1000 each year. They can hit you with a small penalty. It's never been enough to concern me, but it's there. It's also a balancing act if you get a raise, a bonus, any kind of differences in pay...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80dade3f36a370d1af885e3af8e01083", "text": "\"H.R. basically consults Publication 15 (this is the link to 2015) to determine how much to hold, based on filing status, exemptions, and pay amount. What's described here is a form of estimation, or, in other words, H.R. withholds what would be your actual taxes, dividing across the number of paychecks you receive. Assuming your gross pay and exemptions do not change, this usually results in a zero-sum for taxes owed (you will receive nothing, and owe nothing). As you can see from the charts, the year is basically broken down into equal tax units that reflect how much you would owe if you worked at that bracket all year. This estimation works best when you have steady hours from check to check. In other words, your taxes are based on the estimate of what you'd make if you earned that much all year, scaled down to the time frame (e.g. 1/52 if you are paid weekly, or 1/26 if you paid biweekly). They do not go \"\"up\"\" near the end of the year, because they're estimated in advance. You don't move up a tax bracket, but are instead taxed at a particular bracket every paycheck. There's also other forms of estimation mentioned there, but basically follow the same scheme. Note that all estimation forms are just that-- estimates. It's best to use a calculator and compare your current taxes whenever a significant change occurs-- a raise, a new child, getting married or divorced, etc. You'll want to be able to alter your exemptions so that enough taxes are coming out. That's also the reason for the \"\"withhold extra\"\" box, so that you can avoid owing. For example, if you're making $44 a week for the first 26 weeks, and then you make $764 a week for the second 26 weeks of the year, you'll end up with an actual tax liability of $2,576.6, but end up paying only $2,345.20. You would owe $231.40. Of course, the actual math is a lot more complicated if you're an employee paid by the minute, for example, or you have a child, go to college, etc. Paychecks that vary wildly, like $10,000 one week and $2,000 the next tend to have the hardest-to-predict estimates (e.g. jobs with big commission payouts). You should avoid living check-to-check with jobs that pay this way, because you'll probably end up owing taxes. Conversely, if you've done your estimates right and you're paid salary or exactly the same number of hours every week, you'll find that the taxes are much easier to predict and you can usually easily create a refund situation simply by having the correct exemptions on your check. So, in summation, if your check falls in the 25% category (which is, of course, 25% above the tax bracket break point), you're already paying the correct amount, and no further drop in your check would be expected.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "126fd13c67264c54eded0b947f3c655d", "text": "It's the same result either way. Say the bills are $600, and you are reimbursed $400. You'd be able to write off $400 as part of the utilities that are common expenses, but then claim the $400 as income. I'd stick with that, and have contemporaneous records supporting all cash flow. You also can take 2/3 of any other maintenance costs that most homeowners can't. Like snow removal, lawn care, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d4ba8a949e4138c61188e7132d74980", "text": "You need to file IRS Form 1040-NR. The IRS's website provides instructions.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8b07193c9db8c709979a980f3dcd927d	How aggressive should my personal portfolio be?	[ { "docid": "2cff75e0f193b732a183a32d56f3a919", "text": "You're completely missing the most important thing you can do: minimize fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe51e686735147f0c35b913477796fe9", "text": "\"Its important to note that aggression, or better yet volatility, does not necessarily offer higher returns. One can find funds that have a high beta (measure of volatility) and lower performance then stock funds with a lower beta. Additionally, to Micheal's point, better performance could be undone by higher fees. Age is unimportant when deciding the acceptable volatility. Its more important as to when the money is to be available. If there might be an immediate need, or even less than a year, then stick to a savings account. Five years, some volatility can be accepted, if 10 years or more seek to maximize rate of return. For example assume a person is near retirement age. They are expected to have 50K per year expenses. If they have 250K wrapped up in CDs and savings, and another 250K in some conservative investments, they can, and should, be \"\"aggressive\"\" with any remaining money. On the contrary a person your age that is savings for a house intends to buy one in three years. Savings for the down payment should be pretty darn conservative. Something like 75% in savings accounts, and maybe 25% in some conservative investments. As the time to buy approaches they can pull the money out of the conservative investments at a optimal time. Also you should not be investing without an emergency fund in place. Get that done first, then look to invest. If your friend does not understand these basic concepts there is no point in paying for his advice.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619", "text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cbcf770e60f79eaa8769eba124b4658", "text": "\"Split your contributions evenly across the funds on that list with the word \"\"core\"\" or \"\"S&P\"\" in the name. Maybe add \"\"International Large Cap Index\"\". Leave it & rebalance occasionally. Read a book on Modern Portfolio Theory sometime in the next 5 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ef29e3275771997bad0a65648a4bf4e", "text": "At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25a5d41f82229dc1f28d077109784ca4", "text": "This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f8153afd212e6e5cd6cf20c42f96389", "text": "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).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69dd9dbb23a5fbb80ce41d7c0fa951cb", "text": "\"Making these difficult portfolio decisions for you is the point of Target-Date Retirement Funds. You pick a date at which you're going to start needing to withdraw the money, and the company managing the fund slowly turns down the aggressiveness of the fund as the target date approaches. Typically you would pick the target date to be around, say, your 65th birthday. Many mutual fund companies offer a variety of funds to suit your needs. Your desire to never \"\"have to recover\"\" indicates that you have not yet done quite enough reading on the subject of investing. (Or possibly that your sources have been misleading you.) A basic understanding of investing includes the knowledge that markets go up and down, and that no portfolio will always go up. Some \"\"recovery\"\" will always be necessary; having a less aggressive portfolio will never shield you completely from losing money, it just makes loss less likely. The important thing is to only invest money that you can afford to lose in the short-term (with the understanding that you'll make it back in the long term). Money that you'll need in the short-term should be kept in the absolute safest investment vehicles, such as a savings account, a money market account, short-term certificates of deposit, or short-term US government bonds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b", "text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7776d8529615f03d3a1ff066204e2e5", "text": "I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts. I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close. I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds. That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "626f249ff0987f6f18b12d26da28b5a6", "text": "A good way to measure the performance of your investments is over the long term. 25-30% returns are easy to get! It's not going to be 25-30% in a single year, though. You shouldn't expect more than about 4% real (inflation-adjusted) return per year, on average, over the long term, unless you have reason to believe that you're doing a better job of predicting the market than the intellectual and investment might of Wall Street - which is possible, but hard. (Pro tip: It's actually quite easy to outdo the market at large over the short term just by getting lucky or investing in risky askets in a good year. Earning this sort of return consistently over many years, though, is stupidly hard. Usually you'll wipe out your gains several years into the process, instead.) The stock market fluctuates like crazy, which is why they tell you not to invest any money you're likely to need sooner than about 5 years out and you switch your portfolio from stocks to bonds as you approach and enter retirement. The traditional benchmark for comparison, as others have mentioned, is the rate of return (including dividends) from the Standard and Poors 500 Index. These are large stable companies which make up the core of larger United States business. (Most people supplement these with some smaller companies and overseas companies as a part of the portfolio.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd81a47a62701df97740f33adf7b8b22", "text": "\"Just an FYI, this can be a risky move. Unless you have been in the industry for a while, or are extremely well averse in investment management/research, keep it pretty short. In a lot of ways, you might want to think about tailoring it more like a sell-side report. Also, make sure you understand the style of investing the PM/company you are applying to likes. The reason I say this is because every buy-side shop is different. Some do 1-2 page write-ups with models and walk through's, others will expect 60 page \"\"decks\"\" (i.e. Powerpoints). The longer the deck, the more you have that can go wrong. If one tiny thing is wrong, or you have a typo anywhere, it hurts you more than it helps that you wrote something long (I once had the wrong rating on one issuance of a bond ladder I was pitching; it's all the PM's focused on). The more important aspect is that you understand the shop you are applying to and then tailoring the pitch to them. For example, don't do a growth tech company with an 80x forward P/E if you're applying to a fundamental value shop. It shows you didn't do research on the firm you're applying to and that you won't fit the culture. This is part of why I was saying that this can be a risky move, if the firm is large enough to have an HR department, they likely have a lot of different investment styles in house. Finally, try to keep it to a small/mid-cap company. Analysts/PMs follow stocks all day long and will most likely have an opinion on 99% of large caps, no matter the sector. In summary, I'd recommend a 1-2 page sell-side style write-up with a backup model (printed excel file). KISS (keep it simple stupid), have a summary, couple years worth of historical's, 2 years forward, and a few main bullet points of why you like them. In your case, this pitch should be something to pique the interest so that you can NAIL a real pitch in the interview. If you get an interview, know everything about everything in the industry as well as that specific company. For example, lets say you do a smartphone secular theme investment. Do you know what outstanding AAPL/Android cases there are, and more importantly, how would each ruling likely affect the marketplace? This is because I can guarantee if you're pitching to another tech guy, he knows and has an educated opinion on it. Also, in many cases having a great model can mean more than a long write-up, it shows that you're good with numbers and can think about FUTURE earnings, which are all that matter. Last point, IMO you'd be better off trying to get your foot in the door through networking than HR. HR doesn't really do much on the buy-side with recruiting and won't really understand what to look for in a good pitch (they're HR after-all, not an analyst). Try to meet someone over coffee and then have a pitch READY to bring out/discuss. The buy-side is selective enough that usually when positions open up it's either because they are creating one for you or they already have an idea of who is going to fill it. This mean HR has little to no say in helping you get in. You'll have a lot more success this way than blasting to a bunch of HR emails.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69e661b4e1154b9542f9d63bc5d62bbb", "text": "So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0836a633f7ed214595e07c085c93713a", "text": "Finance noob here. Am I reading the article right that he's saying MPT bad, active management good? If so, what is that saying about how I should manage my portfolio (assuming I am only dedicating a few hours a month)? >he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game So what do I do then? Are there specific strategies? Also, could you suggest a good explanation of why MPT is bad?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "296b7a2e96d632ad86e69f69b97d10fe", "text": "It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here. A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments. My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities. Government bonds earn way too little. The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity. I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it. My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people. If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap. If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5e1bde29d805bce6086b8598a343c8b", "text": "This depends completely on your investing goals. Typically when saving for retirement younger investors aim for a more volatile and aggressive portfolio but diversify their portfolio with more cautious stocks/bonds as they near retirement. In other words, the volatility that owning a single stock brings may be in line with your goals if you can shoulder the risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fb93947461cf2614b37f4ea50bbec9b", "text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
753d07fd7e56f4c259a539b6c1916f3d	Good Percentage Return on Equity?	[ { "docid": "adc58170ab394a0f0d40e7c03f1b1f41", "text": "Yes definitely Warren Buffet averaged returns of only around 21% throughout his 40 years in business. ROE of 23% is probably more than double the ROE of most companies , whats more as the saying goes its easier to grow sales from 1 million to 100 million than to grow sales from 100 million to 10 billion", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "dc61bab52d0f73aaebd7179bee102155", "text": "You will probably never see it. The startup at some point may start issuing dividends to the shareholders (which would be the owners, including you if you are in fact getting equity), but that day may never come. If they hire others with this method, you'll likely lose even that 5% as more shares are created. Think of inflation that happens when government just prints more money. All notes effectively lose value. I wouldn't invest either, most startups fail. Don't work for free on the vague promise of some future compensation; you want a salary and benefits. Equity doesn't put food on your table.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a78b7ee9b4d58c459bbaa55b79537705", "text": "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b1f115f7e7215d23a3d4e254c803a6e", "text": "\"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success. I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product. Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is \"\"normal\"\" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside). Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.). More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c83e47cb9631f83ce924a41ea510ae86", "text": "\"You are suggesting that a 1% return per month is huge. There are those who suggest that one should assume (a rule of thumb here) that you should assume expenses of half the rent. 6% per year in this case. With a mortgage cost of 4.5% on a rental, you have a forecast profit of 1.5%/yr. that's $4500 on a $300K house. If you buy 20 of these, you'll have a decent income, and a frequently ringing phone. There's no free lunch, rental property can be a full time business. And very lucrative, but it's rarely a slam dunk. In response to OP's comment - First, while I do claim to know finance fairly well, I don't consider myself at 'expert' level when it comes to real estate. In the US, the ratio varies quite a bit from area to area. The 1% (rent) you observe may turn out to be great. Actual repair costs low, long term tenants, rising home prices, etc. Improve the 1.5%/yr to 2% on the 20% down, and you have a 10% return, ignoring appreciation and principal paydown. And this example of leverage is how investors seem to get such high returns. The flip side is bad luck with tenants. An eviction can mean no rent for a few months, and damage that needs fixing. A house has a number of long term replacement costs that good numbers often ignore. Roof, exterior painting, all appliances, heat, AC, etc. That's how that \"\"50% of rent to costs\"\" rule comes into play.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00e8698d18a6edb4b5965c3a58a3bfa3", "text": "GDP growth is one of several components of nominal equity returns; the (probably not comprehensive) list includes: Real GDP/earnings growth Inflation Dividend payouts and share buybacks Multiple expansion (the market willing to pay more per dollar of earnings) Changes in interest rate expectations As other comments mention you could also see larger companies tending to deliver higher returns as for any number of reasons related to M&A, expansion into foreign markets, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94f4b7578a2b59e3af58c13213b7da6b", "text": "I'll give you my quick and dirty way to value a company: A quick and dirty valuation could be: equity + 10 times profit. This quick way protects you from investing in companies in debt, or losing money. To go more in-depth you need to assess future profit, etc. I recommend the book from Mary Buffett about Warren Buffett's investing style.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa89096b34cb48b4c6033c8c5a319377", "text": "DRiPs come to mind as something that may be worth examining. If you take the Microsoft example, consider what would happen if you bought additional shares each year by re-investing the dividends and the stock also went up over the years. A combination of capital appreciation in the share price plus the additional shares purchased over time can produce a good income stream over time. The key is to consider how long are you contributing, how much are you contributing and what end result are you expecting as some companies can have larger dividends if you look at REITs for example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5a298afce83af0d8164f0633e8051c1", "text": "If the shares rise in value 50% over the next few years, you will have the same return that I would see if I bought 100 or 1000 shares. The only issue with a small purchase is that even a $5 commission is a high percent. But the rest of the math is the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e144e276962b576070defb6e72a120e", "text": "If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7f81b996bf1dc02be851206dfcc3183", "text": "\"Unfortunately for investors, returns for equity-based investments are not linear - you'll see (semi-random) rises and dips as you look at the charted per-share price. Without knowing what the investments are in the target date retirement fund that you've invested in, you could see a wide range of returns (including losses!) for any given period of time. However, over the long term (usually 10+ years), you'll see the \"\"average\"\" return for your fund as your gains and losses accumulate/compound over that period.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7b44d6fb01103d972318fdd1aa04c52", "text": "\"You'll generally get a number close to market cap of a mature company if you divide profits (or more accurately its free cash flow to equity) by the cost of equity which is usually something like ~7%. The value is meant to represent the amount of cash you'd need to generate investment income off it matching the company you're looking at. Imagine it as asking \"\"How much money do I need to put into the bank so that my interest income would match the profits of the company I'm looking at\"\". Except replace the bank with the market and other forms of investments that generate higher returns of course and that value would be lower.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98863528ca9a2014fa3bc34c6c060f5a", "text": "yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate. yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees. the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates. in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d917c533e1f467fdc043cc786853554", "text": "The ROI percentage becomes a meaningless figure at that point and would either be infinite or a very large number if you assume an equity investment of $1 or $0.01. At that point it's obviously a lucrative deal as long as it works out so the bigger question is what are the risks of it not working out and what's the ROIC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "365f3ac9b47ee04cd35b18cf28973dd1", "text": "\"If someone is guaranteeing X%, then clearly you can borrow money for less than X% (otherwise his claim wouldn't be remotely impressive). So why not do that if his 4% is guaranteed? :) Anyway, my answer would be that beating the market as a whole is a \"\"decent\"\" rate of return. I've always used the S&P 500 as a benchmark but you can use other indices or funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9abd734c052c72e2797dde2201b88db1", "text": "\"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \"\"emerging markets\"\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d13bd7b39c8ba05cbf2efaae1bbfb27e	Why invest for the long-term rather than buy and sell for quick, big gains?	[ { "docid": "992515091016e92c23ab724308d91cbb", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3292817005d13deadb2e1a31d52a00c", "text": "\"If they return to their earlier prices Assuming I don't make too many poor choices That's your problem right there: you have no guarantee that stocks, will in fact return to their earlier prices rather than go down some more after the time you buy them. Your strategy only looks good and easy in hindsight when you know the exact point in time when stocks stopped going down and started going up. But to implement it, you need to predict that time, and that's impossible. I would adopt a guideline of \"\"sell when you've made X%, even if it looks like it might go higher.\"\" Congratulations, you've come up with the concept of technical analysis. Now go and read the hundreds of books that have been written about it, then think about why the people who wrote them waste time doing so rather than getting rich by using that knowledge.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16ffb29fce791fb8d2fac3d9c6fefb74", "text": "On Black Friday, 1929,the market fell from over 350 to just above 200. If you were following your plan then you would buy in at about 200. But look what the market did for two years after Black Friday. It went down to about 50. You would have lost around 75% of your capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b120328813deca9d848fd3cb63a1698", "text": "\"The technical term for it is \"\"timing the market\"\" and if you can pull it off correctly, you will do quite well. The problem is that it is almost impossible to consistently do well. If it were that easy there would be a lot of billionaires walking around. Even Wall street experts haven't been able to predict the market that well. This idea is almost universally considered a bad idea. Consider this: When has the stock dropped low enough that you are \"\"buying low\"\" and let's say you do buy low and it doubles in a month. When do you get out? What if you are wrong and it doubles again? Or if it drops 10% do you keep waiting? This strategy is rife with problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5b23555ecfcac576eb1a4e750938e28", "text": "Every time you buy or sell a share for some price, somebody must have thought that that was exactly the right moment to sell or buy that share at that price (and to trade with you). Every time a trade is made, both sides think they are doing the smart thing. Most of the time, one will turn out to be wrong, the other right. Nothing in your proposed method of trading explains why you would be the side that was right more often. So they'll probably even out. Or maybe there are people in the market who actually do have a slightly better than average method, and you'll be wrong somewhat more often than right. Each trade has transaction costs. If you simply hang on to your shares, that's more or less the same as evening out good trades and bad trades, but without the transaction costs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f467cbe27dbe7e76823d12fcb70efe9", "text": "The price of a shares reflects the expected future returns of that company. If it does not someone will notice and buy until it does. Look at this chart http://www.finanzen.net/chart/Arcandor (click on max), that's a former DAX company, so one of the largest german companys. Now it's bankrupt. Why do you think you are the only one who is going to notice? There are millions of people and even more computers, some a going to be smarter than you. Of course that does not happen to everyone but who knows. Is Volkswagen going to survive the current crisis? Probably. Is it coming back to former glory in the next half year? Who knows? Here comes the obvious solution: Don't buy single stocks, spread it out over many companies, some will shine, some will plument and you get the average. Oh that's an index, how convinent. Now if there were a way to save on all these transaction costs you're incurring...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bd438a6f4f107d2889bb2052ca1a935", "text": "As an easy way to answer... look at an index, let's say the S&P 500. Look at the price this last October, and predict where it will move in November... easy right? It already happened, and you have the benefit of hindsight. The move looks like such a consistent, obvious continuation of the previous up and down pattern. It looks predictable, like you could have guessed that. Now, look at today's price, and predict where it will go next month. Not so easy now? The problem is, every point you're at, all the time, looks like a possible inflection point or turning point. If you're following an uptrend, you may think it'll continue, but you may also think that it zigged so far up already, that now it's ready for a zag down where you'll buy. So you wait... and it keeps rising, and you kick yourself for missing out. Next time, you see another uptrend and resolve to buy it regardless, thinking now it'll keep going, but it turns down the second you buy it, and keeps dropping. You kick yourself again. The market is amazing at doing this to you every time. In real time, every wiggle in the price looks simultaneously like a trend that could continue, and like a trend that has moved far enough and is ready to reverse. And more likely you'll guess the wrong one. The ONLY way with some little hope of succeeding is to study study study, and find and learn trading rules with just over 50/50 chances (like buying when a moving average is touched within an uptrend as an example, and setting a stop loss at -1%, and a sell limit at +2% or something), and then never ever deviate from that strategy, because your only hope is in the consistency of statistics and odds over time. You'll get many -1% losses, and hopefully enough 2% gains to compensate the losses, plus some profit. OR, to make it easier, just buy in on a dip, and hold and hold and collect dividends, and be content to match the market without effort.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27c4e69d2f392f68687ad026b2b9ae91", "text": "The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities. That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments. High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive. Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead. So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening. And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market. But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme. But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market. So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf07ec9e09b72c3b44f4c116f1caed05", "text": "Someone entering a casino with $15 could employ a very simple strategy and have a better-than-90% chance of walking out with $16. Unfortunately, the person would have a non-trivial chance (about one in 14) of walking out with $0. If after losing $15 the person withdrew $240 from the bank and tried to win $16, the person would have a better-than-90% chance of succeeding and ending up ahead (holding the original $15, plus the additional $240, plus $1) but would have at that point about a one in 14 chance from that point of losing the $240 along with the original $15. Measured from the starting point, you'd have about a 199 out of 200 chance of gaining $1, and a one out of 200 chance of losing $240. Market-timing bets are like that. You can arrange things so you have a significant chance of making a small profit, but at the risk of a large downside. If you haven't firmly decided exactly how much downside you are willing to accept, it's very easy to simultaneously believe you don't have much money at risk, but that you'll be able to win back anything you lose. The only way you can hope to win back anything you lose is by bringing a lot more money to the table, which will of course greatly increase your downside risk. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $15 of downside risk to earn $1 is about 93%. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $255 worth of risk is about 99.5%. It's easy to see that there are ways of playing which have a 99.5% chance of winning, and that there are ways of playing that only have a 15:1 downside risk. Unfortunately, the ways of playing that have the smaller risk don't have anything near a 99.9% chance of winning, and those that have a better chance of winning have a much larger downside risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52d1925c040a2118fae45a14044546e1", "text": "\"Plenty of good answers here, but probably the best answer is that The Market relies on suckers...er...investors like you. The money has to come from somewhere, it might as well be you. So-called \"\"day traders\"\" or \"\"short-term investors\"\" are a huge part of the market, and they perform a vital function: they provide capital that flows to the large, well-equipped, institutional investors. Thing is, you can never be big enough, smart enough, well-informed enough, or quick enough to beat the big guys. You may have a run of good fortune, but over the long term aggregate, you're a PAYOR into the market, not a DIVIDEND reaper.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "395e4a466026a14fb6261c61f25969b5", "text": "\"A lot of people have already explained that your assumptions are the issue, but I'll throw in my 2¢. There are a lot of people who do the opposite of long term investing. It's called high frequency trading. I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia article for more info, but very basically, high frequency traders use programs to determine which stocks to buy and which ones to sell. An example program might be \"\"buy if the stock is increasing and sell if I've held it more than 1 second.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd0b25899dfe8a0d7965310d6cfc769b", "text": "Playing the markets is simple...always look for the sucker in the room and outsmart him. Of course if you can't tell who that sucker is it's probably you. If the strategy you described could make you rich, cnbc staff would all be billionaires. There are no shortcuts, do your research and decide on a strategy then stick to it in all weather or until you find a better one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2ae3e850c9a05b457725c0e854dd8f8", "text": "The problem is that short-term trends are really unpredictable. There is nobody who can accurately predict where a fund (or even moreso, a single stock or bond) is going to move in a few hours, or days or even months. The long-term trends of the entire market, however, are (more or less) predictable. There is a definite upward bias when you look at time-scales of 5, 10, 20 years and more. Individual stocks and bonds may crash, and different sectors perform differently from year to year, but the market as a whole has historically always risen over long time scales. Of course, past performance never guarantees future performance. It is possible that everything could crash and never come back, but history shows that this would be incredibly unlikely. Which is the entire basis for strategies based on buying and holding (and periodically rebalancing) a portfolio containing funds that cover all market sectors. Now, regarding your 401(k), you know your time horizon. The laws won't let you withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age - this might be 40 years, depending on your current age. So we're definitely talking long term. You shouldn't care about where the market goes over a few months if you won't be using the money until 20 years from now. The most important thing for a 401(k) is to choose funds from those available to you that will be as diverse as possible. The actual allocation strategy is something you will need to work out with a financial advisor, since it will be different for every person. Once you come up with an appropriate allocation strategy, you will want to buy according to those ratios with every paycheck and rebalance your funds to those ratios whenever they start to drift away. And review the ratios with your advisor every few years, to keep them aligned with large-scale trends and changes in your life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e0ee716deb67cfc9ca4aec7a8b19f16", "text": "There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5939f1d283af184f432800ab3ed5f171", "text": "Another benefit of holding shares longer was just pointed out in another question: donating appreciated shares to a nonprofit may avoid the capital gains tax on those shares, which is a bigger savings the more those shares have gone up since purchase.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f38781d51f018d03d48fa9ad598f6afa", "text": "And more than that it would encourage people to invest in companies for the long term, allowing Executives and CEO's and such the breathing space to make a tough decision that's bad in the short term but good in the long term... Rather than hiring a psychopath CEO that's only trying to boost short term stock value for his own bonus/salary", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1c94491cc27aa9195b884d40836d527", "text": "\"You've laid out a strategy for deciding that the top of the market has passed and then realizing some gains before the market drops too far. Regardless of whether this strategy is good at accomplishing its goal, it cannot by itself maximize your long-term profits unless you have a similar strategy for deciding that the bottom of the market has passed. Even if you sell at the perfect time at the top of the market, you can still lose lots of money by buying at the wrong time at the bottom. People have been trying to time the market like this for centuries, and on average it doesn't work out all that much better than just plopping some money into the market each week and letting it sit there for 40 years. So the real question is: what is your investment time horizon? If you need your money a year from now, well then you shouldn't be in the stock market in the first place. But if you have to have it in the market, then your plan sounds like a good one to protect yourself from losses. If you don't need your money until 20 years from now, though, then every time you get in and out of the market you're risking sacrificing all your previous \"\"smart\"\" gains with one mistimed trade. Sure, just leaving your money in the market can be psychologically taxing (cf. 2008-2009), but I guarantee that (a) you'll eventually make it all back (cf. 2010-2014) and (b) you won't \"\"miss the top\"\" or \"\"miss the bottom\"\", since you're not doing any trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9195bb2a2faa4f1aa9f86cdf0eb07809", "text": "If your gut told you to buy during the depths of '09, your gut might be well-calibrated. The problem is stock market declines during recessions are frequently not that large relative to the average long run return of 9%: A better strategy might be hold a percentage in equities based upon a probability distribution of historical returns. This becomes problematic because of changes in the definition of earnings and the recent inflation stability which has encouraged high valuations: Cash flow has not been as corrupted as earnings now, and might be a better indicator: This obviously isn't perfect either, but returns can be improved. Since there is no formulaic way yet conventionally available, the optimal primary strategy is still buy & hold which has made the most successful investor frequently one of the richest people on the planet for decades, but this could still be used as an auxiliary for cash management reserves during recessions once retired.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5688786e1cd8f4bc730141bd83392ef3", "text": "One key piece missing from your theory is the bid/ask spread. If you buy a stock for $10, you usually can't immediately turn around and sell it for $10. You can only sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. So virtually any random investment (stocks, bonds, forex, whatever) immediately loses a small amount of value, and over the long run you will almost certainly lose money if you buy/sell at random.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2946b37fe124978cc75eb71e8f0a2c12", "text": "\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11d1400c8b9ac12d954f60d4ec289914", "text": "Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aed6c8a2de8cc877cb499bc37e5253b8", "text": "\"This is basically the short-term/long-term savings question in another form: savings that you hope are long-term but which may turn short-term very suddenly. You can never completely eliminate the risk of being forced to draw on long term savings during a period when the market is doing Something Unpleasant that would force you to take a loss (or right before it does Something Pleasant that you'd like to be fully invested during). You can only pick the degree of risk that you're willing to accept, balancing that hazard of forced sales against the lower-but-more-certain returns you'd get from a money market or equivalent. I'm considered a moderately aggressive investor -- which doesn't mean I'm pushing the boundaries on what I'm buying (not by a long shot!), but which does mean I'm willing to keep more of my money in the market and I'm more likely to hold or buy into a dip than to sell off to try to minimize losses. That level of risk-tolerance also means I'm willing to maintain a ready-cash pool which is sufficient to handle expected emergencies (order of $10K), and not become overly paranoid about lost opportunity value if it turns out that I need to pull a few thou out of the investments. I've got decent health insurance, which helps reduce that risk. I'm also not particularly paranoid about the money. On my current track, I should be able to maintain my current lifestyle \"\"forever\"\" without ever touching the principal, as long as inflation and returns remain vaguely reasonable. Having to hit the account for a larger emergency at an Inconvenient Time wouldn't be likely to hurt me too much -- delaying retirement for a year or two, perhaps. It's just money. Emergencies are one of the things it's for. I try not to be stupid about it, but I also try not to stress about it more than I must.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b48723be4cfd22c056c3bd1f60c6f2b5", "text": "Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df23c140202eec107b9a1e27a3e56147", "text": "This is the exactly wrong thing to do especially in the age of algorithmic trading. Consider this event from 2010: Chart Source Another similar event occurred in 2015 and there was also a currency flash crash in that year. As you can see the S&P 500 (and basically the entire market) dropped nearly 7% in a matter of minutes. It regained most of that value within 15 minutes. If you are tempted to think that 7% isn't that big of a deal, you need to understand that specific securities will have a much bigger drop during such events. For example the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) was down 45% at one point on Aug 24, 2015 but closed less than 6% down. Consider what effect a stop loss order would have on your portfolio in that circumstance. You would not be able to react fast enough to buy at the bottom. The advantage of long-term investing is that you are immune to such aberrations. Additionally, as asked by others, what do you do once you've pulled out your money. Do you wait for a big jump in the market and hop back in? The risk here is that you are on the sidelines for the gains. By missing out on just a small number of big days, you can really hurt your long-term returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bab6ea73a159b162acf0efe1a8be6b24", "text": "\"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of \"\"long-term\"\". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an \"\"emergency\"\" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25bba446bab6025f3ba5a43c75c5eea3", "text": "In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab0ef2d08b8155091a2bdd9b7a105c42", "text": "It has got to do with inflation. So as prices of goods and services rise over the years you can work out what the inflation rate is over time. So by applying the inflation rate between 1990 to 2016 you can work out the equivalent value of $30B in 1990 would be in 2016. So in other words in 1990 you bought $30B worth of a box of goods and services, then in 2016 it would have cost you $55B to buy the same box of goods and services. You can play around with this US Inflation Calculator here, to see how much an amount of money back in history would be worth today if invested at the rate of inflation over those years. So obviously, the aim in investing is to get a return higher than the rate of inflation, so that your investment funds grow in real terms and in the future you can buy more with your funds than you can buy with them today.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bdccbd5c576bbbfa192d1788df6e45a", "text": "\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5eba55b8b3ae2afd8cc8c689c49f5463", "text": "\"More perspective on whether buying the stock (\"\"going long\"\") or options are better. My other answer gave tantalizing results for the option route, even though I made up the numbers; but indeed, if you know EXACTLY when a move is going to happen, assuming a \"\"non-thin\"\" and orderly option market on a stock, then a call (or put) will almost of necessity produce exaggerated returns. There are still many, many catches (e.g. what if the move happens 2 days from now and the option expires in 1) so a universal pronouncement cannot be made of which is better. Consider this, though - reputedly, a huge number of airline stock options were traded in the week before 9/11/2001. Perversely, the \"\"investors\"\" (presumably with the foreknowledge of the events that would happen in the next couple of days) could score tremendous profits because they knew EXACTLY when a big stock price movement would happen, and knew with some certainty just what direction it would go :( It's probably going to be very rare that you know exactly when a security will move a substantial amount (3% is substantial) and exactly when it will happen, unless you trade on inside knowledge (which might lead to a prison sentence). AAR, I hope this provides some perspective on the magnitude of results above, and recognizing that such a fantastic outcome is rather unlikely :) Then consider Jack's answer above (his and all of them are good). In the LONG run - unless one has a price prediction gift smarter than the market at large, or has special knowledge - his insurance remark is apt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "050c767b77c61494380662aa4b300d36", "text": "\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1a9ac72995145a52cd5c6910b1bfedad	Ideal investments for a recent college grad with very high risk tolerance?	[ { "docid": "67a8f8a83db55a5a110890deeebbdcf3", "text": "\"You have a high risk tolerance? Then learn about exchange traded options, and futures. Or the variety of markets that governments have decided that people without high income are too stupid to invest in, not even kidding. It appears that a lot of this discussion about your risk profile and investing has centered around \"\"stocks\"\" and \"\"bonds\"\". The similarities being that they are assets issued by collections of humans (corporations), with risk profiles based on the collective decisions of those humans. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the different kinds of asset classes to invest in. Bonds? boring. Bond futures? craziness happening over there :) Also, there are potentially very favorable tax treatments for other asset classes. For instance, you mentioned your desire to hold an investment for over a year for tax reasons... well EVERY FUTURES TRADE gets that kind of tax treatment (partially), whether you hold it for one day or more, see the 60/40 rule. A rebuttal being that some of these asset classes should be left to professionals. Stocks are no different in that regards. Either educate yourself or stick with the managed 401k funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a65594a18d3dd998b566955e0836c790", "text": "If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dca2e519c440ad97edc1473cbb806d5", "text": "If you have been putting savings away for the longer term and have some extra funds which you would like to take some extra risk on - then I say work yourself out a strategy/plan, get yourself educated and go for it. If it is individual shares you are interested then work out if you prefer to use fundamental analysis, technical analysis or some of both. You can use fundamental analysis to help determine which shares to buy, and then use technical analysis to help determine when to get into and out of a position. You say you are prepared to lose $10,000 in order to try to get higher returns. I don't know what percentage this $10,000 is of the capital you intend to use in this kind of investments/trading, but lets assume it is 10% - so your total starting capital would be $100,000. The idea now would be to learn about money management, position sizing and risk management. There are plenty of good books on these subjects. If you set a maximum loss for each position you open of 1% of your capital - i.e $1,000, then you would have to get 10 straight losses in a row to get to your 10% total loss. You do this by setting stop losses on your positions. I'll use an example to explain: Say you are looking at a stock priced at $20 and you get a signal to buy it at that price. You now need to determine a stop price which if the stock goes down to, you can say well I may have been wrong on this occasion, the stock price has gone against me so I need to get out now (I put automatic stop loss conditional orders with my broker). You may determine the stop price based on previous support levels, using a percentage of your buy price or another indicator or method. I tend to use the percentage of buy price - lets say you use 10% - so your stop price would be at $18 (10% below your buy price of $20). So now you can work out your position size (the number of shares to buy). Your maximum loss on the position is $2 per share or 10% of your position in this stock, but it should also be only 1% of your total capital - being 1% of $100,000 = $1,000. You simply divide $1,000 by $2 to get 500 shares to buy. You then do this with the rest of your positions - with a $100,000 starting capital using a 1% maximum loss per position and a stop loss of 10% you will end up with a maximum of 10 positions. If you use a larger maximum loss per position your position sizes would increase and you would have less positions to open (I would not go higher than 2% maximum loss per position). If you use a larger stop loss percentage then your position sizes would decrease and you would have more positions to open. The larger the stop loss the longer you will potentially be in a position and the smaller the stop loss generally the less time you will be in a position. Also as your total capital increases so will your 1% of total capital, just as it would decrease if your total capital decreases. Using this method you can aim for higher risk/ higher return investments and reduce and manage your risk to a desired level. One other thing to consider, don't let tax determine when you sell an investment. If you are keeping a stock just so you will pay less tax if kept for over 12 months - then you are in real danger of increasing your risk considerably. I would rather pay 50% tax on a 30% return than 25% tax on a 15% return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caa7c09b4aff575996aba05e03ae5f23", "text": "Congratulations on being in this position. Your problem - which I think that you identified - is that you don't know much about investing. My recommendation is that you start with three goals: The Motley Fool (www.fool.com) has a lot of good information on their site. Their approach may or may not align with what you want to do; I've subscribed to their newsletters for quite a while and have found them useful. I'm what is known as a value investor; I like to make investments and hold them for a long time. Others have different philosophies. For the second goal, it's very important to follow the money and ask how people get paid in the investment business. The real money in Wall Street is made not by investment, but by charging money to those who are in the investment business. There are numerous people in line for some of your money in return for service or advice; fees for buying/selling stocks, fees for telling you which stocks to buy/sell, fees for managing your money, etc. You can invest without spending too much on fees if you understand how the system works. For the third goal, I recommend choosing a few stocks, and creating a virtual portfolio. You can then then get used to watching and tracking your investments. If you want a place to put your money while you do this, I'd start with an S&P 500 index fund with a low expense ratio, and I'd buy it through a discount broker (I use Scottrade but there are a number of choices). Hope that helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7b99052068ae7cb6abb83d7591cd932", "text": "Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db4f592662f61d0769da885278c96784", "text": "An ideal investment for a highly risk tolerant college grad with a background in software and programming, is a software company. That's because it's the kind of investment that you will be able to judge better than most other people, including yours truly. Hopefully, one day the software company for a highly risk tolerant investor will be your own.(Ask Bill Gates or even Michael Dell, although the latter was more involved in hardware.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ec31ff25a842884336420f39e6b4a99", "text": "I am in a very similar situation as you (software engineer, high disposable income). Maximize your contributions to all tax-advantaged accounts first. From those accounts you can choose to invest in high risk funds. At your age and date-target funds will invest in riskier investments on your behalf; and they'll do it while avoiding the 30%+/- haircut that you'll be paying in taxes anyhow. If, after that, you're looking for bigger risk plays then look into a brokerage account that will let you buy and sell options. These are big risk swingers and they are sophisticated, complicated products which are used by many people who likely understand finance far better than you. You can make money with them but you should consider it akin to gambling. It might be more to your liking to maintain a long position in a stock and then trade options against your long position. Start with trading covered calls, then you could consider buying options (defined limited downside risk).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91cbe6463d6bee3a60a59449dc4aff85", "text": "Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Then check their prices daily. With daily price swings of over 10% (both up and down) being a common occurrence, you'll quickly learn how high your risk tolerance really is. :) A lot of IT people believe that cryptocurrencies will stay. Whether Bitcoin or Ethereum will be among them is anyone's guess. Compare to the Dotcom boom, which will be Amazon.com and which will be Pets.com?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "114919b2d796acd6c72888553ba2b2f3", "text": "Sorry to be boring but you have the luxury of time and do not need high-risk investments. Just put the surplus cash into a diversified blue-chip fund, sit back, and enjoy it supporting you in 50 years time. Your post makes me think you're implicitly assuming that since you have a very high risk tolerance you ought to be able to earn spectacular returns. Unfortunately the risks involved are extremely difficult to quantify and there's no guarantee they're fairly discounted. Most people would intuitively realise betting on 100-1 horses is a losing proposition but not realise just how bad it is. In reality far fewer than one in a thousand 100-1 shots actually win.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "be1457dce52fb089a066c59174891798", "text": "\"First, I'd like to congratulate you on your financial discipline in paying off your loans and living well within your means. I have friends who make more than twice your salary with similar debt obligations, and they barely scrape by month to month. If we combine your student loan debt and unallocated income each month, we get about $1,350. You say that $378 per month is the minimum payment for your loans, which have an average interest rate of about 3.5%. Thus, you have about $1,350 a month to \"\"invest.\"\" Making your loan payments is basically the same as investing with the same return as the loan interest rate, when it comes down to it. An interest rate of 3.5% is...not great, all things considered, and barely above inflation. However, that's a guaranteed return of 3.5%, more or less like a bond. As noted previously, the stock market historically averages 10% before inflation over the long run. The US stock market is right around its historic high at this point (DJIA is at 20,700 today, April 6th, 2017 - historic high hit just over 21,000 on March 1, 2017). Obviously, no one can predict the future, but I get the feeling that a market correction may be in order, especially depending on how things go in Washington in the next weeks or months. If that's the case (again, we have no way of knowing if it is), you'd be foolish to invest heavily in any stocks at this point. What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a \"\"portfolio\"\" that's 50/50 stocks and \"\"bonds,\"\" where the bonds here are your student loans. Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time). I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others. Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one. Once you have all your loans paid off, your portfolio will be pretty much 100% stocks, at which point you may want to add in some actual bonds (say a 90/10 or 80/20 split, depending on what you want). I'm assuming you're pretty young, so you still have plenty of time to let the magic of compounding interest do its work, even if you happen to get into the market right before it drops (well, that, and the fact that you won't really have much invested anyway). Again, let me stress that neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing what will happen with the market - I'm just stating my opinion and what my course of action would be if I were in your shoes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4967fe2c74d0aeec195b34cb27b16a01", "text": "\"First of all, \"\"going risky\"\" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into \"\"blue chips\"\" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03bd51af0037dd95496e5d212684437d", "text": "\"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation). That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing: a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the \"\"investment porn\"\" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries. Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94e4d5ca28ad25d8016392b2891ba804", "text": "\"As many before me said but will say again for the sake of completeness of an answer: First off provision to have an emergency fund of 6 months living expenses to cover loss of employment, unforeseen medical issues etc. When that is done you re free to start investing. Do remember that putting all your eggs in one basket enable risks, so diversify your portfolio and diversify even within each investment vehicle. Stocks: I would personally stay away from stocks as it's for the most part a bear market right now (and I assume you re not interested day-trading to make any short term return) and most importantly you dont mention any trading experience which means you can get shafted. Mutual Funds: Long story short most of these work; mainly for the benefit for their management and people selling them. Bonds Instead, I would go for corporate bonds where you essentially buy the seller(aka the issuing company) and unlike gambling on stocks of the same company, you dont rely on speculation and stock gains to make a profit. As long as the company is standing when the bond matures you get your payment. This allows you to invest with less effort spent on a daily basis to monitor your investments and much better returns(especially if you find opportunities where you can buy bonds from structurally sound companies that have for reasons you deem irrelevant, purchase prices in the secondary market for cents in the dollar) than your other long term \"\"stable options\"\" like German issued bonds or saving accounts that are low in general and more so like in the current situation for German banks. Cryptocurrency I would also look into cryptocurrency for the long term as that seems to be past its childhood diseases and its also a good period of time to invest in as even the blue chips of that market are down party due to correction from all time highs and partly due to speculation. As Im more knowledgeable on this than German-locale bonds, a few coins I suggest you look into and decide for yourself would be the obvious ETH & BTC, then a slew of newer ones including but not limited to OmiseGO, Tenx(Pay), Augur and IOTA. Beware though, make sure to understand the basics of security and good practices on this field, as there's no central bank in this sector and if you leave funds in an exchange or your wallet's private key is compromised the money are as good as gone.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b54c9a163b57b74af7d24a687fc96af8", "text": "\"The person who told you \"\"no-load funds\"\" had the right idea. Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a \"\"value\"\" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a \"\"growth\"\" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund \"\"usually\"\" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager. Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money. For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of \"\"short term\"\". Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days. Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse. You don't need this money. For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it. You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%. For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero. Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now? Any recreation or hobby or activity. Maybe your rent or your tuition. Why spend it for a vague sense of \"\"safety\"\", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7777b222351bc03f73b9c5d9a640863", "text": "Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance. Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested. We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years. If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40965c0ba17523dcab20b0d0a7b79a96", "text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "655caf02c7a72345927269b3ff4e2b1a", "text": "It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1885e147e142cd6a0fdf6862afa5b80a", "text": "\"Specifically, what does my broker mean when they say an asset or investment strategy is high risk? In this context, it is a statement based on past events and probability. It is based on how confident s/he is that the investment will perform to certain benchmarks. This is a math question, primarily (with some opinion mixed in, granted). This is where the Sharpe ratio and others fit well. How am I supposed to answer a question like \"\"rate your risk tolerance from low to high\"\"? This is the hard question, as you have seen. In this context, risk tolerance is derived from your current position and future plans (goals). This is a planning, goal setting, and strategy question, primarily (with some math mixed in, granted). How vulnerable is your current position and future plans to an under-performing investment? If you answer \"\"very\"\", then you choose investments that have a lower probability of under-performing. The Sharpe ratio has little to do with answering this question. It is a tool to find investments that better match your answer to this question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc3f52a375bc36ded7c59d6cf3dd77f3", "text": "Although I don't think you need to factor in risk tolerance to get the probabilities, I agree with JoeTaxpayer that you will need to factor in risk tolerance in order to make a practical decision about what to do. In fact, I think that to make a practical decision you will need more than the specific probability you ask for you in the question; rather, you would like to see the complete probability distribution of possible outcomes. In other words, it's not enough to know that there is a 51% chance that investing will outperform paying down debt. You actually need to know much it outperforms when it does outperform, and how much it underperforms when it underperforms. As JoeTaxpayer's comment suggests, you might not choose to make an investment that had a 99% chance of outperforming debt payment by 1%, and a 1% chance of underperforming by 99%. I think it possible to address these questions by doing simulations. This can be done even with a spreadsheet, but more flexibly with simple programming. Essentially you can create some kind of probabilistic model of the various factors (e.g., chance that your investment will go up or down) and see what actually happens: how often you lose a lot of money, lose a little money, gain a little money, or gain a lot of money. Then based on that you can consult your inner spirit animal to decide whether the probability distribution of possible gains outweighs that of possible losses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef0e9ae89d9c52b31c87383d6b21d9af", "text": "Financial advisers like to ask lots of questions and get nitty-gritty about investment objectives, but for the most part this is not well-founded in financial theory. Investment objectives really boils down to one big question and an addendum. The big question is how much risk you are willing to tolerate. This determines your expected return and most characteristics of your portfolio. The addendum is what assets you already have (background risk). Your portfolio should contain things that hedge that risk and not load up on it. If you expect to have a fixed income, some extra inflation protection is warranted. If you have a lot of real estate investing, your portfolio should avoid real estate. If you work for Google, you should avoid it in your portfolio or perhaps even short it. Given risk tolerance and background risk, financial theory suggests that there is a single best portfolio for you, which is diversified across all available assets in a market-cap-weighted fashion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "700d562ac8cc25dccfd48cd894eb4ef0", "text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5b9a2379fe0e363b5e4f935c7eda594", "text": "\"Defining risk tolerance is often aided with a series of questions. Such as - You are 30 and have saved 3 years salary in your 401(k). The market drops 33% and since you are 100% S&P, you are down the same. How do you respond? (a) move to cash - I don't want to lose more money. (b) ride it out. Keep my deposits to the maximum each year. Sleep like a baby. A pro will have a series of this type of question. In the end, the question resolves to \"\"what keeps you up at night?\"\" I recall a conversation with a coworker who was so risk averse, that CDs were the only right investment for her. I had to explain in painstaking detail, that our company short term bond fund (sub 1 year government paper) was a safe place to invest while getting our deposits matched dollar for dollar. In our conversations, I realized that long term expectations (of 8% or more) came with too high a risk for her, at any level of her allocation. Zero it was.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "034885719490c4aa45d6c1e091c10c41", "text": "\"What you're asking for is a short-term, large return investment. When looking for big returns in a short period of time, risk is inevitable. The more risk you are willing to assume, the higher your potential returns. Of course, the flip is is that the higher your risk, the higher the potential to lose all your money! Since this is an exercise for school (and not real money and not your life savings) your best bet is to \"\"go big or go home\"\". You can safely assume 100% risk! Don't look for value stocks, dividend stocks, or anything that pays a steady return over a long period of time. Instead, look for something risky that has the potential of going up, up, up in the next few months. Are you allowed to trade options in your fake portfolio? Options can have big risk and big reward potential. Penny stocks are super volatile, too. Do some research, look for a fad. In other words, you will most likely lose it all. But you get a little lucky, you could win this thing outright by making some risky investments. A 5% chance of winning $3000 vs 95% of going broke may be pretty good odds if everyone else is value investing for just a few months. You will need to get lucky. Go big or go home!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fed7947cf3797ff10394446994e2c9d", "text": "The most important thing to remember is that being VAT registered, you must add VAT to every bill, so every bill will be 20% higher. If the bill payer is a company, they don't care because they deduct the 20% VAT from their own VAT bill. If the bill payer is a private person, their cost of your services has just gone up by 20% and it is going to hurt your business. So the question is, what kind of customers do you have? But if your customers are companies, then the flat rate scheme mentioned above is very little work and puts a nice little amount of extra cash in your pocket (suitable if your bills are mostly for your work and not for parts that you buy for the customer and bill them for).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3edef8bb5daf07f1c558da94134e944d	Is it wise to invest in a stock with a large Div yield?	[ { "docid": "f28f50d44f6bb36c97ceb1f8fd233f50", "text": "You should not buy soley for the dividend. The price of BHP is going down for a reason. If you hold until the full years dividend is paid you will make 11% (which is $110 if you bought $1000 worth of shares), but if the share price keeps dropping, you might lose 50% on the stock. So you make $110 on dividends but lose $500 on stock price drop. A perfect way to lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4233f49ef04511ef2ae08cab80a2afc7", "text": "There have been many interesting and correct answers but to give a direct answer to your first question, dividend yield is simply dividend over current share price. So, if the share price drops, your dividend yield increases proportionately. Dividend yield is not something one should use as the only source of information of whether a stock is a good/bad buy. It does not show many important factors: the riskiness of the company business, its financial position, profitability, ability to generate cash. Furthermore, dividend yield is just a snapshot of an income gain at a given point in time. It does not mean that this very dividend policy is going to continue in the future (especially not so if the company finances this dividend payments using not its own cash reserves but outside capital by issuing debt securities, which is unsustainable).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eeba72256657916fd5a9d0e79bb538e", "text": "\"IMO, what it seems like you've done is nothing more than having screened out a company worth further investigation. The next step would be a thorough analysis of the company's past financials and current statements to arrive at your own opinion / forecast of the immediate and far future of the company's prospects. Typically, this is done by looking at the company's regulatory filings, and maybe some additional searching on comparison businesses. There are many sources of instruction for how one might \"\"value\"\" or \"\"analyze\"\" a company, or that provide help on \"\"reading a balance sheet\"\". (This is not an easy skill to learn, but it is one that will prove invaluable over a lifetime of investing.) It is possible that you'll uncover a deteriorating business where the latest selling, and subsequent drop in price that caused the high yield, is well-deserved. In which case, you know to stay away and move on to the next idea. On the other hand, you might end up confident that the company is not suffering from a drop in sales, rise in expenses, growing debt payments, loss of \"\"moat\"\", etc. In which case, you've found a great investment candidate. I say candidate because you still may decide this company isn't for you, even if the financials are right, because you might find better opportunities for an equal, or acceptable, return at lower risk while you're researching. As to the yield being high when there are no problems with the fundamentals of the business, this may simply be because of panic selling during this past few week's downturn, or some other sort of temporary and superficial scare. However, be warned that the masses can remain irrational, and thus the price stay suppressed or even drop further, for longer than you're willing to wait for your ROI. The good news is that in that case, you're being well compensated to wait at a 11+% yield!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb6b47a23a60f360667924d2df0875dc", "text": "BHP Billiton has room to answer doubters as commodities rout batters debt notes in part: There has been speculation that the company could cut its shareholder dividend, while Liberum Capital analyst Richard Knights has suggested BHP might look to raise as much as $US10 billion ($14.3 billion) in new equity capital. If the dividend is cut, you won't see 11% and the share price may well decline further. There is a possibility of big losses here given the change in the prices of the products the company sells. To add from another source The only reason BHP trades on a yield of more than 8% is because the market is pricing in a cut to the dividend. According to consensus earnings estimates for 2016 and 2017, earnings per share will be $0.86 and $1.27 respectively. Dividends per share forecasts are $1.83 and $1.81 respectively.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cafffcc507a7d7a0376e05fbf08013fd", "text": "Nobody can give you a safe 6% return with that portfolio under current conditions. It looks like the current 10 year treasury is yielding about 2.2%. With 60% in bonds, the stocks would have to yield about 12%, which just isn't happening safely now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ea51f3ed86b6d3207389c9309adb06", "text": "Your cons say it all. I would not be buying stocks based soley on a high dividend yield. In fact companies with very high dividend yields tend to do poorer than companies investing at least part of their earnings back into the company. Make sure at least that the company's earnings is more than the dividend yield being offered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "655caf02c7a72345927269b3ff4e2b1a", "text": "It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "683104378e7088f185902f2ccb001608", "text": "\"No. That return on equity number is a target that the regulators consider when approving price hikes. If PG&E tried to get a 20% RoE, the regulator would deny the request. Utilities are basically compelled to accept price regulation in return for a monopoly on utility business in a geographic area. There are obviously no guarantees that a utility will make money, but these good utilities are good stable investments that generally speaking will not make you rich, but appreciate nicely over time. Due to deregulation, however, they are a more complex investment than they once were. Basically, the utility builds and maintains a bunch of physical infrastructure, buys fuel and turns it into electricity. So they have fixed costs, regulated pricing, market-driven costs for fuel, and market-driven demand for electricity. Also consider that the marginal cost of adding capacity to the electric grid is incredibly high, so uneven demand growth or economic disruption in the utility service area can hurt the firms return on equity (and thus the stock price). Compare the stock performance of HE (the Hawaiian electric utlity) to ED (Consolidated Edison, the NYC utility) to SO (Southern Companies, the utility for much of the South). You can see that the severe impact of the recession on HE really damaged the stock -- location matters. Buying strategy is key as well -- during bad market conditions, money flows into these stocks (which are considered to be low-risk \"\"defensive\"\" investments) and inflates the price. You don't want to buy utilities at a peak... you need to dollar-cost average a position over a period of years and hold it. Focus on the high quality utilities or quality local utilities if you understand your local market. Look at Southern Co, Progress Energy, Duke Energy or American Electric Power as high-quality benchmarks to compare with other utilities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47693cc23fde88c8eed203721d2aebe5", "text": "\"I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that \"\"momentum\"\" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is \"\"Cut your losses, and let your winners ride.\"\" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25bba446bab6025f3ba5a43c75c5eea3", "text": "In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d008a892deb44faa5fcc7a59cdb2cb0", "text": "\"I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. \"\"With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly\"\" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b02b98626fee0603c28741c38a3d1b7", "text": "I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5463efbd7bbd2ec1075a4e72ed4bbfa", "text": "\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \"\"quiesced\"\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \"\"wash sales\"\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf1d1ea0e3677666ea9f6e49220977f5", "text": "\"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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee000eda9fda8d9a922a0c33865f3118", "text": "There can be the question of what objective do you have for buying the stock. If you want an income stream, then high yield stocks may be a way to get dividends without having additional transactions to sell shares while others may want capital appreciation and are willing to go without dividends to get this. You do realize that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are companies that the total stock value is over $100 billion yes? Thus, neither is what I'd see as a growth stock as these are giant companies that would require rather large sales to drive earnings growth though it may be interesting to see what kind of growth is expected for these companies. In looking at current dividends, one is paying 3% and the other 5% so I'm not sure either would be what I'd see as high yield. REITs would be more likely to have high dividends given their structure if you want something to research a bit more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "075700e1a0c8d91865339a4c8c4fdc1f", "text": "\"As you note, your question is inherently opinion-based. That said, if I were in your situation I would sell the stock all at once and buy whatever it is you want to buy (hopefully some index ETF or mutual fund). According to what I see, the current value of the HD stock is about $8500 and the JNJ stock is worth less than $500. With a total investment of less than $10,000, any gain you are likely to miss by liquidating now is not going to be huge in absolute terms. This is doubly true since you were given the stock, so you have no specific reason to believe it will do well at all. If you had picked it yourself based on careful analysis, it could be worth keeping if you \"\"believed in yourself\"\" (or even if you just wanted to test your acumen), but as it is the stock is essentially random. Even if you want to pursue an aggressive allocation, it doesn't make sense to allocate everything to one stock for no reason. If you were going to put everything in one stock, you'd want it to be a stock you had analyzed and picked. (I still think it would be a bad idea, but at least it would be a more defensible idea.) So I would say the risk of your lopsided allocation (just two companies, with more than 90% of the value in just one) outweighs any risk of missing out on a gain. If news breaks tomorrow that the CEO of Home Depot has been embezzling (or if Trump decides to go on the Twitter warpath for some reason), your investment could disappear. Another common way to think about it is: if you had $9000 today to buy stocks with, would you buy $8500 worth of HD and $500 worth of JNJ? If not, it probably doesn't make sense to hold them just because you happen to have them. The only potential exception to my advice above would be tax considerations. You didn't mention what your basis in the stock is. Looking at historical prices, it looks like if all the stock was 20 years old you'd have a gain of about $8000, and if all of it was 10 years old you'd have a gain of about $6000. If your tax situation is such that selling all the stock at once would push you into a higher tax bracket, it might make sense to sell only enough to fit into your current bracket, and sell the rest next year. However, I think this situation is unlikely because: A) since the stock has been held for a long time, most of the gains will be at the lower long-term rate; B) if you have solid income, you can probably afford the tax; and C) if you don't have solid income, your long-term capital gains rate will likely be zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e78f2494d052c35cef96846a9158a3b", "text": "You can use long-term options called LEAPS to increase dividend yield. Here's how it works: Let's say you buy a dividend-yielding stock for $38 that pays an annual dividend of $2 for a 5.3% yield. Next, you SELL a deep-in-the-money LEAPS options. In this hypothetical we'll sell the $25 call option for $13. That now reduces our cost basis from $38 to $25. Since the dividend remains @ $2, our yield is now $2/$25 = 8%. Now there are issues that may need to be dealt with like early assignment of the option where rolling the option may be necessary. More details of this strategy can be found on my website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "565b9544c89d35295a9af661cc3a06fd", "text": "\"If you have someplace to put the money which you think will yield significantly better returns, by all means sell and buy that. On the other hand, if you think this stock is likely to recover its value, you might want to hold it, or even buy more as a \"\"contrarian\"\" investment. Buy low, sell high, as much as possible. And diversify. You need to make a judgement call about the odds. We can point out the implications, but in the end whether to sell, buy, hold or hedge is your decision. (This also suggests you need to sit down and draw up a strategy. Agonizing over every decision is not productive. If you have a plan, you make this sort of decision before you ever put money into the stock in the first place.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ee5f967f040a013fe5a5188ca5f7d40", "text": "Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4fb84aac7b6078eaa11ec13c19956bfe	How to report Canadian income from a small contract job?	[ { "docid": "e78b35365288cf3823c4ae0b5e8b957f", "text": "\"It's pretty easy. In the Interview Setup for Ufile, check the box for \"\"Self-employment business income\"\". Then during the process of filling everything out, you'll get a Self-Employment screen. It'll ask for the name of your business, but just put your own name since you don't have one. For the 6-digit classification code, click the ? button and look through the list for the industry that best matches the one for whom you wrote the technical report. Or you can go with 711500: Independent artists, writers and performers. It doesn't really matter that much so don't worry if it's a poor match. It will also ask you for your income and expenses. I don't know exactly what costs you might have incurred to write your report, but you can likely claim a very tiny amount of \"\"home office\"\" expenses. Costs like rent (or mortgage interest + property tax), utilities, and home insurance can be claimed, but they have to be pro-rated for the time you were actually doing the work, and are based on the amount of space you used for the work. For example, if you paid $1000 rent and $200 utilities for the month in which the work was done, and it took you 20 of the 31 days in that month to actually do the work, and you used a room that makes up about 10% of the square footage of your home, then you can claim: $1200 * 20/31 * 0.1 = $77.42 for your home office expenses. If you also used that room for non-business purposes during that time, then you reduce it even further. Say, if the room was also used for playing video games 50% of the time, then you'd only claim $38.71\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4f23189bc5ab93bc85fe590c711b5301", "text": "If you want to subcontract some of your excess work to somebody else, you better be in business! While some kinds of employees (e.g. commissioned salespeople) are permitted to deduct some expenses on their income tax, generally only a real business can deduct wages for additional employees, or the cost of services provided by subcontractors. Do you invoice your clients and charge HST (GST)? Or do you tell your clients each pay period how many hours you worked and they compensate you through their payroll system like everybody else that walks through the door? If you're not invoicing and charging HST (GST) (assuming you exceed the threshold, and if you have too much work, you probably do!), then perhaps your clients are treating you as an employee – by default – and withholding taxes, CPP, and EI so they don't get in trouble? After all, Canada Revenue Agency is likely to consider any person providing a service to a company to be an employee unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, and when there isn't enough evidence, it's the company paying for the services that would be on the hook for unpaid taxes, CPP, and EI. Carefully consider what form of business you are operating, or were intending to operate. It's essential for your business to be structured appropriately if you want to hire or subcontract. You ought to be either self-employed as a sole proprietor, or perhaps incorporated if it makes more sense to your situation. Next, act accordingly. For instance, it's likely that your business should be taking care of the source deductions, CPP, and EI. In fact, self-employed individuals shouldn't even be paying into EI – an independent contractor wouldn't qualify to make an EI claim if they lost a contract. As an independent, one doesn't have a job, one has a business, and EI doesn't cover the business itself, only the employees that the business deals with at arm's length. As a business owner, you would be considered non-arms-length, and exempt from EI. Growing your business in the way that you are suggesting is an important enough a step that you should seek professional advice in advance. Find a good accountant that deals with self-employed individuals & small businesses and run all this by him. He should be able to guide you accordingly. Find a lawyer, too. A lawyer can guide you on how to properly subcontract others while protecting you and your business. Finally, be mindful of what it is you agreed to in your contract with your client: Do they expect all services to be performed by you, personally? Even if it wasn't written down who exactly would be performing the services, there may be an assumption it's you. Some negotiation may be in order if you want to use subcontractors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c2a2438b925a7ca203cf52bfabeaf3", "text": "You really shouldn't be using class tracking to keep business and personal operations separate. I'm pretty sure the IRS and courts frown upon this, and you're probably risking losing any limited liability you may have. And for keeping separate parts of the business separate, like say stores in a franchise, one approach would be subaccounts. Messy, I'm sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccde069c7755ed62ee56a93b5a2fb5fd", "text": "I would suggest that you try ClearCheckbook. It is kind of like Mint, but you can add and remove things (graphs, features, modules) to make it as simple or diverse as you need it to be. It should be a workable solution for simply tracking both income and expenses, yet it will also provide extra features as needed. There is a free option as well as a paid option with added features. I have not used ClearCheckbook before, but according to their features page it looks like you may have to upgrade to the paid option if you want to have complete tagging/custom field flexibility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd27658674e7d86ccf10bc37cd400f6c", "text": "\"I can say that I got X dollars from an account like \"\"Income:Benefits\"\"... but where do I credit that money to? \"\"Expenses:Groceries\"\" Yes doesn't feel right, since I never actually spent that money on food, You did, didn't you? You got food. I'm guessing there's an established convention for this already? Doubt it. Established conventions in accounting are for businesses, and more specifically - public companies. So you can find a GAAP, or IFRS guidelines on how to book benefits (hint: salary expense), but it is not something you may find useful in your own household accounting. Do what is most convenient for you. Since it is a double-booking system - you need to have an account on the other side. Expenses:Groceries doesn't feel right? Add Expenses:Groceries:Benefits or Expenses:Benefits or whatever. When you do your expense and cash-flow reports - you can exclude both the income and the expense benefits accounts if you track them separately, so that they don't affect your tracking of the \"\"real\"\" expenses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "894f9971edb02a62cb857bcb56f6a802", "text": "As an individual freelancer, you would need to maintain a book of accounts. This should show all the income you are getting, and should also list all the payments incurred. This can not only include the payments to other professionals, but also any hardware purchased, phone bills, any travel and entertainment bills directly related to the service you are offering. Once you arrive at a net profit figure, you would need to file this as your income. Consult a tax professional and he can help with how to keep the records of income and expenses. i.e. You would need to create invoices for payments, use checks or online transfers for most payments, segregate the accounts, one account used for this professional stuff, and another for your personal stuff, etc. In a normal course the Income Tax Department does not ask for these records, however whenever your tax returns get scrutinized on a random basis, they would ask for all the relevant documentations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b018fe2ddb7dcc9bf08e6fffdb96fb4f", "text": "\"Get an accountant. Now. There are many subtle things that you do not know especially if you are just starting with your own corporation. There is also an issue of corporate tax return that you will have to face pretty soon. You should be looking for accountant that does accounting for corporations, there are companies specializing in small business. I do not think you can \"\"just\"\" transfer money to your personal account. They have to be treated as dividends and treated as such for income tax purposes. Or, as you described, you may pay yourself a salary, but then you have to pay CPP and EI on top of that. When you pay yourself dividends your corporation will need to issue T5 slip for you (accountant will do that) that you will need to use when preparing personal tax return. If you pay yourself salary, corporation will need to give you T4 In terms of tax treatment, if we do not take RRSP contributions dividend tax treatment will leave little bit more money in your hands. I'd say if you have RRSP room and/or TFSA room, pay yourself dividends and then do contributions as you see fit, if you need RRSP room, pay yourself salary. TFSA room does not depend on the type of income, so if you have room there, consider filling it first.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be8d414a0fd1c029f1c9ad663a449c4d", "text": "I do NOT know the full answer but I know here are some important factors that you need to consider : Do you have a physical location in the United States? Are you working directly from Canada? With a office/business location in the United States your tax obligation to the US is much higher. Most likely you will owe some to the state in which your business is located in Payroll Tax : your employer will likely want to look into Payroll tax, because in most states the payroll tax threshold is very low, they will need to file payroll tax on their full-time, part-time employees, as well as contractor soon as the total amount in a fiscal year exceeds the threshold Related to No.1 do you have a social security number and are you legally entitled to working in the States as an individual. You will be receiving the appropriate forms and tax withholding info Related to No.3 if you don't have that already, you may want to look into how to obtain permissions to conduct business within the United States. Technically, you are a one person consulting service provider. You may need to register with a particular state to obtain the permit. The agency will also be able to provide you with ample tax documentations. Chances are you will really need to piece together multiple information from various sources to resolve this one as the situation is specific. To start, look into consulting service / contractor work permit and tax info for the state your client is located in. Work from state level up to kick start your research then research federal level, which can be more complex as it is technically international business service for Canada-US", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1f72824ef2b3072f154a0d2fa565ef4", "text": "Depending on what software you use. It has to be reported as a foreign income and you can claim foreign tax paid as a foreign tax credit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3647fabeeeeda60c6fe140cefcf0735", "text": "\"As you clarified in the comments, it is not a contract work but rather an additional temporary assignment with the same employer. You were paid for it in form of a \"\"bonus\"\" - one time irregular payment, instead of regular periodic payments. Irregular wage payments fall under the flat rate withholding rule (the 25% for Federal, some States have similar rules for State withholding). This is not taxes, this is withholding. Withholding is money the employer takes from your salary and forwards to the IRS on the account of your tax liability, but it is not in itself your tax liability. When you do your annual tax return, you'll calculate the actual tax you were supposed to pay, and the difference between what was withheld and your actual tax will be refunded to you (or owed by you, if not enough was withheld). You can control the regular pay withholding using W4 form.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f1ba13982a5807efb36ceba54ef5776", "text": "Hmm, let's see, I always get Credit and Debit mixed up, but I'll try: Signing of the contract: Receiving 500 deposit: When you are done Accounts Receivable will have $500 (because you are owed $500), Revenue will have $1000 (because you made $1000 on an accrual basis), and Cash will have $500 (because you have $500 in your pocket).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96dd6e5df1c97fbe6e67dfe48966cbbf", "text": "It doesn't make much difference in the end. Imagine you have $100 of revenue in your company. You can either pay it to yourself as salary, meaning that you don't pay corporate tax on it, or you can keep it in the company, pay corporate tax on it, then pay yourself a dividend of what is left. While that dividend will be treated better than salary, remember that the company already paid tax on it. You paying less on what's left doesn't equate to paying less overall. Go ahead and run the numbers using your actual corporate tax rate and your personal income tax rate. Try doing your whole salary as dividends - not dollar for dollar, but as how much the company would have as profit to give you a dividend if it didn't spend (and deduct) salary money on you. You are unlikely to see any difference at all. The net final money in your pocket, and the amount that went to the government, will probably be the same. If paying dividends keeps your earned income low, you may find that you can't use RRSP or childcare deductions. You are also not getting CPP credit. That's an argument for salary, or at least a certain minimum amount of salary. You have to deduct taxes at source on salary and send it along to the government, which is an argument for dividends if you feel you could invest that money and use it well before the taxes get around to being due. Possibly you may discover an edge case where you move a few thousand from one marginal tax rate to another and clear a few hundred extra as a result. I don't discourage you from doing the math, I just point out that the various percentages (tax rates, grossups, deductions etc) have all been carefully chosen so that it pretty much works out the same, or gives a small preference to salary. We give excess money to ourselves as bonus rather than dividend having run the numbers a few times. There's no secret trick here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7e2a606c97bfc5cfbd40ad6d732d447", "text": "Generally, report your $150,000. If/when the the tax collectors notice the anomaly, they'll attempt to contact you to remedy it. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, it's pretty orderly. The IRS requests additional information or proof and only open it up into a full blown audit if the suspect wrongdoing. In your case, you could show a business agreement detailing the revenue split proving you correctly reported. This is only for your consideration. I strongly recommending finding and keeping a professional tax advisor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f4c85a0ec524834a22e73607839809b", "text": "I wrote a small Excel-based bookkeeping system that handles three things: income, expenses, and tax (including VAT, which you Americans can rename GST). Download it here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efde1ab1a9035da2874810c95db67d9e", "text": "\"I think you're on the right track. Your #2 journal entry is incorrect. It should be (I usually put the debit entry on top, but I followed your formatting) I'm assuming your employer uses an accountable reimbursement plan (reimbursing you when you turn in your payment bill/receipts). This is not salary. Reimbursements under the accountable plan in the US are not taxed as income. If you think about it though, \"\"phone expense\"\" isn't really your phone expense. So, instead of #1 entry, you could make an account receivable, or other current asset account, maybe call it Reimbursables - cellphone, and debit this account, and credit your cash account. When you receive the $30 back, you will reverse the entries on the day of payment. If you do it this way, you should be able to see a list of receivables outstanding (I'm not too familiar with GNUCash but I'm sure it has this type of report).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ead9519c377d41cada5b7e5d4c8af17", "text": "You should be recording the reimbursement as a negative expense on the original account the expense was recorded. Let's assume you have a $100 expense and $100 salary. Total $200 paycheck. You will have something like this In the reports, it will show that the expense account will have $0 ($100 + ($100)), while income account will have $100 (salary).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9556bcebe33dab25e962e39927028cd1	Are there brokers or companies who trade Forex and make money for us on our investment? And do you think fxtradeinvestment is legit?	[ { "docid": "ef19f9bbaaf703cd0cc967bc14a54c87", "text": "So you think there is a business that can take $X and in two weeks turn it into $10X plus their profit. That means that in two weeks you can turn $1,000 into $10,000. So every two weeks you add a zero, in six weeks you add 3 zeros. In 12 weeks total your $1,000 is now $1,000,000,000; and in a few weeks after that you are richer than Bill Gates. All Guaranteed! Run away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf5b32f35f7abee59654d27bc3adecab", "text": "There are legitimate multi currency mutual funds/efts. But I don't think their rate of return will produce the extra money you're looking for any faster than any other kind of investment with comparable risks. To make money fast, you have to accept nontrivial risk of losing money fast, which isn't what you seem to have in mind.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "90da52d0db0ff30eb04f78eb18a7a3d0", "text": "While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb9c7a2b4d3a134dcd6af5b51cad29cc", "text": "I've been using xetrade for quite awhile, also used nzforex (associated with ozforex / canadian forex, probably ukforex as well) -- xetrade has slightly better rates than I've gotten at nzforex, so I've been using them primarily. That said, I am in the process of opening an account at CurrencyFair, because it appears that I'll be able to exchange money at better rates there. (XETrade charges me 1.5% off the rate you see at xe.com -- which is the FX conversion fee I believe -- there are no fees other than the spread charged). I think the reason CurrencyFair may be able to do better is because the exchange is based on the peer-to-peer trade, so you could theoretically get a deal better than xe.com. I'll update my answer here after I've been using CurrencyFair for awhile, and let you know. They theoretically guarantee no worse than 0.5% though (+ $4.00 / withdrawal) -- so I think it'll save me quite a bit of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27acb3a29321704c83bb98fb0365ae59", "text": "It ought to be possible to buy a foreign exchange future (aka forex future / FX future). Businesses use these futures to make sure their exchange rate is predictable: if they put a bunch of money into manufacturing things that'll be ready a year later, it helps to know that the currency exchange rate shifts won't wipe out all their profits. If you're willing to take on some of that risk, and if things go your way, you can make money. They are essentially contracts between two private parties to pay each other a certain amount of money based on the movement of the currencies, so the Chinese government doesn't actually need to be involved and no renminbi need to change hands, you can just trade the contracts. Note that the exchange rate is currently fixed by the Chinese government, so you're going to be subject to enhanced levels of political risk, and they may not be as widely available or readily tradable as other foreign exchange futures, so check with a broker before opening your account. I couldn't find them on my personal Etrade account, but a quick Google search reveals CME Group offering some. There are probably others. Foreign exchange futures are an advanced investing tool and carry risk. Be sure you understand the risk, in particular how much money you can end up on the hook for if things don't go your way. Also remember, futures expire: you're not just betting on the rate changing, but you're betting on it changing within a certain amount of time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2d42137aed0a277db3fba7aab67fa1b", "text": "EFA must be bought and sold in US dollars. XIN allows people to buy and sell EFA in Canadian dollars without exposing their investment to unpredictable swings in the USD/CAD ratio. This is what's known as a currency-hedged instrument. Now, why the chart sums up to over 100% is anyone's guess. Presumably it's the result of a couple hundred rounding errors from all the components. If you view their most recent report, it also sums up to over 100%, but at least the EFA component is (sensibly) under 100%. P.S. I'm not seeing where it says there's only one holding. There's the primary holding, plus over 100 other cash holdings to effect the currency-hedging.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "625c51b04a0f46376f261af653ae8fa1", "text": "If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e6e4c9676c2c9c5010d52c899a1b3b6", "text": "i have been trading with dollarbird Trading firm for past 1 year there is absolutly no problem everything is fine you can google them to find anything about them.they have provided me with LASER trading platform which requires a bit of training as in to know the software but i can say one thing trading in US Equity market exp. is very diffrent from indian market they are very mature market and highly liqd and have good volatality to trade best equity market to trade with great trading platform you should have a exp. to trade on US equity it is diffrent", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07f9cbe3b50a9686f25b461e586e1a98", "text": "I actually use a service called etorro, there are social trading and normal trading. It allows me to put money into the service, follow other people or just pick my own shares to buy and sell with a load other features. It does cost a small amount to extract money but the app is really good, the website is well designed and I've made a bit of money being 23, and in the It industry with no financial training ever it seems like a good way to start.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a55bba895997279718bc6a7a8b1739de", "text": "Like all other trading brokers in the industry, they both have been acknowledged with mixed reviews. Before signing up, it’s important to know whether they are running a legitimate operation or not. You can see BinaryOptionsTrading-Review.com, judgebinaryoptions.com etc. to inquiries about these sites. They conduct in-depth research to identify the legitimacy of each brokers present in the market. Hope it will help you in making the right decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "538ece1cb47d6e7c0109010d20252cfd", "text": "Actually, most of the forex traders do not prefer the practice of leveraging. In forex trading, a contract signed by a common trader is way more than any common man can afford to risk. It is not a compulsion for the traders to use leveraging yet most of the traders practice it. The other side of it is completely different. Trading companies or brokers specifically like it because you turn into a kind of cash cow when your account gets exhausted. As for trader, most of them don’t practice leveraging.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f07032dc0d4e06f537d847062dfa7294", "text": "\"If you have a big pocket there are quite a few.. not sure if they take us clients though. Vcap, Barclays, Icap, Fixi, Fc Stone, Ikon.. Then there are probably a few banks that have x options also but i don't know if a private investor can trade them. A few im not sure if they have fx options or if they are \"\"good\"\": GFTFOREX, Gain capital, XTB, hmslux, Ifx Markets, Alpari, us.etrade.com Betonmarkets might be something if you are interested in \"\"exotic options\"\" maybe?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02c8e697d20dcb9d21f4bc92bce2ac16", "text": "With $7 Million at stake I guess it would be prudent to take legal advise as well as advise from qualified CA. Forex trading for select currency pair [with one leg in INR] is allowed. Ex USDINR, EURINR, JPYINR, GBPINR. Forex trading for pairs without INR or not in the above list is NOT allowed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d880b5026c820d20291b65f8cfa7baa5", "text": "\"I definitely can recommend you a site called babypips. Their beginner course section is great to get a good overview what you \"\"could\"\" do in FOREX trading. For starting out I definitely recommend a dummy account! (NEVER use real money in the beginning!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b89990eeba193697f81dbf2659aaadf4", "text": "\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8331b83bbbd50d34c1de1b1590da0a5", "text": "The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00bd09a0e1ad8996b87e451d0b0c0dd5", "text": "This doesn't seem to explain the odd behavior of the collector, but I wanted to point out that the debt collector might not actually own the debt. If this is the case then your creditor is still the original institution, and the collector may or may not be allowed to actually collect. Contact the original creditor and ask how you can pay off the debt.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
000f1d0edc6209eccaa3ac83258f2d43	Do I need to file a tax return as a student?	[ { "docid": "58fd1222e8565395bee7290f7a71a3e3", "text": "\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37d3deae559faa027f581038480369ba", "text": "Should I go see a CPA? Not unless you are filing paperwork for a corporation. A CPA (Certified Public Accountant) is a certification required to file certain paperwork for a corporation. In any other situation, you don't need a CPA and can just use a regular accountant. You could conceivably go to a tax accountant, but unless you are doing something complicated (like your own business) or are rich enough that everything is complicated, you should not need to do so.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "70cf8d23890f8f5e17526f378a4ec318", "text": "\"In a word, no. If your income is high enough to have to file a return, you have to file a return. My accountant has a nice mindset for making it more palatable. I'll paraphrase: \"\"Our tax system is ludicrously complicated. As a result, it is your duty as an American to seek out and take advantage of every deduction and credit available to you. If our politicians and leaders put it into the tax code, use it to your advantage.\"\" A friend of mine got a free golf cart that way. It was a crazy combination of credits and loopholes for electric vehicles. That loophole has been closed, and some would say it's a great example of him exercising his patriotic duty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8429265033f2b74acb269e7e2c43e9f", "text": "In the USA, you probably owe Self Employment Tax. The cutoff for tax on this is 400$. You will need to file a tax return and cover the medicaid expenses as if you were both the employer and employee. In addition, if he earns income from self-employment, he may owe Self-Employment Tax, which means paying both the employee’s and employer's share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes. The trigger for Self Employment Tax has been $400 since 1990, but the IRS may change that in the future. Also see the IRS website. So yes, you need to file your taxes. How much you will pay is determined by exactly how much your income is. If you don't file, you probably won't be audited, however you are breaking the law and should be aware of the consequences.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20ddde4441bb0e5a4d7ee4f81e44300d", "text": "According to the Illinois Department of Revenue, you don't have to file any taxes that are specific to a LLC, only your personal taxes. LLC on Federal level is disregarded, instead you submit all your business income/expenses on Schedule C. On the state level - it seems to be the same (only individual tax return). Consult your state certified tax specialist. That is not the case in other states, for example in California LLC has to file its own tax return and pay its own taxes, in additional to the individual taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc721c0bcdd095c130ae3e926407beb0", "text": "Companies in the US will take care of paying a portion of your required income tax on your behalf based on some paperwork you fill out when starting work. However, it is up to you as an individual to submit an income tax return. This is used to ensure that you did not end up under or overpaying based on what your company did on your behalf and any other circumstances that may impact your actual tax owed. In my experience, the process is similar in Europe. I think anyone who has a family, a house or investments in Europe would need to file an income tax return as that is when things start to get complex.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94c39b345a0eb3878d903cb081e28da2", "text": "Are you planning to not pay taxes? Any time someone has income in the U.S., it is subject to U.S. taxes. You must file tax returns (and pay taxes if necessary) if you have income above a certain threshold, regardless of whether you're not authorized to work or not. If you plan to intentionally not pay taxes, then that's a whole other matter from working without authorization. Working without authorization is an immigration issue. It probably violates the conditions of your status, which will make you to automatically lose your status. That may or may not affect when you want to want to visit, immigrate to, or get other immigration benefits in the U.S. in the future; and at worst you may be deported. It's a complicated topic, but not really relevant for this site.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acc343e3f8b327a4ea13ba9a21c8bb90", "text": "Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c2718faab7ee5008d2257c0669ca216", "text": "\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cf7eb1d359acbe01101e11b426bc974", "text": "Let's have a look at Who must send a tax return: You’ll need to send a tax return if, in the last tax year: And we're done. It doesn't matter that your tax will come out to zero - you still need to TELL them this, otherwise how are they going to know? 'Person liable for zero tax who doesn't send their tax return' and 'Person liable for a million quid of tax who doesn't send their tax return' look the same...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf29d950fdc42da450810e87d3e1eac", "text": "\"I am not aware of any place that the tax forms ask, \"\"How many people live in your house?\"\" They ask how many dependants you have, and not everyone who lives in your house is your dependant. There are very specific rules about that. If your girlfriend is being claimed as a dependent on her parents' tax return, then she cannot also be claimed on anyone else's return, and there's no need to investigate further. To claim someone as a dependent, they have to meet a number of conditions. I am not a lawyer. See IRS Publication 17. But the gist of it is that they must, (a) either be a relative (there's a list of what sorts of relatives qualify) or live with you all year; (b) Living with you must not violate local law; (c) Must make less than $4000 per year; and (d) You must provide over half of their support. Your girlfriend may meet the \"\"live with you all year\"\" or maybe not. But the real stumper is likely to be (d). Unless your parents are paying her tuition, they almost certainly don't meet this test.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00b3c587b025b5ae800f89468ba7f5d0", "text": "To be on the safe side - you'll want to get the full invoice. You don't need to actually print them, you can save it as a PDF and make sure to make your own backups once in a while. Only actually print them when the IRS asks you to kill some trees and send them a paper response, and even then you can talk to the agent in charge and check if you can email the digital file instead. The IRS won't ask for this when you file your taxes, they will only ask for this if you're under audit and they will want to actually validate the numbers on your return. You'll know when you're under audit, and who is the auditor (the agent in charge of your case). You'll also want to have some representation when that happens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "328d9ea0fda297f04389a4d04d3ab323", "text": "It is unlikely that UK tax will be due on the money -- see here: Foreign students usually don’t pay UK tax on foreign income or gains, as long as they’re used for course fees or living costs But if the UK doesn't tax you on the money then double-taxation agreements probably won't apply, and so any Italian tax due will be payable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9465295f9681f3dc74f2e647335bfdd", "text": "Since you are living in India and earning income not from salary, you must file your tax return under ITR4(Profits or Gains of Business or Profession). You can do it online on IncomeTax India eFiling website, step by step guide available here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c3b32d642fa5b954e6042862d04208d", "text": "One significant reason it makes sense for filing to be the default is home ownership rates. I think far more so than investment income, Americans own homes: as there is a significant mortgage interest deduction, between that and investments a large number of Americans would have to file (about a third of Americans get the mortgage interest tax deduction, and a large chunk of the richest don't qualify but would have to file for investments anyway). We also have a very complicated tax code, with nearly everyone getting some kind of deduction. Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor (folks making, say, $30k for a family of 4 with a full-time job get several thousand dollars in refundable credits, for example), the Student Loan interest deduction, the above mortgage deduction, almost everyone gets something. Finally, your employer may not know about your family situation. As we have tax credits and deductions for families based on number of children, for example, it's possible your employer doesn't know about those (if you don't get health insurance on their behalf, they may well not know). Start reporting things like that separately... and you end up with about as much work as filing is now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c68cedbd4aa170b06821aa99ccc65c1", "text": "\"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying \"\"Oops, we made a mistake last year\"\". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while \"\"I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do\"\" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway. Note to readers preparing to down-vote: this answer is prolix and says things that are far too \"\"well-known to everybody\"\" (and especially to you), but please remember that they might not be quite so well-known to the OP.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b80f37a9693776121b787c7f4caa04d8", "text": "No, you probably do not need to file a tax return if you received no income, and if you meet a number of other criteria. The below is copied and pasted, slightly edited, from the CRA: You must file a return for 2014 if any of the following situations apply: You have to pay tax for 2014. We sent you a request to file a return. You and your spouse or common-law partner elected to split pension income for 2014. See lines 115, 116, 129, and 210. You received working income tax benefit (WITB) advance payments in 2014. You disposed of capital property in 2014 (for example, if you sold real estate or shares) or you realized a taxable capital gain (for example, if a mutual fund or trust attributed amounts to you, or you are reporting a capital gains reserve you claimed on your 2013 return). You have to repay any of your old age security or employment insurance benefits. See line 235. You have not repaid all amounts withdrawn from your registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) under the Home Buyers’ Plan or the Lifelong Learning Plan. For more information, go to Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) or see Guide RC4112, Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) or You have to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). This can apply if, for 2014, the total of your net self-employment income and pensionable employment income is more than $3,500. See line 222. You are paying employment insurance premiums on self-employment and other eligible earnings. See lines 317 and 430. In general, you will want to file a tax return even if none of the above applies. You could, for example, claim a GST/HST credit even with no income. Now, if you receive any income at all, you are going to have to pay taxes, which means you are obligated to file a tax return. If sufficient taxes were deducted from your paycheque, you are still obligated to file a tax return. However, you will not have to pay penalties if you file late, even if you file very late, at least not until the CRA sends you a request to file. But be aware, you won't likely be able to tell if you owe the CRA money until you do your taxes, and if you do end up owing, there are substantial penalties for filing late. In general, I'd strongly advise filing your tax return in almost all circumstances.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d43652a8993b3c37bc8a114bbc53e6e0	Huge return on investment, I feel like im doing the math wrong	[ { "docid": "75aa836bc1953b760977b22d48272ce3", "text": "\"Your math is correct. These kind of returns are possible in the capital markets. (By the way, Google Finance shows something completely different for $CANV than my trading console in ThinkorSwim, ToS shows a high of $201, but I believe there may have been some reverse splits that are not accurately reflected in either of these charts) The problems with this strategy are liquidity and timing. Let's talk about liquidity, because that is a greater factor here than the random psychological factors that would have affected you LONG LONG before your $1,000 allowance was worth a million dollars. If you bought $1000 worth of this stock at $.05 share, this would have been 20,000 shares. The week of October 11th, 2011, during the ENTIRE WEEK only 5,000 shares were traded. From this alone, you can see that it would have been impossible for you to even acquire 20,000 shares, for yourself at $.05 because there was nobody to sell them to you. We can't even look at the next week, because there WERE NO TRADES WHATSOEVER, so we have to skip all the way to November 11th, where indeed over 30,000 shares were traded. But this pushed the price all the way up to $2.00, again, there was no way you could have gotten 20,000 shares at $.05 So now, lets talk about liquidation of your shares. After several other highs and lows in the $20s and $30s, are you telling me that after holding this stock for 2 years you WOULDN'T have taken a $500,000 profit at $25.00 ? We are talking about someone that is investing with $1,000 here. I have my doubts that there was no time between October 2011 and January 2014 that you didn't think \"\"hm this extra $100,000 would be really useful right now.. sell!\"\" Lets say you actually held your $1,000 to $85.55 there were EXACTLY TWO DAYS where that was the top of the market, and in those two days the volume was ~24,000 shares one day and ~11,000 shares the next day. This is BARELY enough time for you to sell your shares, because you would have been the majority of the volume, most likely QUADRUPLING the sell side quotes. As soon as the market saw your sell order there would be a massive selloff of people trying to sell before you do, because they could barely get their shares filled (not enough buyers) let alone someone with five times the amount of shares that day. Yes, you could have made a lot of money. Doing that simplistic math does not tell you the whole story.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93bdbbc9daf376e89634e3866c91d926", "text": "\"And now it is at about $3. Many times \"\"skeletons\"\" are bought and inflated for various reasons. Some are legitimate (for example a private business merging into a defunct but public corporation to avoid wasting resources on going public), some are not (mainly pump-and-dump scams that are using \"\"skeletons\"\"). I don't know what was the case here (probably speculation based on the new marijuana laws in the US), but clearly the inflated price was completely unjustified since it went crashing down.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a0f9c638a7c7fec5710781b49a98dfc8", "text": "The math is wrong. $16m grows to $72b over 44 years at 21% return (exact return is (72000/16)^(1/44) - 1 = 0.21067). At one percentage point lower return, i.e. 20%, $16m grows to $50b (16m x 1.21^44 = 49.985b). In that case you would have paid about 30 percent of your gain in fees. Still a lot, but not severe. Even the calculation of percent fees is wrong in the article!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46209eafc0c865103c6e95b81c4e4564", "text": "I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c8be22845f9a82bb3b4eba4039e5b34", "text": "The relationship is not linear, and depends on a lot of factors. The term you're looking for is efficient frontier, the optimal rate of return for a given level of risk. The goal is to be on the efficient frontier, meaning that for the given level of risk, you're receiving the greatest possible rate of return (reward). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientfrontier.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c59227ca475715a45c6c73bc1bac7816", "text": "The author is using the simple Dietz method, (alternatively the modified Dietz), with the assumption that the net cash-flow occurs halfway through the time period. Let's say the time period is one year for illustration, so the cash-flow would be at the end of the second quarter. The money-weighted method gives a more accurate return, but has to be solved by trial-and-error or using a computer. The money-weighted return is 11.2718 % and the simple or modified Dietz return is 11.2676 %. When the sums are done backwards to check, the Dietz is half a dollar out with a final value of $11,999.50 while the money-weighted return recalculates exactly $12,000. It is worth pointing out that the return changes if the cash-flow is not in the middle of the time period. A case with the cash-flow at the end of Q3 is added to illustrate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "134a2b54f8d2ddefd07691afbcb16bc6", "text": "The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07a921214f64cac481e46f2455f46acd", "text": "It is a good enough approximation. With a single event you can do it your way and get a better result, but imagine that the $300 are spread over a certain period with $10 contribution each time? Then recalculating and compounding will be a lot of work to do. The original ROI formula is averaging the ROI by definition, so why bother with precise calculations of averages that are imprecise by definition, when you can just adjust the average without losing the level of precision? 11.4 and 11.3 aren't significantly different, its immaterial.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62c2505b9c73061efe7702f188ad3fbd", "text": "It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $70001.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given. A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a12da22d330b7e220f7cd8e070ac02ec", "text": "\"You can calculate the \"\"return on investment\"\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a990852a5fbc94b6c23aa4c32112c7c2", "text": "There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "193fcf22ed5e553406178908183e95ff", "text": "To figure this out, you need to know the price per share then vs the price per share now. Google Finance will show you historical prices. For GOOG, the closing price on January 5, 2015 was $513.87. The price on December 31, 2015 was $758.88. Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated with this formula: ROI = (Proceeds from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment Using this formula, your return on investment would be 47.7%. Since the time period was one year, this number is already an annualized return. If the time period was different than one year, you would normally convert it to an annualized rate of return in order to compare it to other investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4dea673d39dae97fa909527a80f3e36", "text": "\"My feeling is that you're basically agreeing to throw away a bucket of money for a lesson that doesn't have to cost a penny. Like another commenter said, you're putting the cart before the horse. I once asked a similar question to a seasoned investor, though I wasn't in the position to toss my hard-earned cash into the well yet. He told me that the difference between the winners and losers is that the winners don't need the money. I'm not trying to say that there's a \"\"rich keep getting richer ...\"\" component here, while schlubs like me get nada. The real nugget of wisdom he offered was that if anyone wants to do well as investors, we must invest in a way that we're not dependent on the money we have in the market. Instead, manage risk carefully so that you don’t get swept up in the emotional highs and lows. For you, what I applaud is that you're willing to do your research first. And part of that should be anticipating how you will handle the anxiety when you put your money in at the wrong time or get out a little later than you should. What I understand now is that you don’t need to be wealthy to “not need the money.” You just need to invest smartly and leave your emotions out of it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7", "text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0943e45e3c60536cea418a843e1c6250", "text": "There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbe2602216d25f7f2f97e3625c46ea0b", "text": "\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6263bcb569ac81cf55099b6957a8bc54", "text": "\"Essentially, your question is \"\"lump sum vs DCA\"\" and your tags reflect that. In the long run, lump sum, say a Jan 2 deposit each year, will beat DCA by about 1/2 the average annual market return. $12,000 will see a 10% return, vs, $1,000/month over the year seeing 6%. What hurts is when the market tanks in the first half of the year and you think DCA would have helped. This is a 'feeling' issue, not a math problem. But. By the time you have $100K invested, the difference of DCA vs lump sum with new money fades, as new deposits are small compared to the funds invested. By then, you need to know your target allocation and deposit to keep that allocation with new money.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
183c2430735b24c2a3decd1f92c0d3c3	Why does HMRC still require “payment on account” after I have moved to PAYE?	[ { "docid": "ca75b97e085b17ef6c1513cfadd48375", "text": "The Government self-assessment website states you can ask HMRC to reduce your payments on account if your business profits or other income goes down, and you know your tax bill is going to be lower than last year. There are two ways to do this:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "be55d01ea3210d4e85ba15cac77c8570", "text": "However, if you are employed by a company that exists in a tax haven and your services are provided to an employer by that tax haven company, it is the tax haven company that gets paid, not you. Under various schemes that company need not pay you at all. For example it may make you a loan which is not taxed (ie you don't pay tax on a loan, just as you don't pay tax on the money lent you by a mortgage company). You are bound by the terms of the loan agreement to repay that loan at a rate that the company finds acceptable. Indeed the company may find eventually that it is simply convenient to write off the loan as unrecoverable. if the owners/officers of he company write off your loans, how much tax will you have paid on the money you have had as loans? The taxman can of course state that this was simply set up to avoid tax (which is illegal) so you should have a balancing scheme to show that that the loans were taken to supplement income,just as one might take a bank loan / mortgage, not replace it entirely as a tax scam. Hiring tax counsel to provide this adequate proof to HMRC has a price. Frequently this kind of loophole exists because the number of people using it were sufficiently low not to warrant policing ( if the policing costs more than the tax recovered, then it is more efficient to ignore it) or because at some stage the scheme has been perfectly legal (as in the old offshore'education' trust recommended by the government a few decades ago). When Gordon Brown set out a 75% tax rate (for his possibly ideological reasons rather than financially based ones)for those who had these accounts , he encountered opposition from MPs who were going to be caught up paying high tax bills for what was effctively retrospective taxation, so there was a built in 'loophole' to allow the funds to be returned without undue penalty. If you think that is morally wrong, consider what the response would be if a future Chancellor was to declare all IAs the work of the devil and claim that retrospective tax would need to be paid on all ISA transactions over the last few decades.eg: tot up all the dividends and capital gains made on an ISA in any year and pay 40% tax on all of them, even if that took the ISA into negative territory because the value today was low/ underperfoming. Yet this has been sggested as a way of filling in the hole in the budget on the grounds that anyone with an ISA can be represented as 'rich' to a selected party of voters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32a6b9eaa31b2a8e86c71e2ed7133cc1", "text": "I think there are actually two separate questions here. Will Provider A allow me to transfer only part of an ISA product to Provider B while keeping the other part in Provider A. Only Provider A can answer this. Will HMRC rules allow me to keep making payments to the part that remained in Provider A. I don't have a definitive source for this, but in my experience where the ISA rules have been unclear about particular edge cases and I have asked HMRC similar questions directly, their answer has always been that they will look at the situation in the round at the end of the tax year (they get summaries from the providers) and as long as you haven't attempted to double-benefit or otherwise get around the limits, they won't have an issue with it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b56254525ee1a4d3bd61ecf5a539da", "text": "Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac80072286cd31d25fe9a0ed9e3045ee", "text": "When you do your tax return, your total income from the year from all sources is added up. So you will need to include your employment income as well as your contractor income. Any tax taken off at source through PAYE will then be deducted from how there is to pay. So whether you pay the tax or your employer pays it, it should end up the same, although the timing will differ. There will be differences in National Insurance treatment, and you don't necessarily have a free option to choose which happens - the nature of your relationship may mean you have to be classed as either employed or self-employed under HMRC rules.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "305d0bb481877f331240bc5ec2e0572e", "text": "I love the flat rate VAT scheme. It's where you pay a percentage based on your industry. An example might be Computer repair services, where you'll pay 10.5% of your total revenue to the HMRC. But you'll be invoicing for VAT at 20% still. Would definitely recommend registering for it since you're expecting to cross the threshold anyway. And like DumbCoder said, you also get a first year discount of 1%, so in the example above, you'd end up paying 9.5% VAT on your turnover. I personally found it a pain to invoice without VAT (my clients expected it), so registering made sense regardless of the fact I was over threshold. The tricky bit is keeping under the £150k turnover so you stay eligible for the flat rate. It does get more complex otherwise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3eb2be021982362d70ed7a5b1a30dcf6", "text": "By earning money, I assume you are being paid a salary [and not allowance] in UK. For the Financial Year 2013-2014: You are still a tax resident in India. India taxes Global income. Hence your salary from 4th Feb to 31st March, needs to be declared as Income. The tax will be at your total tax brackets. India does have a Double Tax Avoidance Treaty [DTAA] with UK, so you can deduct any taxes you paid on this income and pay balance in India. Please note that it is not relevant whether you transfer money to India or keep in UK, it does not change the taxability. For the financial Year 2014-2015: Depending on the exact date, you may or may not be a NRI [away for more than 182 days] for tax purposes. If you are an NRI there no tax, else as above para.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8f019a27ed05f78e83063182b5f864b", "text": "In Addition to @JoeTaxpayer's answer, in the UK credit cards offer additional protection than if you were to pay by debit card. This includes (but is not limited to) getting your money back if the company you've bought something from goes bust before your order is complete.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b37851cc5fb0bc5aee4673672fc4735", "text": "\"To add in a brief expansion to Portman's complete answer. The payment can also be thought of as compensation for your \"\"switching cost\"\". Obviously it is inconvenient to transfer your account from one bank to another (changing static payments, stationery, that sort of thing). The cash is offered as payment towards that inconvenience. Given the profits that banks make you can think of the $100 in much the same way as a store offering you a 5% discount on your next shopping trip.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24dc4877cb805249a4eae606cff85213", "text": "\"Yes. You do have to pay taxes in the UK as well but it depends on how much you have already been taxed in the US. http://taxaid.org.uk/situations/migrant-workernew-to-the-uk/income-from-abroad-arising-basis-vs-remittance-basis Say, you have to pay 20% tax in the UK for your earnings here. You ARE required to pay the same percentage on your foreign income as well. Now, if your \"\"home\"\" country already taxed you at 10% (for the sake of example), then you only need to pay the \"\"remaining\"\" 10% in the UK. However, the tax law in the UK does allow you to choose between \"\"arising\"\" basis and \"\"remittance\"\" basis on your income from the country you are domiciled in. What I have explained above is based on when income \"\"arises.\"\" But the laws are complicated, and you are almost always better off by paying it on \"\"arising\"\" basis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d9bce594dab33b0ff1365b4775ec48f", "text": "Regardless of UK Money Laundering Laws - All companies have a responsibility under the Data Protection Act to ensure that all data kept is necessary and accurate - and so they can actually ask you to send up-to-date information* in any time period that they deem reasonable to ensure they are compliant with the act. That being said, most payment systems these days are automated and use algorithms to try and find suspicious activity. Using multiple accounts will definitely be a red flag here, unfortunately, the advice to use your previous account will just be seen as yet another account switch by these algorithms and will probably look even more suspicious. The main thing to remember is that ultimately these acts and regulations are there to protect you and your investment, so unless you have any suspicious that you're being asked for documents by a company or individual that you don't trust I would simply send them on and let them do their job. As a side note - make sure you send anything of that nature in a recorded delivery so that you know exactly who handled it and when! * So long as the information is necessary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bae6e8d76b98b2ba96a5520be36c2c8f", "text": "I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f705f1eb2aeeb97dadbb0ee795a4f29", "text": "No, as a director normally you can't. As a director of a Limited company, all those payments should be accounted for as directors' remuneration and have been subject to PAYE and NIC, even if you are self-employed. Currently there is no legislation which prevents a director from receiving self-employment income from a company in which he is a director, however the default position of HMRC's is that all the payments derived from the directorship are subject to PAYE. In other words, it's possible only invoice from an unconnected business or in a consultancy role that's not directly related to the trade of business. But it really depends on the circumstances and the contracts in place. Sources: Monsoon at AAT forum, David Griffiths at UKBF, Paula Sparrow and Abutalib at AW More sources: If a person does other work that’s not related to being a director, they may have an employment contract and get employment rights. Source: Employment status as director at Gov.uk In principle, it is possible for an employee or office holder to tender for work with their employer outside their normal duties, in circumstances where that individual will not be providing service as an employee or office holder but as a self-employed contractor. Where there is any doubt about whether service is provided constitutes employment or self-employment, see the Employment Status Manual (ESM). Source: Section 62 ITEPA 2003 at HMRC", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aaaeb8c5539b9bdb86df3c8a98a12cf9", "text": "As you're working, you and your spouse were probably born after 1935, so I'll assume that Marriage Allowance is relevant to you rather than Married Couple's Allowance. The allowance applies if your husband or wife earns less than the personal allowance in salary (£10,600/year), and less than £5,000/year in savings interest. For example it's likely this will apply if he or she's not working. Also, you need to be only a basic rate taxpayer, earning less than £42,385/year. In that case they can register online to transfer £1,060 of their personal allowance to you, which will reduce your tax bill by £212/year if you yourself earn more than £1,060 above the personal allowance. This will usually work by HMRC issuing a new tax code to your employer who will then automatically withhold less of your salary. You can't get your employer to do this directly, you have to go via HMRC. The allowance change will be effective as if from the start of the curren tax year in April 2015, so you will probably end up getting the proportion of the £212 that you could have had up till now (from April to August) back all at once in your next pay cheque, or possibly spread out over the rest of the tax year. Apart from that you'll get it spread out evenly over the year - i.e. about £17/month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f4811e9f57f13e77060fd89a6104181", "text": "This link might help determining if American Express is willing to offer a card in the UK. I did it the other way around when moving from the UK to the US and getting a US card was pretty painless; I also didn't have to close the UK card, although I'm probably going to do that fairly soon. You will need a UK bank account so your employer can pay you; If it is a big enough employer their HR department might have deals with a local bank; a smaller employer might simply be able to refer you to their bank to help you open an account there. My first bank account in the UK after moving over there from Germany was with HSBC (then Midland Bank) - HSBC seems to be pretty open towards customers moving to the UK. Plus, they're pretty much everywhere. If you're planning to come back to the US and especially if you have any US-based ongoing expenses, I'd keep at least one bank account in the US open (but keep an eye on it).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07387f98d8f5d6003a51cc409fc5a910", "text": "You have to check your contract to be sure what is it you're paying for. Typically, you get some of the following features which can be unavailable to you in banks which don't charge a monthly fee: Arguably, these expenses could be paid by the interest rates your money earn to the bank. Notice how banks which don't charge a fee usually require you to have a minimum amount of cash in your account or a minimum monthly cash flow. When you pay for your bank's services in cash, there's no such restrictions. I'm not sure if typical banks in the UK would take away your credit card if you lose your job and don't qualify for that kind of card any more, but I do know banks who would. The choice is yours, and while it's indeed sad that you don't have this kind of choice in Canada, it's also not like you're paying solely for the privilege of letting them invest your money behind your back.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f00aeed499d5c3ccce987ab42892e5b1	W8-BEN for an Indian Citizen	[ { "docid": "3045b1ad7e9c1c05dfbe5e0f484b250c", "text": "According to the Form W-8BEN instructions for Part II, Line 10: Line 10. Line 10 must be used only if you are claiming treaty benefits that require that you meet conditions not covered by the representations you make on line 9 and Part III. For example, persons claiming treaty benefits on royalties must complete this line if the treaty contains different withholding rates for different types of royalties. In tax treaties, some of the benefits apply to every resident of a foreign country. Other benefits only apply to certain groups of people. Line 10 is where you affirm that you meet whatever special conditions are necessary in the treaty to obtain the benefit. If you are claiming that Article 15 of the U.S.-India Tax Treaty, you could use Line 10 to do this. It is important to remember that this form goes to the company paying you; it does not actually get sent to the IRS. Therefore, you can ask the company themselves if filling out Line 9 only will result in them withholding nothing, or if they would need you to fill out Line 10.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e13974d259cda98754292d466271b891", "text": "For filling out the W8-BEN form, please refer to the instructions in the document named: Instructions for Form W-8BEN Certificate of Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax Withholding and Reporting", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6ecb079d5e8248976f441b805bda8aab", "text": "Each country will have different rules. I can only speak about the Netherlands. There, there are two options as a resident to open an account. You needed a BSN (Dutch ID number) or a strong reference from an international company sponsoring your residence there at a bank branch that dealt frequently with foreign customers. It was not possible to open an account as a nonresident although high wealth customers probably get special treatment. Recent US reporting requirements have made European banks very unwilling to deal with US people. I have received a letter from my Dutch bank saying they will continue my current products but not offer me anything new. If I call the bank, the normal staff cannot see anything about my accounts. I need to call a special international department even for mundane questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7e3d7a58663bf7892905e74ddb6346a", "text": "\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f41ce7e0d2fa9c6ff52ac387f7808299", "text": "The committee folks told us Did they also give you advice on your medication? Maybe if they told you to take this medicine or that you'd do that? What is it with people taking tax advice from random people? The committee told you that one person should take income belonging to others because they don't know how to explain to you which form to fill. Essentially, they told you to commit a fraud because forms are hard. I now think about the tax implications, that makes me pretty nervous. Rightly so. Am I going to have to pay tax on $3000 of income, even though my actual winning is only $1000? From the IRS standpoint - yes. Can I take in the $3000 as income with $2000 out as expenses to independent contractors somehow? That's the only solution. You'll have to get their W8's, and issue 1099 to each of them for the amounts you're going to pay them. Essentially you volunteered to do what the award committee was supposed to be doing, on your own dime. Note that if you already got the $3K but haven't paid them yet - you'll pay taxes on $3K for the year 2015, but the expense will be for the year 2016. Except guess what: it may land your international students friends in trouble. They're allowed to win prizes. But they're not allowed to work. Being independent contractor is considered work. While I'm sure if USCIS comes knocking, you'll be kind enough to testify on their behalf, the problem might be that the USCIS won't come knocking. They'll just look at their tax returns and deny their visas/extensions. Bottom line, next time ask a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) before taking advice from random people who just want the headache of figuring out new forms to go away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63238e9d664cfacc3ece2a668d6ff64e", "text": "The DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) Article 20 will apply to the Provident Fund money received while you were a resident in the US. Yes, you will add the Interest received on PF (Interest only for the year/s when you were a resident of US, and not when you were a Resident in India) in your 1040 and claim exemption under the treaty. Do not add all of your PF contribution for last 10 years or 10 years of interest to 1040, as this was not contributed/earned when you were a US Resident. Consider, just the Interest Earned in the year when you become a Resident of US and then claim exemption under the treaty.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4631de9bda8f2ebb39cce887c51539a", "text": "Yes, you can still file a 1040nr. You are a nonresident alien and were: engaged in a trade or business in the United States Normally, assuming your withholding was correct, you would get a minimal amount back. Income earned in the US is definitely Effectively Connected Income and is taxed at the graduated rates that apply to U.S. citizens and resident aliens. However, there is a tax treaty between US and India, and it suggests that you would be taxed on the entirety of the income by India. This suggests to me that you would get everything that was withheld back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c2718faab7ee5008d2257c0669ca216", "text": "\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbf6046e290aff0c298d409f0eaf7fa9", "text": "As you have income from Business / Profession, you would need to use form ITR4S", "title": "" }, { "docid": "115d0a051dd222f63829ad5e3d860058", "text": "You should not form a company in the U.S. simply to get the identification number required for a W-8BEN form. By establishing a U.S.-based company, you'd be signing yourself up for a lot of additional hassle! You don't need that. You're a European business, not a U.S. business. Selling into the U.S. does not require you to have a U.S. company. (You may want to consider what form of business you ought to have in your home country, however.) Anyway, to address your immediate concern, you should just get an EIN only. See businessready.ca - what is a W8-BEN?. Quote: [...] There are other reasons to fill out the W8-BEN but for most of you it is to make sure they don’t hold back 30% of your payment which, for a small company, is a big deal. [...] How do I get one of these EIN US taxpayer identification numbers? EIN stands for Employer Identification Number and is your permanent number and can be used for most of your business needs (e.g. applying for business licenses, filing taxes when applicable, etc). You can apply by filling out the Form SS-4 but the easier, preferred way is online. However, I also found at IRS.gov - Online EIN: Frequently Asked Questions the following relevant tidbit: Q. Are any entity types excluded from applying for an EIN over the Internet? A. [...] If you were incorporated outside of the United States or the U.S. territories, you cannot apply for an EIN online. Please call us at (267) 941-1099 (this is not a toll free number) between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time. So, I suggest you call the IRS and describe your situation: You are a European-based business (sole proprietor?) selling products to a U.S.-based client and would like to request an EIN so you can supply your client with a W-8BEN. The IRS should be able to advise you of the correct course of action. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Consider seeking professional advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27fcc343ed9d01eac9eb28343ef02044", "text": "\"The IRS W-8BEN form (PDF link), titled \"\"Certificate of Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax Withholding\"\", certifies that you are not an American for tax purposes, so they won't withhold tax on your U.S. income. You're also to use W-8BEN to identify your country of residence and corresponding tax identification number for tax treaty purposes. For instance, if you live in the U.K., which has a tax treaty with the U.S., your W-8BEN would indicate to the U.S. that you are not an American, and that your U.S. income is to be taxed by the U.K. instead of tax withheld in the U.S. I've filled in that form a couple of times when opening stock trading accounts here in Canada. It was requested by the broker because in all likelihood I'd end up purchasing U.S.-listed stocks that would pay dividends. The W-8BEN is needed in order to reduce the U.S. withholding taxes on those dividends. So I would say that the ad revenue provider is requesting you file one so they don't need to withhold full U.S. taxes on your ad revenue. Detailed instructions on the W-8BEN form are also available from the IRS: Instruction W-8BEN (PDF link). On the subject of ad revenue, Google also has some information about W8-BEN: Why can't I submit a W8-BEN form as an individual?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29c4fa7248e6e93f50bbdd0f550d20a0", "text": "If iban and name don't match. This shud have been refunded. Logic says so. Otherwise they just ask for iban without other details if they won't be considered", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ef174b33606cc48292303fe2a920126", "text": "This is a complicated question that relies on the US-India Tax Treaty to determine whether the income is taxable to the US or to India. The relevant provision is likely Article 15 on Personal Services. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/india.pdf It seems plausible that your business is personal services, but that's a fact-driven question based on your business model. If the online training is 'personal services' provided by you from India, then it is likely foreign source income under the treaty. The 'fixed base' and '90 days' provisions in Article 15 would not apply to an India resident working solely outside the US. The question is whether your US LLC was a US taxpayer. If the LLC was a taxpayer, then it has an obligation to pay US tax on any worldwide income and it also arguably disqualifies you from Article 15 (which applies to individuals and firms of individuals, but not companies). If you were the sole owner of the US LLC, and you did not make a Form 8832 election to be treated as subject to entity taxation, then the LLC was a disregarded entity. If you had other owners, and did not make an election, then you are a partnership and I suspect but cannot conclude that the treaty analysis is still valid. So this is fact-dependent, but you may be exempt from US tax under the tax treaty. However, you may have still had an obligation to file Forms 1099 for your worker. You can also late-file Forms 1099 reporting the nonemployee compensation paid to your worker. Note that this may have tax consequences on the worker if the worker failed to report the income in those years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "164754ff32a53d90a39c6fbc20049715", "text": "I can't answer from the Indian side but on the UK side, if you and your friend are not related then there is no tax implication - you are effectively giving each other gifts - other than a possible inheritance tax liability if one of you dies within 7 years of the transfer and has an estate above the IHT allowance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbcd9ea50347e19d0428f324b99d1f49", "text": "The PAYE tax and NI will be deducted as usual. Send HMRC a P85 form to tell them you're emigrating, and they will refund the tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dd925a91e357540cf7e594b636f361c", "text": "I want to send some money to Indian in my saving account but I haven't any NRO/NRE account. It is advisable to Open an NRE account. As an NRI you cannot hold a savings account. Please have this converted into NRO account ASAP. Process or Transaction charges or Tax (levied by Indian bank) on money what I'll send to my saving account in India. I know the process or transaction charges (applied by UK banks) from UK to India. There will be a nominal charge levied by banks in India. If you use dedicated Remittance services [Most Leading Indian Banks offer this], these are mostly free. Is there any limit to get rid off tax? Nope there isn't any limit. This depends on service provider. What types of paper work I'll need to do for showing that income is sent from UK after paying tax. If you transfer to NRE account. There is no paperwork required. It is implicit. If not you have to establish that the funds are received from outside India, keep copies of the transfer request initiated, debits to the Bank Account in UK, your salary slips, Passport stamps etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1f25479f190827e2f71cd707d83300a", "text": "One of my friend is sending 100000 pounds to India, Although you haven't asked, this is a large amount of funds and depending on why it is, there could be taxes to you or lot of paperwork. He is asking for RIB and IBAN and I am not aware of it. India does not have IBAN. IBAN is mostly in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. You would need to give Bank Account Number and SWIFT BIC. The details can be found here. Best talk to your Branch to understand.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
01bebc0abfa30c0610d18e764eaefd87	Is there any truth to the saying '99% of the world's millionaires have become rich by doing real estate'?	[ { "docid": "8dbf1e3859ea0f37d09621daca437b12", "text": "\"I can name far more non-real estate millionaires than those who are. That statistic isn't only not valid, it's not even close. Update: The correct quote is \"\"90% of all Millionaires become so through owning Real Estate\"\" and it's attributed to Andrew Carnegie. Given that he was born in 1835, I can imagine that his statement was true at he time, but not today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8b8662496d3ff734aa0b957108abe71", "text": "\"This quote has it almost backwards. Thomas J. Stanley's recent book (he's one of the duo who researched and wrote about The Millionaire Next Door) claims that the top occupation of millionaires is \"\"business owner / self-employed\"\" (28%). \"\"Real estate investor\"\" is lumped in with \"\"other\"\" (9%), and if the ordering is correct in the list, it's no more than 2% of the total. (source)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d72d8ae713e16d5c9e86727c71e0c4b1", "text": "78.84% of statistics are made up on the spot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b06fcb490c0ad1c25fd7df94477fd28", "text": "Most millionaires became millionaires by being very frugal and living well below their means, all the time.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e0d5da798f1bcf302989d8b0d01cc12e", "text": "\"Private equity firms have a unique structure: The general partners (GP's) of the firm create funds and manage the investments of those funds. Limited partners (LP's) contribute the capital to the funds, pay fees to the GP's, and then make money when the funds' assets grow. I believe the article is saying that ultra high net worth individuals participate in the real estate market by hiring someone to act as a general partner and manage the real estate assets. They and their friends contribute the cash and get shares in the resulting fund. Usually this GP/LP structure is used when the funds purchase or invest in private companies, which is why it is referred to as \"\"private equity structure,\"\" but the same structure can be used to purchase and manage pools of real estate or any other investment asset.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74a8f28c7eb659da142b94cda4f6a897", "text": "Isn't that a deduction mostly used by the top 1%? There seem to be mostly 2 types of people, those who own many homes, And those that rent them... I always thought the mortgage interest deduction was used substantially more by the wealthy than the middle class... (Luxury homes also offer higher deductions right?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8031cefc62322a4ac0c426c8089c9342", "text": "If you could find a breakdown, I suspect that it would show not just that they are self employed but own their own company. There are many people that are self employed, many of them make a good living at it, but are not millionaires. My neighbour the plumber is a perfect example of this sort of self-employed and comfortable but not rich person. The key to wealth growth is to own (a significant part of) a company. It one way to leverage a smaller amount of money to something much larger. Plough your profits back in to the company to grow it, pay yourself reasonably for some time as the company grows. After it is some size, you can afford to pay yourself more of the profits, if not sell it as a going concern to someone else. One last thought - I am assuming that your book is claiming that they made their money through self-employment, instead of choosing to become self employed after striking rich somewhere. If I were to win the lottery, I might then become a self-employed something, but in that case it was not my self-employment that got me there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1649617dc85a5c9b69fe9840f4e87f17", "text": "\"The crazy thing about this is that $30 million in annual salary and compensation really isn't the end of the story for rich guys. I worked for a REIT a few years back and the guy that founded that REIT made a few million in salary a year. I thought the number seemed a bit low for his lifestyle. He had many properties in the US for his own personal use (around 6-8 BIG homes). He also had a garage that was insane. He had over 25 very expensive cars. My co-workers would say \"\"Nick is airing out his garage\"\" when he drove one to work every day for a month without driving the same vehicle twice in one month. It turns out he owned 30 million shares of stock that paid him $1.00 per share per year. So while his annual compensation was \"\"only\"\" a few million per year, his dividend income was many, many, times that. Think about that next time you see a CEO's annual income and you think that it really isn't as much as you expect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29a6d40bb337ba3ee5de2c2edec0be53", "text": "Not really. I benefit from the very rich and so do you. 2/3 of the 1% are self-made or semi-self made billionaires, and we all benefit from the technologies, businesses, and organisations etc. they have created and continue to create. They are some of the most productive people on earth. Secondly, by investing their assets - they enable other's to get investments for their businesses to grow, because they are willing to take risks, most of us can't or won't. You can rob them once for a small time gain, many countries have attempted this, and then found out with the smartest people disincentivized to work, the country grinds to a halt, and slips towards poverty.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24b82d946ddcb53abe69edbe767f483b", "text": "\"> Asset prices are high and not matched by real world performance. See, I know a lot of people are saying this, but I'm not entirely sure this is true. Even if some tech stocks are \"\"artificially\"\" boosting the market to crazy levels, can you say it's not warranted? The potential for many are far beyond what we see today. I don't see the current tech stock boom being unable to fulfill like the 1990s boom, and subsequent bust. The infrastructure and logistics weren't there in 1999. They are now. Beyond tech, businesses are doing pretty well. Up and down, earnings reports are looking good. Stocks are high, but still somewhat based on real numbers. Same could be said for real estate. The demand is real, the prices are high, but it's based on demand. The danger is what we're missing, just like in 2008. Chances are, there is a fiction out there. Maybe the fiction is in these tech stocks. Maybe it is on mortgages again. I'm not seeing it. There were people prior to 2008 sounding alarm bells about the real estate market. I haven't seen the equivalent today. In fact, I've seen more people trying to figure out how the heck the next correction will come, and nobody really can answer it. At this rate, there might not be a \"\"built in\"\" cause, and might come externally like Trump going nuts and launching nukes, or another terrorist attack.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e237eca5c9c774578b10e20a3e6b594c", "text": "The decline in what kind of house you get for $600k is why a lot of people making $100k don't feel rich. I'm amazed at how many houses in my area go for that much, especially when you consider that only 5% of families have the income to consider that affordable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f", "text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e59d3ee39f5427e4e9cec68ac43462da", "text": "I don’t understand why people think its okay to write these kinds of articles that mislead the public. First of all, wage mobility in the US is always fluctuating. People move in and out of the 1% all within a lifetime. Secondly, go to Bls.gov there are statistics showing that MOST of the 1% are actually self-made first generation millionaires. Though coming from a wealthy family helps set up the child to a better future it isn’t typically because of inherited money, but is because of the fact that richer parents better educate their kids in FINANCIAL LITERACY. Just remember its easier to spend the wealth empire that your parents built than it is to actually maintain it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4e6968d25044482947fb299c8d5000f", "text": "\"The first red flag of your \"\"facts\"\": One of the article's sources is an Atlantic article with the title, \"\"Entrepreneurship: The Ultimate White Privilege?\"\". The article rants on and on about politically correct SJW nonsense. Red flag 2: The Andrew J. Oswald \"\"What Makes an Entrepreneur?\"\" study that is cited to prove access to capital is a helping factor (Your daddy money argument) is from 1998. A hell of a lot has changed since then. Forbes reported a 32% jump (up to 70%) of self-made millionaires from 1982 to 2012. Red flag 3: The article was trash, mainly used as a tool to attack \"\"white privileged males\"\". The article only said, \"\"Hey, look a study!\"\" and didn't mention any data. The only actual mention of data in the article is \"\"more than 80% of funding for new businesses comes from personal savings and friends and family.\"\" Well, yeah. That's where most businesses look for their first small investment. Actual facts: [60% of billionaires are self-made](https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/269593) [70%+ percent of millionaires are self-made](http://www.thomasjstanley.com/2014/05/america-where-millionaires-are-self-made/) Btw, thanks for the laugh. Didn't know anyone took Qz serious!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "913d6e60dc683f93657a78cf4adb14a9", "text": "Can't pretend to be an expert in construction or real estate but I'm pretty sure that you can approach the people you know and pay them on a per job basis. I'm pretty sure finding other workers on a per job basis will be easy. I wouldn't say its common but its not uncommon either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "221da09473d75488fbfed0cc19d08d56", "text": "\"I'm sorry, but if one of your goals is to \"\"get the small house together at the manor\"\", you're already a huge success by almost the entire world's standards. I don't care if [this](https://gregzavitz.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/1103-linden.jpg) is the \"\"manor\"\" and [this](https://www.theposhshedcompany.co.uk/uploads/products/listings/De_Lange_210317_2_-_Copy.jpg) is the \"\"small house\"\", you're still beating out A LOT of people on the ladder of success.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94e274d66650337c888a371d404e2d7b", "text": "People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3feabf3c5377f19e11874057aade2f8", "text": "\"This article is also light on sources. It overstates inherited wealth. People who work with rich people know the saying \"\"shirtsleeve to shirtsleeve in three generations\"\". There is a proclivity of rich descendants to squander their fortune, which totally negates a majority of this article. In sum, this article and news source insists on itself\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4634d7a68d41488344228497ee382d2", "text": "Look, the richest guy I know personally is the first college grad in his family, and he is the first generation of natural-born citizens in his family. He worked (and lucked) his way from almost nothing to rich as fuck, but the fact that I happen to know him personally doesn't nullify his status as a statistical outlier.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
832c585d8d833b081b6e94355b4199f5	For Federal Crimes, where does the money collected from penalties go?	[ { "docid": "ad73bd8539ac724a2790c7febeabc767", "text": "\"The SFGate had an article on this a few years ago: http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/When-government-fines-companies-who-gets-cash-3189724.php \"\"Civil penalties, often referred to as fines, usually go to the U.S. Treasury or victims.\"\" Short answer in the case you references it would be the US Treasury. In cases where there is a harmed party then they would get something to account for their loss. But it can get complicated depending on the crime.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7b76aa107e70706d9be9297b0b969288", "text": "Your friend would have only been liable for a tax penalty if he withdrew more 529 money than he reported for qualified expenses. That said, if he took the distribution in his name, it triggers a 1099-Q report to the IRS in his name rather than his beneficiaries. This will likely be flagged by the IRS, since it looks like he withdrew the money, but didn't pay taxes and penalties on it, not the beneficiary. In other words, qualified education expenses only apply to the beneficiary, not the plan owner/contributor. In this case, the IRS would request additional documentation to show that the expenses were indeed qualified. To avoid this hassle, it's easiest to make sure the distribution is payed directly to the beneficiary rather than yourself. Once he or she has the check, then have them sign the check over to you or transfer it into your account. Otherwise you trigger an IRS 1099-Q in your name rather than your beneficiary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65bc5338bad575f4bc0169ee47ffdffd", "text": "The IRS demands and expects to be paid tax on all taxable activity, including illegal activity. If they expect drug dealers, hit men, and smugglers to pay tax, they expect you to pay tax on your basement apartment. The flip side of this is that the IRS keeps reported tax activities confidential. They only share what is required (for example, your taxable income with your state). You can read the details in their disclosure laws. Deductions will work just as they would if your apartment was perfectly legal. In the eyes of the IRS, whether your income is legal or not is none of their business. They care only about whether it is being taxed appropriately. They will not share any information with your zoning authority without a court order.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bfda63d25677223db5af3074fcd810d", "text": "In practice the IRS seems to apply the late payment penalty when they issue a written paper notice. Those notices typically have a pay-by date where no additional penalty applies. The IRS will often waive penalties, but not interest or tax due, if the taxpayer presses the issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d81ccba684d73402c54dbdbd18286fb3", "text": "Once you declare the amount, the CBP officials will ask you the source and purpose of funds. You must be able to demonstrate that the source of funds is legitimate and not the proceeds of crime and it is not for the purposes of financing terrorism. Once they have determined that the source and purpose is legitimate, they will take you to a private room where two officers will count and validate the amount (as it is a large amount); and then return the currency to you. For nominal amounts they count it at the CBP officer's inspection desk. Once they have done that, you are free to go on your way. The rule (for the US) is any currency or monetary instrument that is above the equivalent of 10,000 USD. So this will also apply if you are carrying a combination of GBP, EUR and USD that totals to more than $10,000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4264ba71d1fe0abe46fc0bf6b997c97d", "text": "But it's not tax evasion. They are trying to avoid the US's double dipping on foreign income -- an unjust tax if there ever was one. If the money is made overseas then the US government shouldn't have any right to it. I mean, they didn't build any of that infrastructure. That's the way it works in most countries. Their fair share is 0.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc7b333b1d11ea994accd1f8b78a8fdf", "text": "\"Yes, the penalty is the tax you pay on it again when you withdraw the money. The withdrawal of the excess contribution is taxed as your wages (but no penalty). Excess contribution cannot be added to the basis or considered \"\"after-tax\"\" (hence the double taxation). Note that allowing you to keep the excess contribution in the plan may lead to disqualifying the plan, so it is likely that the plan administrator will force you to remove the excess contribution if they become aware of it. Otherwise you may end up forcing early 401(k) withdrawal on all of your co-workers. More on this IRS web page. And this one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b06c4c5629a4c4f0af1e5c054ff97484", "text": "Actually banks aren't required to (and don't) report on 8300 because they already report $10k+ cash transactions to FinCEN as a Currency Transaction Report (CTR), which is substantively similar; see the first item under Exceptions in the second column of page 3 of the actual form. Yes, 8300 is for businesses, that's why the form title is '... Received In A Trade Or Business'. You did not receive the money as part of a trade or business, and it's not taxable income to you, so you aren't required to report receiving it. Your tenses are unclear, but assuming you haven't deposited yet, when you do the bank will confirm your identity and file their CTR. It is extremely unlikely the government will investigate you for a single transaction close to $10k -- they're after whales and killer sharks, not minnows (metaphorically) -- but if they do, when they do, you simply explain where the money came from. The IRS abuses were with respect to people (mostly small businesses) that made numerous cash deposits slightly under $10k, which can be (but in the abuse cases actually was not) an attempt to avoid reporting, which is called 'structuring'. As long as you cooperate with the bank's required reporting and don't avoid it, you are fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1905f1a693b1c56269cc40d19a4bc954", "text": "Well, that's probably not even all of it. If that stranger did his taxes properly, then he already paid about a third of it to the government because wherever he got it from it was income for him and thus it must have been taxed. Now, the remainder is in your hands and yes, according to US law it is now your income and so now you too, must pay about a third of it to the government, and yes you are supposed to explain where it came from. Be careful giving it to somebody else or it'll be taxed yet again. disclaimer: I am not a US citizen", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e20a9c8c36738492aa0363c1113b6ca9", "text": "\"I'm working on similar problem space. There seems to be some working ambiguity in this space - most focus seems to be on more complex cases of income like Dividends and Capital Gains. The US seems to take a position of \"\"where the work was performed\"\" not \"\"where the work was paid\"\" for purposes of the FEIE. See this link. The Foreign Tax Credit(FTC) is applied (regardless of FEIE) based on taxes paid in the other Country. In the event you take the FEIE, you need to exclude that from the income possible to claim on the FTC. i.e. (TOTAL WAGES(X) - Excluded Income) There is a weird caveat on TOTAL WAGES(X) that says you can only apply the FTC to foreign-sourced income which means that potentially we are liable for the on-US-soil income at crazy rates. See this link.. Upon which... there is probably not a good answer short of writing your congressperson.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc11d10474dec5ddb0e6daa8fd0113b0", "text": "I called the IRS and they stated it may take up to 45 days to withdraw the cash, but the proceeds would be applied on the date of the filing (Or when the amount was stated to be debited). Federal and State taxes differ in timelines but as long as deadlines are met and proof exists IRS does not penalize.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "330f9edf099ec061c9a1393429cb66ae", "text": ">Im suggesting if they break the law they go to jail, just like every one else Actually above you were complaining about the monetary penalties, and said nothing about criminal penalties. Which is it? Hundreds of millions of dollars is hardly light fines. As to going to jail, it depends on the law. Speeding breaks the law, yet it is not often a jailable offense. If individuals broke laws that result in jail time, they will likely be prosecuted and sent to jail. [The Justice Department and New York County Attorney General’s Office, which together have handled the high-profile cases that Mazur criticized, said they will always bring criminal charges where evidence permits.](http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2012/06/20/record-setting-bank-forfeiture-at-ing-ignites-debate-over-lack-of-banker-prosecutions/)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "663ba1756a44899bc31a07863c393105", "text": "Had a professor in college for one the business classes. He would teach inmates finance. One class he had a student that was in for some sort of fraud/money laundering. The professor was not sure how much the student had taken but he did ask if it was wroth it. The inmate said yes, explained how long his sentence is/was (it was less then 10 years) and that they only found part of the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4b404f2995ec98b70c55d6ce4413dc9", "text": "The difference is whether or not you have a contract that stipulates the payment plan, interest, and late payment penalties. If you have one then the IRS treats the transaction as a load/loan servicing. If not the IRS sees the money transfer as a gift.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6799590bcc94cf5dfaf7a974d0ed5d4", "text": "Are you suggesting when they break a law involving a small portion of their total business they pay fines involving all portions of their business? I'm suggesting when they break a law, they pay fines related to the crime comitted. So relating how much their fine was on a tiny portion of their business should not be compared to total quarterly profits, unless those profits were related to the crime. Similar punishment methods to most crimes individuals commit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ef24b9344ccc852089a07c402321f17", "text": "Just so you know, the SEC doesn't have criminal authority, they do civil fines. It's the Department of Justice that sends white collar criminals to jail. If you'd like to see what they've been up to, [here's a little info from the FBI](http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011) Also, I could be wrong but I think the government mass settled the claims coming from the financial collapse. edit: you don't get to keep the money you made from your illegal activity. That would just be stupid. The fines are on top of giving the money back edit 2: remember [these girls?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihLBCbNIDbI&feature=share). They didn't get to keep the money they stole. It's no different in white collar crime.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
eb558b0500533cb87cfb59b451cd363f	Do I have to pay the internet installation charges for my home's company internet?	[ { "docid": "e51c7075281d97613dd05a4cefe5d8b7", "text": "\"Of course you don't have to pay them - you just might not like the result. As a matter of law - given that I am not a lawyer - I am not aware of any requirement for a company to pay employees business-related expenses. An example might be having a cell phone, and according to this article companies aren't required to pay for you to have a cell phone even if they require you have one and use it as part of your employment. The primary areas where law does exist relates to company uniforms with a logo (in a very limited number of US states) and necessary personal safety equipment (in California and maybe only few other states). All other tool requirements for a job are not prohibited by law, so long as they are not illegally discriminatory (such as requiring people of a certain race or sex to buy something but no one else, etc). So a company can require all sorts of things, from having an internet connection to cell phone to laptop to specialty tools and equipment of all sorts, and they are even allowed to deduct the cost of some things from your pay - just so long as you still get paid minimum wage after the deductions. With all that said, the company's previous payments of fees and willingness to pay a monthly internet fee does not obligate them to pay other fees too, such as moving/installation/etc. They may even decide to no longer provide internet service at their expense and just require you to provide it as a condition of employment. You can insist on it with your employer, and if you don't have an employment contract that forbids it they can fire you or possibly even deduct it from your pay anyway (and this reason might not be one that allows you to collect unemployment insurance benefits - but you'd need to check with an expert on that). You can refuse to pay AT&T directly, and they can cancel the internet service - and your employer can then do the same as in the previous condition. Or you can choose to pay it - or ask your employer to split the cost over a few checks if it is rather high - and that's about it. Like the cost of anything else you have to pay - from your own food to your computer, clothes, etc - it's best to just consider it your own \"\"cost of doing business\"\" and decide if it's still in your interest to keep working there, and for something to consider in future pay negotiations! You may also qualify for an itemized Employee Business Expense deduction from the IRS, but you'll need to read the requirements carefully and get/keep a receipt for such expenses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8876857f765661ff578bb952f782c25", "text": "It appears so. I suppose you could try saying that you don't want to pay for it and won't have Internet installed, but that could be detrimental to your career. There is no law that says your company has to pay for your Internet unless you have some kind of contract with them that says you will. If anything, your best option might be to try to claim it is a business expense and deduct it on your taxes.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7c241fdb3bc5e8777d3ee9b54bda5c54", "text": "I have comcast and hate their guts. From the time they bought the local cable system a couple of years ago they have raised prices at least 10% a year and at the same time cut 2-4 channels every year. Now they want customers to get a bunch of new equipment, which they claim is free, like the cable modem was free until one month they started charging extra for it every month. I'm not paying any more for their crap. I've let go of everything but the local channels and tomorrow or the next day it will take MORE equipment to even get those. But I've ordered the equipment necessary to get channels off the air. Then once they start messing with my internet I'll try AT&T and satellite internet or even go back to dialup. Cause I'm not paying MORE for less, not paying MORE for crap. Hell, half of what you pay is for sports and I never watch sports. I felt sorry when so many good newspapers started going under. But I feel no sympathy at all for comcast. They are like the Bank of America of cable TV. When they die people will cheer. TV is run by greedy people. I remember when cable started. There were no ads. They made their money from cable subscriptions. Then they decided they wanted MORE money than that and added ads. They can make plenty of money without ads. But there is no end to their greed. So screw them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a54f525500d0422a8f341de6bf756ac", "text": "I feel like that any full answer has multiple facets: Free for 7 years: I'm currently in KC, and most of the people in my area are opting in for the free service. So if I were able to get fibre (my neighborhood didn't get enough votes), it would cut my $40/mo bill from Time Warner and my service would increase if anything. That's a huge cut, and it pays for itself ($300 set up fee) in the first year. Then over the next 7 years it saves me over $3000 in bills. For some company like Time Warner to offer this, they'd lose a large amount of service. Free mediocre internet is a huge threat to companies whose top sellers are expensive mediocre internet. Lawsuits: Like other people have stated, it's pretty impossible to become an actual competitor to these companies. The other ISPs (namely TWC and Comcast) fight anybody who pops up. There are minor providers in some of the outer suburbs, but they can't offer near the speed that a fibre solution provides. City Approval: Even Google ran into issues with this. Cities have to approve things like new fibre lines, and if they don't you're pretty much stuck. Overland Park, a wealthier suburb of Kansas City, were really dragging their feet on getting Google approved. Google just decided to take the deal off the table. Google is such a big name, however, that people in Overland Park freaked out at their city council and I don't know what they did, but Google has opened up signups for them now. If this was a no-name company, though, they would have been out of luck and just been barred from entry altogether. City council problems are actually pretty interesting. Cost Effectiveness and Overhead: Building a fibre network in KC is a pretty big cost. There are others around, but really only in the commercial areas. So whatever company wants to compete with Google has to go without making a profit for several, several years. In order to speed up that time (and save the company) they'd have to raise prices, and less people would be interested in their product. Google really pulled off something huge, here. I'm pretty excited for what their doing (even if my stupid neighbors didn't sign up and I don't get to reap the benefits). I'm interested to see what effects this has on a larger scale when they start moving to other cities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ec3ded21e1dba003dc8ae95bbe2ae51", "text": "You are both right and wrong. A few key things - I'm not charging the government body I work for, it's a free implementation - I ensured I do all the work on my own time, not company time. I live somewhere where most government employees work multiple jobs, so this isn't uncommon. In fact, my government body actually does often hire contractors who are also employed. - I don't live in the US, things are somewhat less different where I am. - It is certainly not illegal, and I would even argue that it is even somewhat ethical. My work saved my employer (the tax payer) a significant amount of money, which is a net positive. The service is of high quality, and I did not break any employment agreements or laws in the process. - I hired a lawyer to double check everything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2a7f7f4ac863f78dd34555f6159ffbe", "text": "There are a few standard ways: One thing to keep in mind is that you'll usually be charged a wire and/or service fee for the tranfer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "669ce01d1022e7a9971a9b4f9ce728be", "text": "I kind of answered this as well, but I'll re-word it Too expensive. Fiber cables are expensive to place, takes a lot of time, and nobody is willing to pay it; or at least not the people that COULD front the bill. (Being Comcast or TWC) Cities aren't willing to help much unfortunately. A great story of what happens when a city does help with these installation fees is Oldes, Alberta in Canada. The city helped install all the wires and now has one of (of not the fastest) Internet connection in the country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a615eaaf29fdac7979f7a831c284c25", "text": "\"If you are talking about a home office, you don't \"\"charge\"\" the business anything. If the area is used exclusively as an office you pro-rate by square footage just the actual expenses. TurboTax recent published an article \"\"Can I Take the Home Office Deduction?\"\" which is a must read if you don't understand the process. (Note: I authored said article.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "497157172ef7a5eb70a8c2b603b55f0a", "text": "That's a good question. Are these internet companies actually natural monopolies ? I'm unsure about that, but if it is true they fall into the category of enterprises such as utilities that many have argued should be removed from private ownership and placed in some collective ownership. The record of privately owned utilities has been truly dismal from a public interest point of view.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2d0936d8dbfc5701655de7500c02b98", "text": "\"Your argument is everything like the faucet. [You wrote](https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/6msutw/tech_firms_unite_for_net_neutrality_protest/dk4q7vr/): \"\"Which is, for example, why my current Comcast service is \"\"unlimited bandwidth\"\".\"\" Your faucet entitles you to unlimited water. I say unlimited water because you cannot have \"\"unlimited bandwidth\"\"; bandwidth is actually fixed by the properties of physics. You meant to say unlimited flow through the bandwidth that's available. I addressed that directly. Yet you saw fit to make another douchey (in bold, this time) comment in response. Have a downvote.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb3104c0506d1b602626ee7fdc41e6eb", "text": "\"Do you know if you were approached by a carrier or a tower vendor? Edit/addendum: As someone in the telecommunications industry, I will say that you should NOT lease to a vendor who will sublease the space to the phone companies for a profit. Depending on the availability of space, the population of the area, and the value of the location, and the amount and size of hardware to be installed, the rental pricing can vary wildly. A cell site on a choice tall building in Chicago, NYC, Boston, LA, etc., can go for over $25000 per year (more in the case of rental of inside equipment room). On the other hand, renting space on a church steeple in the middle of a low population rural town, with the equipment installed in a gated paddock at ground level, may only net around $1500 per month. A \"\"small cell\"\" site, which is actually small enough to put on a lamp post or utility pole, can go for around $250-750 per month. A turf contractor/tower vendor actually leasing a chunk of land to build a structure whose space will be leased out to telecoms should be expected to pay between $2500 and 8000 per month depending on the value of your site. This value is determined by land form details like elevation, nearby tall forests (can the tower \"\"see\"\" over the tree line), terrain contours, and need (local population/tourist/traveler numbers). Carriers prefer to lease from vendors rather than building their own structures, but roof top sites are a different story. Carriers are generally more than happy to work with you to lease a portion of your tall building's roof. FYI... If they offer to compensate you for the electrical requirements if they cannot get their own meter in, don't worry. A cell site uses less than 1000 watts, which translates to about $.10-15 per hour in most locations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a0f16b824e6dab326bf5f18bbd456c0", "text": "In general, you can only be charged for services if there is some kind of contract. The contract doesn't have to be written, but you have to have agreed to it somehow. However, it is possible that you entered into a contract due to some clause in the home purchase contract or the contract with the home owners' association. There are also sometimes services you are legally required to get, such as regular inspection of heating furnaces (though I don't think this translates to automatic contracts). But in any case you would not be liable for services rendered before you entered into the contract, which sounds like it's the case here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "109c4d456f41fd860526feb85481d9ae", "text": "\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \"\"claimable\"\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "849172e9945523ff4458b9dca0190260", "text": "* Building out infrastructure is time-consuming and labor-intensive. You also have no guarantee that because you put fiber to every house in a neighborhood, that every person will sign up for your service. * Building out infrastructure requires permits from the municipality and surveying (underground wiring? On new poles? On existing poles? etc). * It requires tying into existing networks (more infrastructure, permitting, and commercial contracts. * If you want to offer telephone services, that requires more network interfacing and, permitting, and has additional requirements, as phone service has legacy legal requirements. * If you want to offer TV services, you need more infrastructure, and commercial contracts with the TV channels. In many municipalities, existing providers (IE Comcast, TWC) have exclusive contracts with the city that say no one else can come in and build a network. TLDR: Legal contracts, commercial contracts, and the expense of building out the actual infrastructure make it pretty much impossible to create your own ISP, unless you have regular money bonfires (like Google does).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1e3a3be118b48d06cf556ed92c5945f", "text": "They are a business. You're not a corporation. They paid you more than $600 during the year, so they're supposed to send 1099 to you and the IRS about it. They need your taxpayer certification (W9) for that. They were supposed to ask for it before they paid you, but yes - they're supposed to ask for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14619bc463724498d6b497feefe972a7", "text": "I'm really unsure what you are trying to tell me. I don't see how knowing CEOs would aid me in forming an opinion on this issue. Your second statement is simply foolish, shares of a company, represent ownership. Therefore shareholders are the owners. These shareholders elect a board, this board acts like a proxy between the managers (CEO's) and the owners (shareholders). This is how every public company operates. The problem that arises is that managers have an incentive to act in their own best interests, not in the interests of shareholders. So to solve this manager compensation is aligned with company performance so that if the shareholders are better off the managers are better off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1324bd8646de93d4d7952a97747703de", "text": "Of course nobody would have believed me, that was the height of the bubble. Everybody was leveraged to hell thinking that housing prices would continue to rise, especially the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Then when the bubble popped, there is this massive credit crunch and all of a sudden spending and investment dry up. Now there is near 0 interest rates and that still isn't enough to stimulate the economy, so inflation is very low and people are sitting on liquid assets because there is no sense in investing.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
878b2b8959b4cbe93b44e0411a13322e	How can I make a one-time income tax-prepayment to the US Treasury?	[ { "docid": "dd96b5b2a38b28fa6a4a9581dda69b19", "text": "\"You can make estimated tax payments on Form 1040-ES. Most people who make such payments need to do it quarterly because the typical reasons for making estimated payments is something like self-employment income that a person will get throughout the year. If you have a one-time event like a single, large sale of stock, however, there's nothing wrong with doing it just one quarter out of the year. When it comes time to file your taxes, part of the calculate is whether you were timely quarter-by-quarter not just for the entire year, so if you do have a big \"\"one-time\"\" event mid-year, don't wait until the end of the year to file an estimated payment. Of course, if the event is at the end of the year, then you can make it a 4th quarter estimated payment.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7156a9fde48c1a3aec096bab435c99e9", "text": "Yes, you can do what you are contemplating doing, and it works quite well. Just don't get the university's payroll office too riled by going in each June, July, August and September to adjust your payroll withholding! Do it at the end of the summer when perhaps most of your contract income for the year has already been received and you have a fairly good estimate for what your tax bill will be for the coming year. Don't forget to include Social Security and Medicare taxes (both employee's share as well as employer's share) on your contract income in estimating the tax due. The nice thing about paying estimated taxes via payroll deduction is that all that tax money can be counted as having been paid in four equal and timely quarterly payments of estimated tax, regardless of when the money was actually withheld from your university paycheck. You could (if you wanted to, and had a fat salary from the university, heh heh) have all the tax due on your contract income withheld from just your last paycheck of the year! But whether you increase the withholding in August or in December, do remember to change it back after the last paycheck of the year has been received so that next year's withholding starts out at a more mellow pace.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f0b2c79bb09d455414ec58c07ec0f51", "text": "\"Yes, it is, but first let me address this sentence: my current withholding on my W4 is already at 0 so I can't make it lower You definitely can make it lower. On W4, in addition to the allowances (that what you meant by \"\"already at 0\"\"), there's also a line called \"\"additional withholding\"\". There, you put the dollar amount that you want your payroll to withhold from your paycheck each pay period. So the easiest way to \"\"send\"\" a one time payment to the IRS, if you're a W2 employee, would be to adjust that line with the amount you want to send, and change it back to 0 next pay period. You can also send a check directly to the IRS - follow the instructions to form 1040-ES. That is exactly what that form is designed to be used for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fe97da3da12776e31cfb58e16e57f81", "text": "\"It's likely you don't have to make estimated tax payments if this is your first year of contracting (extra income), and your existing salary is already having taxes withheld. If you look at the 1040-ES: General Rule In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2014 if both of the following apply. This is easier to understand if you look at the worksheet. Look at line 14b/14c and the associated instructions. 14b is your required annual payment based on last year's tax. 14c is the lesser of that number and 14a, so 14b is your \"\"worst case\"\". 14c is the amount of tax you need to prepay (withholding counts as prepayment). I'm going to apply this to your situation based on my understanding, because it's not easy to parse:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28e724bb8a999cbde510325dd4f5afad", "text": "\"The pure numbers answer says you want the refund to be close to $0. You can even argue, as some answers have, that you want to try to maximize the payment without receiving any sanctions for underpaying during the year. If you trace the money, it's easy to see why. Let's say you get a paycheck. Tag some of the dollars for Uncle Sam. These are the dollars that, eventually, will be given to the IRS. Now consider the following scenarios: From the raw numbers like this, its clear that you lose utility by setting yourself up for a large refund check. The money was yours the entire time, but you chose to give it to Uncle Sam instead. However, the raw numbers are only part of the puzzle. If you're a cold steely-gazed numbers person, they're the part that matters. When the billionares are playing their tax evasion games, this is the only thing they are paying attention to. However, real humans have a few psychological reasons they may choose to lose utility in terms of raw dollars in exchange for psychological assistance: These attitudes exist, and may be ideal for any one person. Obviously the financially savvy answer of \"\"minimize your refund\"\" is the ideal answer from a dollars and cents perspective, but its up to you to see whether that attitude is right when you account for all of the non-measurable things, like stress. In general, I would lead anyone to \"\"minimize your refund,\"\" but I would be remiss if I didn't include the very real psychological reasons people choose to deviate from it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e14cb4c06d785d9ab927ff0914196dcc", "text": "This is wrong. It should be or Now, to get back to self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is weird. It's a business tax. From the IRS perspective, any self-employed person is a business. So, take your income X and divide by 1.0765 (6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare). This gives your personal income. Now, to calculate the tax that you have to pay, multiply that by .153 (since you have to pay both the worker and employer shares of the tax). So new calculation or they actually let you do which is better for you (smaller). And your other calculations change apace. And like I said, you can simplify Q1se to and your payment would be Now, to get to the second quarter. Like I said, I'd calculate the income through the second quarter. So recalculate A based on your new numbers and use that to calculate Q2i. or Note that this includes income from both the first and second quarters. We'll reduce to just the second quarter later. This also has you paying for all of June even though you may not have been paid when you make the withholding payment. That's what they want you to do. But we aren't done yet. Your actual payment should be or Because Q2ft and Q2se are what you owe for the year so far. Q1ft + Q1se is what you've already paid. So you subtract those from what you need to pay in the second quarter. In future quarters, this would be All that said, don't stress about it. As a practical matter, so long as you don't owe $1000 or more when you file your actual tax return, they aren't going to care. So just make sure that your total payments match by the payment you make January 15th. I'm not going to try to calculate for the state. For one thing, I don't know if your state uses Q1i or Q1pi as its base. Different states may have different rules on that. If you can't figure it out, just use Q1i, as that's the bigger one. Fix it when you file your annual return. The difference in withholding is going to be relatively small anyway, less than 1% of your income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51b98857496db91ad880cc721db0c57c", "text": "\"That's a very clear explanation, thanks! So a few additional things if anyone will humor my curiosity... 1. By \"\"one-time\"\" tax, does that mean a company that has, say, $5B overseas could bring that back into the US and just be taxed $500M, then keep the remaining $4.5B? 2. Could a company choose a percentage of their overseas money to transfer into the US? Like, only bring in 8% of that $5B ($400M) and be taxed $40M, while keeping all the rest outside the US? Or would it be mandatory to bring it all over? 3. Would most companies just start that same practice of routing to tax havens again after this tax is implented?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd6eecc9738b213f4a0e3ccc7411900f", "text": "You have two different operations going on: They each have of a set of rules regarding amounts, timelines, taxes, and penalties. The excess money can't be recharacterized except during a specific window of time. I would see a tax professional to work through all the details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea582ead73b55789e8dd68ef14643254", "text": "I don't believe you can do that. From the IRS: Finally, certain types of property are specifically excluded from Section 1031 treatment. Section 1031 does not apply to exchanges of: I highlighted the relevant items for emphasis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7195053464f2555973061c1a472f0ed3", "text": "You should probably get a professional tax advice, as it is very specific to the Philipines tax laws and the US-Philippine tax treaty. What I know, however, is that if it was the other way around - you paying a foreigner coming to the US to consult you - you would be withholding 30% of their pay for the IRS which they would be claiming for refund on their own later. So if the US does it to others - I'm not surprised to hear that others do it to the US. Get a professional advice on what and how you should be doing. In any case, foreign taxes paid can be used to offset your US taxes using form 1116 up to some extent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a41026f655a49f32a9b2a065fe080f00", "text": "\"You can simply use the previous year's tax liability as your basis for payments. Take the amount of tax you owed the previous year, divide by four, and use that amount for your estimated payments. As long as you're paying 100% of what you owed last year, you won't have any penalty. Except if your AGI is above a certain limit ($150k for married filing jointly in 2011), then you have to pay 110%. See IRS Pub 505 for details (general rule, special rule, under \"\"Higher Income Taxpayers\"\"). (H/T to @Dilip Sarwate for pointing out the 110% exception in a comment below.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "278761b17fa57982144a46c66491ce57", "text": "Like-kind of exchanges have a list of requirements. The IRS has not issued formal guidance in the matter. I recommend to be aggressive and claim the exchange, while justifying it with a good analogy to prove good faith (and persuade the IRS official reading it the risk of losing in tax court would be to high). Worst case the IRS will attempt to reject the exchange, at which point you could still pony up to get rid of the problem, interest being the only real risk. For example: Past tax court rulings have stated that collectable gold coins are not like kind to gold bars, and unlike silver coins, but investment grade gold coins are like kind to gold bars. So you could use a justification like this: I hold Bitcoin to be like-kind to Litecoin, because they use the same fundamental technology with just a tweak in the math, as if exchanging different grades of gold bars, which has been approved by tax court ruling #xxxxx. Note that it doesn't matter whether any of this actually makes sense, it just has be reasonable enough for you to believe, and look like it is not worth pursuing to an overworked IRS official glancing at it. I haven't tried this yet, so up to now this is a guess, but it's a good enough guess in my estimation that I will be using it on some rather significant amounts next year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca45fdfb71adf33769492b71c096b555", "text": "There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62be4077a8b5f99137d2c3ca9b8a3ae0", "text": "You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc9c200f6660dd9981ab887eb936190c", "text": "I think the IRS doc you want is http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010601 I believe the answers are:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e974e9c76ecdd9f3ffe8704ae2d3f48", "text": "\"How can I avoid this, so we are taxed as if we are making the $60k/yr that we want to receive? You can't. In the US the income is taxed when received, not when used. If you receive 1M this year, taking out 60K doesn't mean the other 940K \"\"weren't received\"\". They were, and are taxable. Create a pension fund in the corporation, feed it all profits, and pay out $60k/yr of \"\"pension\"\". I doubt that the corporation could deduct a million a year in pension funding. You cannot do that. You can only deposit to a pension plan up to 100% of your salary, and no more than $50K total (maybe a little more this year, its adjusted to inflation). Buy a million dollars in \"\"business equipment\"\" of some sort each year to get a deduction, then sell it over time to fund a $60k/yr salary. I doubt such a vehicle exists. If there's no real business purpose, it will be disallowed and you'll be penalized. Your only purpose is tax avoidance, meaning you're trying to shift income using your business to avoid paying taxes - that's illegal. Do crazy Section 79 life insurance schemes to tax-defer the income. The law caps this so I can only deduct < $100k of the $1 million annually, and there are other problems with this approach.\\ Yes. Wouldn't go there. Added: From what I understand, this is a term life insurance plan sponsored by the employer for the employee. This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick, storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
644367ad873791a363ea0223e75febfe	In the USA, why is the Free File software only available for people earning less than $62k?	[ { "docid": "8d0726e7822140462fdaf8646b5ac184", "text": "\"It is very helpful to understand that Free File is not actually \"\"by\"\" the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS does indeed offer access to the program through their website, but Free File is actually a public-private partnership program operated and maintained by the Free File Alliance. Who is the Free File Alliance? Well, according to their members list: 1040NOW Corp., Drake Enterprises, ezTaxReturn.com, FileYourTaxes, Free Tax Returns, H&R Block, Intuit, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty Tax, OnLine Taxes, TaxACT, TaxHawk, and TaxSlayer. Why the income restriction? Well, that's part of the deal the IRS struck - the program is \"\"dedicated to helping 70 percent of American taxpayers prepare and e-file their federal tax returns\"\". Technically the member companies are offering their own software to handle tax preparation, and the rule is that 70% of American's must 'qualify' for at least one product, so this adjusted gross income limit changes periodically so that 70% of the population can use it. Why restrict it at all? This was part of the give and take involved in negotiation with the businesses involved. If the program was \"\"everyone files for free\"\", then it is presumed that many reputable businesses that make the program valuable would choose not to continue to participate. In other words, they want to be able to not give away their services for free to customers who are - at least by income definition - more than capable of paying them. The IRS has said it does not want to be in the tax prep software business, so they are not offering their own free software to do the job that private companies would otherwise charge for. However, there are other restrictions to being in the program - like the fact that no business in the program can offer \"\"refund anticipation loans\"\", offer commercial services more than a certain amount of times (so they can't hound you to upgrade), and so on. Some businesses were making a killing off these, though they are pretty much solely developed to be predatory on people with the lowest incomes (and education levels, and IQ, and with cognitive disabilities, and basically anyone they could sucker into paying what were effectively absurd rates for short term loans along with inflated filing/preparation fees). Finally, Free File was partly developed as an initiative to increase the amount of digitally filed taxes and reduce the paper-based burdens of accepting and processing turns. In other words: to cut government costs, not to be a government welfare program. Even if it were, one can generally obtain commercial software for $30-$100, so the benefit to those above gross income levels is pretty minor; yearly costs to file taxes with such software for those payers would be less than 0.001% of their yearly expenses. Compared to the benefits obtainable by households living below the poverty line, fighting to cover an extra 5-30% of the population at the potential expense of having the whole program be a failure probably seemed like a more than worthwhile trade-off.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71f5a8da0a217a73a8b71543c603a16d", "text": "Free File is not software by the IRS. Free File is actually a partnership between the IRS and the Free File Alliance, a group of tax software companies. The software companies have all agreed to provide a free version of their tax software for low-income taxpayers. According to the Free File Alliance FAQ, the Alliance was formed in 2002 as part of a Presidential initiative to improve electronic access to government. You can read all the excruciating details of the formal agreement (PDF) between the IRS and the Alliance, but basically, the participating software companies get exposure for their products and the possibility of up-selling services, such as state tax return software.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8199c1f269790dd8ecce7897a0159c49", "text": "\"Regardless of the source of the software (though certainly good to know), there are practical limits to the IRS 1040EZ form. This simplified tax form is not appropriate for use once you reach a certain level of income because it only allows for the \"\"standard\"\" deduction - no itemization. The first year I passed that level, I was panicked because I thought I suddenly owed thousands. Switching to 1040A (aka the short form) and using even the basic itemized deductions showed that the IRS owed me a refund instead. I don't know where that level is for tax year 2015 but as you approach $62k, the simplified form is less-and-less appropriate. It would make sense, given some of the great information in the other answers, that the free offering is only for 1040EZ. That's certainly been true for other \"\"free\"\" software in the past.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d704dd591f7062fb614c343df2296ace", "text": "Whoever wrote this article is an idiot. $112,000 income in NY makes you barely middle class. 529 plans and 401k plans are two of very few actually sensible pieces of tax policy this burning dumpster fire of a country has. Come to Brooklyn and tell the high school janitor who makes $100k that he is too affluent to get college savings tax credits and be prepared to get punched in the face.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2412c5cd1130f007f6f068e6b280e2b3", "text": "\"You're confusing so many things at once here...... First thing first: we cannot suggest you what to do business-wise since we have no idea about your business. How on Earth can anyone know if you should sell the software to someone or try to distribute to customers yourself? How would we know if you should hire employees or not? If you say you don't need employees - why would you consider hiring them? If you say you want to sell several copies and have your own customers - why would you ask if you should sell your code to someone else? Doesn't make sense. Now to some more specific issues: I heard sole proprietary companies doesn't earn more than 250k and it's better to switch to corporation or LLC etc. because of benefits. I heard it was snowing today in Honolulu. So you heard things. It doesn't make them true, or relevant to you. There's no earning limit above which you should incorporate. You can be sole proprietor and make millions, and you can incorporate for a $10K/year revenue business. Sole proprietorship, incorporation (can be C-Corp or S-Corp), or LLC - these are four different types of legal entity to conduct business. Each has its own set of benefits and drawbacks, and you must understand which one suits you in your particular situation. For that you should talk to a lawyer who could help you understand what liability protection you might need, and to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) who can help you understand the tax-related costs and benefits of each choice. On the other hand I heard that if I create LLC company, in case of failure, they can get EVERYTHING from me, what's this all about? No. This is not true. Who are \"\"they\"\", how do you define \"\"failure\"\", and why would they get anything from you at all? Even without knowing all that, your understanding is wrong, because the \"\"LL\"\" in LLC stands for LIMITED liability. The whole point of forming LLC or Corporation is to limit your own personal liability. But mere incorporation or forming LLC doesn't necessarily mean your liability is limited. Your State law defines what you must do for that limited liability protection, and that includes proper ways to run your business. Again - talk to your lawyer and your tax adviser about what it means to you. I'm totally unfamiliar with everything related to taxes/companies/LLC/corporation etc Familiarize yourself. No-one is going to do it for you. Start reading, ask specific questions on specific issues, and get a proper legal and tax advice from licensed professionals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ced09ab3262b25c1ad703326db8ecd26", "text": "\"So it seems like a lot of people here aren't exactly sure about why this works and its financial implications. So what you are referring to is in Finance something called Funds Transfer Pricing or FTP (often referred to as just Transfer Pricing). Like anything else, FTP has its place. Most companies; however, don't use it properly. FTP, theoretically, has one primary purpose (although it's developed a second): to properly allocate opportunity costs across divisions. Let's say Company A produces widgets. They sell these widgets for $200 at a TOTAL COST of $150 and book profits of $50. Now to produce the widget Division 1 makes a computer chip at a cost of $50 that it then \"\"sells\"\" to Division 2 for $60. Division 1 then books a profit of $10. Division 2 then makes some plastic stuff and assembles the device. This is labor intensive so Division 2's costs are $100. Company A sells the completed device for $150. Division 2 subsequently books profits of $40, and appears much more profitable than Division 1, on the surface. The problem arises when Division 1 could sell the chip to the open market for $125. Now it costs them $50 to produce, and they could make a theoretical profit of $75. This is MORE than the company makes AS A WHOLE on the entire device. By having Division 2 pay effectively \"\"fair market price\"\" for that chip, you realize that Division 2 is really operating at a loss (the opportunity cost of not selling the chip to market is greater than producing the completed device). Company A would be better off getting rid of Division 2 and solely focusing on Division 1. In a good FTP system, Division 2 would pay the fair market price of $125. If done properly, management would hopefully realize it should divest Division 2. That's the *fundamental premise* behind FTP. In actuality things get much more complicated because of economics, the company itself, branding, IT, operations, management, PPE, labor laws, etc. Thats why most companies screw it up. All that other stuff falls under whats called cost allocation accounting. It gets VERY complex and entire masters courses are dedicated to it (different methods, etc.) The other thing you can do with FTP is get crazy tax breaks due to various tax laws. The simplified explanation is that divisions pay taxes on profits to the government *that division* is located in (this works on the state level, too btw.). GE does a lot of this and it's a big part of why they pay almost no-taxes. Again, it gets more complicated when you involve audits as there's some grey area legally. For simplicity, assume tax rates are 40% in the US and 10% in India. So let's say GE makes an airplane engine in the US but \"\"finishes\"\" manufacturing in India. These specific engines costs $5,000,000 for the US division to make, up to a certain point. The US division can then sell the engine at a break even to India. So India \"\"pays\"\" $5,000,000 for the engine. The US division then books no profit. India finishes the manufacturing with additional costs of $1,000,000. The India division then sells the engine to the open market for $9,000,000 . Therefore, the India division books a profit of $3,000,000 and pays taxes of $300,000. Now GE as a whole makes a profit of $3,000,000 less taxes of $300,000 = net profit of $2,700,00. Further, let's say the fair market value of the engine, as is, when the US sells to India is $7,000,000. That would mean US *should* book profits of $2,000,000 and India *should* book profits of $1,000,000. Total taxes by GE are now $800,000 (US) + $100,000 (India) = $900,000. However, what's important is that NET PROFIT is now $2,100,000. *GE just saved $600,000 in taxes by doing this. The beauty of this is, divisions are supposed to charge fair market value for products FTP'd internationally; however, it's REALLY hard for the IRS to say what the value of an unfinished product really is (heck, you could be offering bulk discounts, etc.)... The fact is, often, US divisions have skilled labor that is difficult to replicate elsewhere. They just show US divisions operating at losses to make the company as a whole better. The problem, again, arises when top management don't fully appreciate or understand the reasoning behind this stuff. They end up making cuts to US labor because it's \"\"unprofitable\"\" without thinking about the entire story. I know this is very long winded but hope it helps! tldr; companies FTP to recognizes profitability and opportunity costs of divisions as well as use it for overseas tax breaks.* Side note: Politically speaking, people who know how this works are pissed off about it in the U.S. (don't worry though, most politicians on both sides don't have a clue). We have high corporate tax rates relative to other countries and IRS loopholes allow this kind of thing (lobbying $$). It's also why, economically, you can't just raise *corporate* tax rates to increase domestic tax reciepts as more companies will just implement this process (it's complicated to do properly). Also, please don't say 50 years ago tax rates were higher and raising taxes increased receipts. The fact is most companies couldn't even FATHOM doing this 50 years ago, no less even 20. edit: some clarification in wording\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fe7ff9314d00f0e13a670dbd1099e0c", "text": "\"This article acts like it's the fault of the person for not making enough money to pay for rent, food, insurance, and gas - \"\"Surely if I just tried hard enough I could make $280,000 a year and put 30% of it into investments.\"\" No financial software is going to change the labor market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b10baf24c0aa7867791b8ae4fe55005", "text": "In a nutshell, there are significant entrance hurdles, legally and especially financially. The fixed cost and effort to get it set up is high (although later, the proportional cost and efforts are negligible). Therefore, this is only of interest for taxable amounts of seven digits or more - which most people don’t reach.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5500dfda716ea63d53a060a18e04c4d3", "text": "It might not be leniency for first time payers, but they do have programs, some federal some local, that help the poor and elderly complete their tax forms. There are also programs that allow the poor to file electronically for free. For most people the first time they file their taxes they are using the EZ form. Which is rather easy to do, even without the use of either web based or PC based software. The software tools all ask enough questions on the EZ forms to allow the user to know with confidence when their life choices have made it advantageous to use the more complex forms. The web versions of the software allow the taxpayer to start for free, thus reducing their initial investment for the software to zero. Because the first time filer is frequently a teenager the parents are generally responsible for proving that initial guidance. The biggest risk for a young taxpayer might be that the first year that itemizing deductions might be advantageous. They might never consider it, so they over pay. Or they discover in April that if they had only kept a receipt from a charity six months ago they could deduct the donation, so they are tempted to claim the donation without proof. Regarding leniency and assistance there is an interesting tax credit. The Earned Income Tax Credit. it gives a Tax credit to the working poor. They alert people that they need to Check Your Eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit They know that significant numbers of taxpayers fail to claim it. EITC can be a boost for workers who earned $50,270 or less in 2012. Yet the IRS estimates that one out of five eligible taxpayers fails to claim their EITC each year. The IRS wants everyone who is eligible for the credit to get the credit that they’ve earned. The rules for getting the credit are simple, all the information needed to claim it is already on the basic tax forms, but you have to know that you need a separate form to get the credit. But instead of making the credit automatic they say: If you use IRS e-file to prepare and file your tax return, the software will guide you and not let you forget this important step. E-file does the work and figures your EITC for you! and then : With IRS Free File, you can claim EITC by using brand name tax preparation software to prepare and e-file your tax return for free. It's available exclusively at IRS.gov/freefile. Free help preparing your return to claim your EITC is also available at one of thousands of Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites around the country. To find the volunteer site nearest to you, use the VITA locator tool on IRS.gov. But if you don't use free file you might never know about the form. Apparently it escapes 20% of the people who could claim it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b708f531bc49a23069b670d394a624c2", "text": "I'm talking about household income. $300k is a huge amount of money for a single person to make, but $150k is certainly doable for most doctors/lawyers/engineers. If your spouse is also a high earner that will help put over the 1% threshold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68374631dbe08064568d05a07edd091b", "text": "Looks like you can get a PO box online for $62 per year: https://www.usps.com/manage/get-a-po-box.htm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3993d8b9c1fff59ee034e7a0bedd2b4a", "text": "\"The problem with these services is that they resell a random assortment of programs at a pretty high price. Buying the programs a la carte adds up quick, especially when a SD stream of varying quality costs as much or more than the DVD set when it is released (don't get me started on the HD up-charges). That's per show, per season. It makes it really expensive to catch up on a season, when you are essentially \"\"buying the seasons\"\" to stream them, when all you want to do it \"\"rent them\"\" instead. The way this is not like steam, and the point I think OP is trying to make, is that stuff is all over the place. People don't want to have to jump between Hulu, CBS.com, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc. Plus, some places have some things for free, some charge a monthly fee, some charge per-view (rent), some charge once per show/season/movie (buy), etc. Some offerings that are free are actually sold for a fee through other services. Right now, it's sort of a mess. I'm not even sure what the right model is (buy, rent, season pass, ad-supported, etc) and I'm sure there will be competing models for the foreseeable future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6d3f5dd4ace3c97945ce237fe7a8e57", "text": "\"Usually... if you can't figure the business model for a cheap or \"\"free\"\" product it's because you ARE the product and just don't know it. In this case, moviepass has found a buyer who will pay more for the data on your movie watching habits than they have to fork out for movie tickets. This is why the price dropped from $60 to $10. It's a data play now. Don't worry... You're giving Google and Facebook way more for access to their \"\"free\"\" technologies, I assure you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6389f2a53a3081caf9172010bf0cf22c", "text": "Office 365 has all of the sharing/editing/browser access that you would want as a consumer - plus it is FAR more useful in an enterprise setting because of better permissions settings. What people don't seem to realize is that Microsoft doesn't make their nut on consumer software. They ultimately are failing at porting REALLY GOOD enterprise packages to the consumer - which is a totally different issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "573d1dd0b2c5c0fb9398b4a1d101a5ef", "text": "Because salaries aren't high enough. If the salaries were higher more people would pursue that field. I'm not going to begrudge anyone making billions, but Microsoft is raking in cash, and it's obvious that they'd rather horde it than spend it on talent. Well, ask a professional sports team about that equation. Just because salaries are in the 100s of thousands doesn't mean that they're too high. Especially when you look at these companies financial filings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a471c4c58c07ed7ca866cff9414c8695", "text": "There isn't one. I haven't been very happy with anything I've tried, commercial or open source. I've used Quicken for a while and been fairly happy with the user experience, but I hate the idea of their sunset policy (forced upgrades) and using proprietary format for the data files. Note that I wouldn't mind using proprietary and/or commercial software if it used a format that allowed me to easily migrate to another application. And no, QIF/OFX/CSV doesn't count. What I've found works well for me is to use Mint.com for pulling transactions from my accounts and categorizing them. I then export the transaction history as a CSV file and convert it to QIF/OFX using csv2ofx, and then import the resulting file into GNUCash. The hardest part is using categories (Mint.com) and accounts (GnuCash) properly. Not perfect by any means, but certainly better than manually exporting transactions from each account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15b8790c8e70783945c7ac626dfa0e19", "text": "You can choose to pay your mortgage instead of another bill, or vice versa. Your net will change from month to month while your gross is relatively static. I can make a bunch of promises to my load officer about my expenses, but it is very difficult to verify. Moreover, it is pretty hard to give your net income and plan for emergencies. So for the sake of reliability, verifiability, and general ease a lender will look at your gross. YOU should definitely look at your net when deciding if you can afford a loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39efca8110c7d497f195cadf2e5cc2fe", "text": "I think you have a good start understanding the ESA. $2k limit per child per year. The other choice is a 529 account which has a much higher limit. You can deposit up to 5 years worth of gifting per child, or $65k per child from you and another $65k from your wife. Sounds great, right? The downside is the 529 typically has fewer investment options, and doesn't allow for individual stocks. The S&P fund in my 529 costs me nearly 1% per year, in the ESA, .1%. the ESA has to be used by age 30, the 529 can be held indefinitely.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b6c657056ad9239cebe4c00aa1906e53	Investing in third world countries	[ { "docid": "2672f85e33b709f4dbbffabf875d2251", "text": "I strongly recommend you to invest in either stocks or bonds. Both markets have very strict regulations, and usually follow international standards of governance. Plus, they are closely supervised by local governments, since they look to serve the interests of capital holders in order to attract foreign investment. Real estate investment is not all risky, but regulations tend to be very localized. There are federal, state/county laws and byelaws, the last usually being the most significant in terms of costs (city taxes) and zoning. So if they ever change, that could ruin your investment. Keeping up with them would be hard work, because of language, legal and distance issues (visiting notary's office to sign papers, for example). Another thing to consider is, specially on rural distant areas, the risk of forgers taking your land. In poorer countries you could also face the problem of land invasion, both urban and rural. Solution for that depends on a harsh (fast) or socially populist (slow) local government. Small businesses are out of question for you, frankly. The list of risks (cash stealing, accounting misleading, etc.) is such that you will lose money. Even if you ran the business in your hometown it would not be easy right?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c62a9ef6ddf8a9f66d4ec1c669245f41", "text": "\"Basically, unless you are an investment professional, you should not be investing in a venture in a developing country shown to you by someone else. The only time you should be investing in a developing country is if a \"\"lightbulb\"\" goes off in your head and you say to yourself, \"\"With my engineering background, I can develop this machine/process/concept that will work better in this country than anywhere else in the world.\"\" And then run it yourself. (That's what Michael Dell, a computer repairman, did for \"\"made to order\"\" computers in the United States, and \"\"the rest is history.\"\") E.g. if you want to invest in \"\"real estate\"\" in a developing country, you might design a \"\"modular home\"\" out of local materials, tailored to local tastes, and selling for less than local equivalents, based on a formula that you know better than anyone else in the world. And then team up with a local who can sell it for you. Whatever you do, don't \"\"invest\"\" and revisit it in 10-15 years. It will be gone.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "727ec7e08991ba4b8ade95fe69692451", "text": "That's because our financial sector is mainly an instrument to aggregate cash rather than a way to foster innovation and growth. They already have so much cash in their control that other sectors are starving. Some worthwhile endeavors are not the ones that are going to make the greatest returns, some will not show returns for a very long time. Typically these are are undertaken by the government, but the government is being reduced to a blunt object used to secure resources and markets and to protect investments. So maybe we need a second-tier investment sector that works with longer time lines, and low immediate returns and perhaps even domestic micro-loan/grants. /ramble", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b79409d008694846d99a18cb967006dd", "text": "yeah - the point is why should any foreign investor trust you with their money? just because Bangladesh might have a hot housing market, doesn't make you a reliable or trustworthy partner. Maybe if you were an established and reputable real estate investor this post might get traction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab0ef2d08b8155091a2bdd9b7a105c42", "text": "It has got to do with inflation. So as prices of goods and services rise over the years you can work out what the inflation rate is over time. So by applying the inflation rate between 1990 to 2016 you can work out the equivalent value of $30B in 1990 would be in 2016. So in other words in 1990 you bought $30B worth of a box of goods and services, then in 2016 it would have cost you $55B to buy the same box of goods and services. You can play around with this US Inflation Calculator here, to see how much an amount of money back in history would be worth today if invested at the rate of inflation over those years. So obviously, the aim in investing is to get a return higher than the rate of inflation, so that your investment funds grow in real terms and in the future you can buy more with your funds than you can buy with them today.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65d63f2d360544b545ad1ec39c769653", "text": "At the other end of the spectrum is the VICEX fund. it invests in industries such as tobacco, gaming, defense/weapons, liquor and other companies whose products or services are widely considered not to be socially responsible", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca7c58191513c4cb7c05c0d16933d67c", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/german-g20-investment-framework-for-africa-by-wolfgang-schauble-2017-06) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) *** > The CWA offers interested African countries the opportunity to improve conditions for private investment, including in infrastructure. > The CWA&#039;s structure is straightforward: African countries, together with their bilateral partners and international financial organizations with proven expertise on Africa, will jointly develop, coordinate, and implement tailor-made measures. > With the upcoming G20 Africa Partnership Conference in Berlin on June 12-13, we will provide a platform for these African countries to reach out to investors in order to enhance the continent&#039;s engagement with the private sector. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fxdgr/wolfgang_shauble_africa_has_an_enormous_economic/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~139006 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: country^#1 African^#2 CWA^#3 Africa^#4 G20^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0f0da2c0e5a4bfa04bda19efad7eb01", "text": "There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24f0a3aeb40d5e614b4f030e8c60320b", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/06/12/Public-Investment-Scaling-up-and-Debt-Sustainability-The-Case-of-Energy-Sector-Investments-44943) reduced by 50%. (I'm a bot) *** > The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management. > This paper proposes a bottom-up approach to assess large public investments that are potentially self-financing and reflect their impact in macro-fiscal projections that underpin the IMF&#039;s Debt Sustainability Analysis Framework. > Using the case of energy sector investments in Caribbean countries, the paper shows how to avoid biases against good projects that pay off over long horizons and ensure that transformative investments are not sacrificed to myopic assessments of debt sustainability risks. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6gydz6/imfpublic_investment_scalingup_and_debt/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~142844 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: IMF^#1 investment^#2 paper^#3 debt^#4 sustainability^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fd1f453fdf50f3d43731985b8d1c9bb", "text": "Moreover the fact that they're simply invested in two of the biggest emerging market ETFs which preform well with global stability but are overall kinda risky long term goes to show that it's not some unheard of success. As you said, the proving ground will be whether they can make money in a down economy, where it's much harder to find profitable investments. Perhaps they'll switch to bonds and commodities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fbd96694deb9cdb0de005f541ce5f6e", "text": "Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1aa8e87a1881bf344bdfee7c4c4e4eb5", "text": "For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ecc829e44d10e0c8b04e51d2ec5afa0", "text": "I'd say that the assets are 'invested' in non-productive sectors of the economy such as the finance sector. Also in pure market speculation and in revolving corporate acquisitions which inflate the nominal money supply but don't increase either physical production or services delivered by one thimble or one minute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b59e1f0e5f5d21adf082959ab5a20dbb", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/27944) reduced by 56%. (I'm a bot) *** > Bringing e-Money to the Poor: Successes and Failures examines the lessons of success from four country case studies of &quot;Gazelles&quot;―Kenya, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Thailand―that leapt from limitation to innovation by successfully enabling the deployment of e-money technology. > These countries have thereby transformed the landscape of financial access to their poor. > Because technology is not a silver bullet, the case studies also explore other strategic elements that need to be in place for a country to expand access to financial services through digital technology. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6vuj7f/bringing_emoney_to_the_poorpdf/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~198017 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: access^#1 country^#2 e-money^#3 technology^#4 financial^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92664171cbac80df44882c5012735c78", "text": "There are many Shariah compliant investments, so that could direct your resulting searches. Shariah compliance is a very strict interpretation of Islam and for investing offers strict guidelines in what to invest in and excludes investments in companies that engage in certain businesses such as gambling, tobacco, pork and trading of gold and silver on a deferred basis (and more). Many multinational financial service companies such as the Standard & Poors (S&P) offer Shariah Compliant funds and indices, as such, it makes it easier to invest in a variety of different assets through them. You can also look at their fund's constituents and invest in those assets directly. Secondly, going back to your original question about a compound interest equivalent, you can look at the products offered by Shariah Compliant banks. Now, if it is really important for you to adhere to the strictest interpretations of your faith, you should know that most Islamic Banks have interest bearing assets within them and that they disguise that fact. The global financial system is based on interest bearing instruments such as bonds, and Islamic banks are large holders and issuers of those instruments, and all of their consumer products are also based on the interest rates of them. Even convoluted alternatives such as Islamic mortgages, where they are advertised as non-interest bearing equivalents, many times are also the interest bearing version. Unfortunately, these lies are enough for the banks to continue to get business from their target audiences, but outside of Islam this is a very standard and stable business practice. The point is that you should look very carefully at the alternatives you find.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc669c07c7a6d3fd0cfcb328b92be3ba", "text": "\"I'm not defending Faber, but from an statistical point your logic is terrible. It's a lot easier to go from 2 to 4 than it is from 200 to 400 - so any undeveloped third-world country should be growing a lot faster than places with existing stable economies. And to put \"\"fastest growing\"\" into context, it's 8.5%, which isn't even as big as I was expecting considering the US is growing at 3% and has a much larger base value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6d5c19eaa0665e82e44ae513025b627", "text": "\"Shariah compliant investments attempt to achieve your \"\"ethical investing\"\" ideals. Many countries around the world have a long list of shariah compliant investments and lots of journalists will go great lengths to reveal when a company is not really shariah compliant. Standard & Poors (S&P), an American financial services company, hosts a Shariah compliant index too, but on the Toronto Stock Exchange in Canada due to the Islamaphobia rampant in the United States. But of course, international companies are indifferent to any single country's social problems, and in your new pastime as an international speculator you will get the same luxury too and exemption from the political spectrum. S&P/TSX 60 information can be found here: http://web.tmxmoney.com/tmx_indices.php?section=tsx&index=%5ETXSI Business sectors prohibited from the Shariah index include: Gambling, Pornography, Tobacco, amongst others. In the United States, the concept has been renamed \"\"B-Corporation\"\" (a play on the federal term C-Corporation and S-Corporation), and has garnered enough of a movement that several states have created these as entities people can actually register them with the state, but these are not recognized as \"\"B-Corporations\"\" to the federal government. Shariah compliant investments will be easier to find worldwide, due to the popularity of the associated religion.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
42a391aebd80606f97257e265285afc6	If I have no exemptions or deductions, just a simple paycheck, do I HAVE to file taxes?	[ { "docid": "5d30f301760755861621e5260d05e183", "text": "\"As a Canadian resident, the simple answer to your question is \"\"yes\"\" Having worked as a tax auditor and as a Certified Financial Planner, you are required to file an income tax return because you have taxable employment income. All the employer is doing is deducting it at source and remitting it on your behalf. That does not alleviate your need to file. In fact, if you don't file you will be subject to a no filing penalty. The one aspect you are missing is that taxpayers may be entitled to tax credits that may result in a refund to you depending on your personal situation (e.g spousal or minor dependents). I hope this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8fa467567be1b8c0dc0e2381ed95906", "text": "While you are required to do so as others have said, it's actually in your interest to do so. In a recent article at GlobeInvestor, Tim Cestnick discusses the benefits of filing tax returns for teens. This situation may or may not apply to you but the message is the same. The main benefits are (1) create RRSP contribution room and (2) be eligible for GST/HST credits and other possible one-shot credits (think oil royalty surplus cheques in Alberta). Excerpt: You see, when Lincoln was 14, he filed a tax return and reported $2,000 of income that year. He paid no tax thanks to the basic personal tax credit, but he created $360 of RRSP contribution room that year. Beginning in 2003, Lincoln started working part-time in his father's business. His father agreed to pay him $6,000 each summer to work in the business, to help save money for university. Lincoln didn't pay any tax on the money he earned in those summers because his basic personal tax credit was always higher than his earnings. In addition, Lincoln added to his RRSP contribution room simply by filing a tax return each year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53df92d1e3b246173ac053efc87fa9d4", "text": "Yes, you have to file a tax return in Canada. Non residents that have earned employment income in Canada are required to file a Canadian personal income tax return. Usually, your employer will have deducted sufficient taxes from your pay-cheques, resulting in a tax refund upon filing your Canadian tax return. You will also receive a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid in Canada.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4645e910fa7f0f30aa582dcc00e85207", "text": "In many cases, you are required to file your taxes by law even if you won't owe. If it's anything like in the US, it's quite possible your employer is not taking the right amount and you may owe more or may even be in line for a return. http://www.usatax.ca/Pages/filing_requirement_taxes_canada.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d70c66d71539d742252756e37426e4d", "text": "If you took advantage of options like a home buyers plan (HBP) you definitely need to file since you must designate how much of the plan to repay. Your employer does not know about what you do with your money so cannot take this into account for the withheld taxes. If you do not report repayment of the HBP it will be treated as a withdrawal from your RRSP i.e. additional income for that tax year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfa301d072f1ede64d7a19321e3d22e0", "text": "You are not required to file a tax return in Canada if you have no taxable income. If you do not file a return you may be requested to by Canada Revenue Agency, and then you'll need to file one. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadian residents who do not file tax returns. The Minister who overlooks the CRA may assess any amount of taxes on any resident whether they file a return or not. There are penalties for failing to file a return or filing late. The penalties are based on a percentage of the taxes owed. If you owe no taxes, then the penalties are meaningless.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "708b0a0701ed4c6db8ded6937a20599b", "text": "\"There's no \"\"183 days\"\" rule. As a US citizen you must pay taxes on all your income, where you live is irrelevant.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eebfd26667517727702aaec038ea12a4", "text": "\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \"\"interview\"\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bba32b796ac32de9786cc1594733b90f", "text": "I filed all my tax returns when I was abroad so they know how much I made (just not how much I saved). I smell problems here. If you were compliant wrt to your filings, you must have filed FBAR forms and form 8938. Even if you were below the threshold for form 8938, you will probably be above it when you move back to the US - the threshold for people living in the US is much lower. Do I still need to declare it, even though I might not intend to use this money to help my kids through college? I believe so. Here's what they want: Nothing there suggests that it is only limited to the accounts in the US or to the money you intend to use to help your kids through college.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65c68a828b7a4907e8704f5296b345ee", "text": "If you're under audit - you should get a proper representation. I.e.: EA or CPA licensed in California and experienced with the FTB audit representation. There's a penalty on failure to file form 1099, but it is with the IRS, not the FTB. If I remember correctly, it's something like $50 or $100 per instance. Technically they can disqualify deductions claiming you paid under the table and no taxes were paid on the other side, however I doubt they'd do it in a case of simple omission of filing 1099 forms. Check with your licensed tax adviser. Keep in mind that for the IRS 2011 is now closed, since the 3-year statute of limitations has passed. For California the statute is 4 years, and you're almost at the end of it. However since you're already under audit they may ask you to agree to extend it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70cf8d23890f8f5e17526f378a4ec318", "text": "\"In a word, no. If your income is high enough to have to file a return, you have to file a return. My accountant has a nice mindset for making it more palatable. I'll paraphrase: \"\"Our tax system is ludicrously complicated. As a result, it is your duty as an American to seek out and take advantage of every deduction and credit available to you. If our politicians and leaders put it into the tax code, use it to your advantage.\"\" A friend of mine got a free golf cart that way. It was a crazy combination of credits and loopholes for electric vehicles. That loophole has been closed, and some would say it's a great example of him exercising his patriotic duty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "653e490ace6c1b315324cea013d7d9ef", "text": "Not correct. First - when you say they don't tax the reimbursement, they are classifying it in a way that makes it taxable to you (just not withholding tax at that time). In effect, they are under-withholding, if these reimbursement are high enough, you'll have not just a tax bill, but penalties for not paying enough all year. My reimbursements do not produce any kind of pay stub, they are a direct deposit, and are not added to my income, not as they occur, nor at year end on W2. Have you asked them why they handle it this way? It's wrong, and it's costing you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7b3c9eee55e4e1aca9b47f730125171", "text": "Your employer pays the expected (but estimated) taxes for you. So the chances are you don't own more; but that might be different if you have other sources of income that he doesn't know about (interest on savings or a side-job or whatever). Also, you could have deductions that reduce the taxes you owe, which he again doesn't know, so you overpay. If you don't file, you don't get them back. Most tax software companies offer free usage of their tool for standard filings, and you can use it to find out your tax situation, and then buy the tool only when you want to file. If you use one of those, you can type in all your data, and depending on the result, decide to buy it and file right away. Note that if it turns out you owe taxes, you must file (and pay), but of course you can do it manually instead of buying the tool. If it turns out you get money back, it is your decision to file - you probably don't care for a small amount, but if you get 1000 $ back, you might want to file - again, buying the software of doing it manually.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c3b32d642fa5b954e6042862d04208d", "text": "One significant reason it makes sense for filing to be the default is home ownership rates. I think far more so than investment income, Americans own homes: as there is a significant mortgage interest deduction, between that and investments a large number of Americans would have to file (about a third of Americans get the mortgage interest tax deduction, and a large chunk of the richest don't qualify but would have to file for investments anyway). We also have a very complicated tax code, with nearly everyone getting some kind of deduction. Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor (folks making, say, $30k for a family of 4 with a full-time job get several thousand dollars in refundable credits, for example), the Student Loan interest deduction, the above mortgage deduction, almost everyone gets something. Finally, your employer may not know about your family situation. As we have tax credits and deductions for families based on number of children, for example, it's possible your employer doesn't know about those (if you don't get health insurance on their behalf, they may well not know). Start reporting things like that separately... and you end up with about as much work as filing is now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f32d820d97c3f202be1a3c1a88a1820b", "text": "\"Does he need to file a tax return in this situation? Will the IRS be concerned that he did not file even if he received a 1099? No. However, if you don't file the IRS may come back asking why, or \"\"make up\"\" a return for you assuming that the whole amount on the 1099-MISC is your net earnings. So in the end, I suspect you'll end up filing even though you don't have to, just to prove that you don't have to. Bottom line - if you have 1099 income (or any other income reported to the IRS that brings you over the filing threshold), file a return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ece5a4423569b60c3f64870d4bc281f", "text": "\"I'm assuming that you're in the US. In that case, the answer is that it depends on how your company set up its reimbursement plan. The IRS recognizes \"\"accountable\"\" and \"\"nonaccountable\"\" plans. Accountable plans have to meet certain requirements. Anything else is nonaccountable. If you are reimbursed according to an accountable plan, this is not income and should not be reported to the IRS at all. If you are reimbursed under a nonaccountable plan, then this is income but you might be able to get a deduction on your tax return if you itemize. Most established companies have accountable plans for normal business expenses. More detail from IRS: http://www.tax.gov/TaxabilityCertainFringeBenefits/pdf/Accountable_v_Nonaccountable_Plans_Methods_of_Reimbursing_Employees_for_Expense.pdf\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc721c0bcdd095c130ae3e926407beb0", "text": "Companies in the US will take care of paying a portion of your required income tax on your behalf based on some paperwork you fill out when starting work. However, it is up to you as an individual to submit an income tax return. This is used to ensure that you did not end up under or overpaying based on what your company did on your behalf and any other circumstances that may impact your actual tax owed. In my experience, the process is similar in Europe. I think anyone who has a family, a house or investments in Europe would need to file an income tax return as that is when things start to get complex.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4bdf77bd6c433338ae2798676b50331", "text": "\"There are many people who have deductions far above the standard deduction, but still don't itemize. That's their option even though it comes at a cost. It may be foolish, but it's not illegal. If @littleadv citation is correct, the 'under penalty of perjury' type issue, what of those filers who file a Schedule A but purposely leave off their donations? I've seen many people discuss charity, and write that they do not want to benefit in any way from their donation, yet, still Schedule A their mortgage and property tax. Their returns are therefore fraudulent. I am curious to find a situation in which the taxpayer benefits from such a purposeful oversight, or, better still, a cited case where they were charged with doing so. I've offered advice on filings return that wasn't \"\"truthful\"\". When you own a stock and cannot find cost basis, there are times that you might realize the basis is so low that just entering zero will cost you less than $100 in extra tax. You are not truthful, of course, but this kind of false statement isn't going to lead to any issue. If it gets noticed within an audit, no agent is going to give it more than a moment of time and perhaps suggest, \"\"you didn't even know the year it was bought?\"\" but there would be no consequence. My answer is for personal returns, I'm sure for business, accuracy to the dollar is actually important.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8a34d5de6f3676427fdea0189bc6428", "text": "It would be quite the trick for (a) the government to run all year and get all its revenue in April when taxes are due and (b) for people to actually save the right amount to be able to cut that check each year. W2 employers withhold the estimated federal and state taxes along with the payroll (social security) tax from each paycheck. Since the employer doesn't know how many kids you have, or how much mortgage interest, etc you will take deductions for, you can submit a W4 form to adjust withholdings. The annual Form 1040 in April is to reconcile exact numbers, some people get a refund of some of what they paid in, others owe some money. If one is self-employed, they are required to pay quarterly estimated taxes. And they, too, reconcile exact numbers in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bb1b479d1d600df703dc6c48c682ae7", "text": "Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58fd1222e8565395bee7290f7a71a3e3", "text": "\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
79543b112f41ef73f36586637f586163	Including the region where you live in your investment portfolio?	[ { "docid": "95738b7725dea352d912355a70fde454", "text": "Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a487098eb5d373fc761b2f723dfdff16", "text": "The problem is aggregating information from so many sources, countries, and economies. You are probably more aware of local laws, local tax changes, local economic performance, etc, so it makes sense that you'd be more in tune with your own country. If your intent is to be fully diversified, then buy a total world fund. A lot of hedge funds do what you are suggesting, but I think it requires either some serious math or some serious research. Note: I'm invested in emerging markets (EEM) for exactly the reason you suggest... diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be18dd25573348ca2dd5f1fd1b884d88", "text": "Diversification is just one aspect in an investment portfolio. The other aspects in Investment are Risk Taking Ability, Liquidity, Local Regulations, Tax benefits, Ease & Convenience, Cost of carrying out transactions etc. Investing in other regions is prone FX risk and other risks depending on the region of investment. For example investing in Emerging markets there is a risk of Local Regulations being changed, additional tax being levied, or Political instability and host of such risks. Investing in local markets give you better understanding of such changes and the risk associated is less plus the Ease of carrying out transactions is great, less expensive compared to cost of transactions in other markets. Diversification in Investment should also be looked upon how much you invest in; Equities Debt Bullion Real Estate Once you have a sizeable amount of investment in Equities or Debt, it would then make more sense to diversify this portion more to include funds from other regions. Unless you are an Running your own business, it makes sense to invest in your line of business if that is performing well. The reason being that the benefit / returns from the equities is much greater than the salary rise / bonus. For example I am in Information Technology and yet invest in all leading IT companies because the returns from companies in these segments have been good.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "bde532eae5c6c8cbb1770a4bfd7c4d55", "text": "\"For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: \"\"I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!\"\" -- $2M, these days, is \"\"comfortably well off.\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "880c472155f647b17b728aa8863c09a8", "text": "Personally, I do asset allocation separately for personal investing and for retirement investing, as I the two have vastly different purposes and I have vastly different goals for each. YMMV depending on how you view your non-retirement investments, and how close you are to retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "647740b4ae71f5a6f13b36593cb3f041", "text": "The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b6cde81fdb549260eac7262ff180761", "text": "The idea of an index is that it is representative of the market (or a specific market segment) as a whole, so it will move as the market does. Thus, past performance is not really relevant, unless you want to bank on relative differences between different countries' economies. But that's not the point. By far the most important aspect when choosing index funds is the ongoing cost, usually expressed as Total Expense Ratio (TER), which tells you how much of your investment will be eaten up by trading fees and to pay the funds' operating costs (and profits). This is where index funds beat traditional actively managed funds - it should be below 0.5% The next question is how buying and selling the funds works and what costs it incurs. Do you have to open a dedicated account or can you use a brokerage account at your bank? Is there an account management fee? Do you have to buy the funds at a markup (can you get a discount on it)? Are there flat trading fees? Is there a minimum investment? What lot sizes are possible? Can you set up a monthly payment plan? Can you automatically reinvest dividends/coupons? Then of course you have to decide which index, i.e. which market you want to buy into. My answer in the other question apparently didn't make it clear, but I was talking only about stock indices. You should generally stick to broad, established indices like the MSCI World, S&P 500, Euro Stoxx, or in Australia the All Ordinaries. Among those, it makes some sense to just choose your home country's main index, because that eliminates currency risk and is also often cheaper. Alternatively, you might want to use the opportunity to diversify internationally so that if your country's economy tanks, you won't lose your job and see your investment take a dive. Finally, you should of course choose a well-established, reputable issuer. But this isn't really a business for startups (neither shady nor disruptively consumer-friendly) anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d917fd88122a0370b8a89e8598d25e42", "text": "Let's simplify things by assuming you only own 2 stocks. By owning VOO and VTI, you're overweight on large- and mid-cap stocks relative to the market composition. Likewise, by owning VTI and VT, you're overweight on U.S. stocks; conversely, by owning VXUS and VT, you're overweight on non-U.S. stocks. These are all perfectly fine positions to take if that's what you intend and have justification for. For example, if you're in the U.S., it may be a good idea to hold more U.S. stocks than VT because of currency risk. But 4 equity index ETFs is probably overcomplicating things. It is perfectly fine to hold only VTI and VXUS because these funds comprise thousands of stocks and thus give you sufficient diversification. I would recommend holding those 2 ETFs based on a domestic/international allocation that makes sense to you (Vanguard recommends 40% of your stock allocation to be international), and if for some reason you want to be overweight in large- and mid-cap companies, throw in VOO. You can use Morningstar X-Ray to look at your proposed portfolio and find your optimal mix of geographic and stock style allocation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "135a2e56bf522c48f2db3566edca2a69", "text": "A foreign stock mutual fund definitely belongs in stocks. It's composed of stocks. Your self occupied house is definitely real estate. You don have to keep in mind,however that selling it would create costs such as rent. I wouldn't leave it out, if doing that would cause you to buy more real estate. This would cause you to be overweighted in the real estate area. I would tend to think if a CD as cash. While it could be considered a bond, as you said the principal doesn't go down. The REIT is the toughest one. I would really like to see a graph showing how correlated it is to the real estate market. That would determine where I would put it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "503261d5bff005c524a8682b785a5b54", "text": "International equity are considered shares of companies, which are headquartered outside the United States, for instance Research in Motion (Canada), BMW (Germany), UBS (Switzerland). Some investors argue that adding international equities to a portfolio can reduce its risk due to regional diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bb6f2fa37a7dadb2eecc6d87c3f65f2", "text": "\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \"\"truth\"\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619", "text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f53751a09601e4815ee181201e20979", "text": "\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efd0097229164057ef16b3e11f442cf7", "text": "The closest I can think of from the back of my head is http://finviz.com/map.ashx, which display a nice map and allows for different intervals. It has different scopes (S&P500, ETFs, World), but does not allow for specific date ranges, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d9f05f39288a85e40d0d2571f7e15c5", "text": "\"You are in your mid 30's and have 250,000 to put aside for investments- that is a fantastic position to be in. First, let's evaluate all the options you listed. Option 1 I could buy two studio apartments in the center of a European capital city and rent out one apartment on short-term rental and live in the other. Occasionally I could Airbnb the apartment I live in to allow me to travel more (one of my life goals). To say \"\"European capital city\"\" is such a massive generalization, I would disregard this point based on that alone. Athens is a European capital city and so is Berlin but they have very different economies at this point. Let's put that aside for now. You have to beware of the following costs when using property as an investment (this list is non-exhaustive): The positive: you have someone paying the mortgage or allowing you to recoup what you paid for the apartment. But can you guarantee an ROI of 10-15% ? Far from it. If investing in real estate yielded guaranteed results, everyone would do it. This is where we go back to my initial point about \"\"European capital city\"\" being a massive generalization. Option 2 Take a loan at very low interest rate (probably 2-2.5% fixed for 15 years) and buy something a little nicer and bigger. This would be incase I decide to have a family in say, 5 years time. I would need to service the loan at up to EUR 800 / USD 1100 per month. If your life plan is taking you down the path of having a family and needed the larger space for your family, then you need the space to live in and you shouldn't be looking at it as an investment that will give you at least 10% returns. Buying property you intend to live in is as much a life choice as it is an investment. You will treat the property much different from the way something you rent out gets treated. It means you'll be in a better position when you decide to sell but don't go in to this because you think a return is guaranteed. Do it if you think it is what you need to achieve your life goals. Option 3 Buy bonds and shares. But I haven't the faintest idea about how to do that and/or manage a portfolio. If I was to go down that route how do I proceed with some confidence I won't lose all the money? Let's say you are 35 years old. The general rule is that 100 minus your age is what you should put in to equities and the rest in something more conservative. Consider this: This strategy is long term and the finer details are beyond the scope of an answer like this. You have quite some money to invest so you would get preferential treatment at many financial institutions. I want to address your point of having a goal of 10-15% return. Since you mentioned Europe, take a look at this chart for FTSE 100 (one of the more prominent indexes in Europe). You can do the math- the return is no where close to your goals. My objective in mentioning this: your goals might warrant going to much riskier markets (emerging markets). Again, it is beyond the scope of this answer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bb3abcd14a58afbb8f891284510f413", "text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b7fd84cef86ec642912dd0ad4a815e3", "text": "\"Most (if not all states) in the US are only interested in source income. If you worked in that state they want to tax it. Many states have reciprocity agreements with neighboring states to exempt income earned when a person works in lets say Virginia, but lives in a state that touches Virginia. Most states don't consider interest and dividends for individuals as source income. They don't care where the bank or mutual fund branch is located, or headquartered.If it is interest from a business they will allocate it to the state where the business is located. If you may ask you to allocate the funds between two states if you move during the year, but most people will just divide the interest and dividends based on the number of days in each state unless there is a way to directly allocate the funds to a particular state. Consider this: Where is the money when it is in a bank with multiple branches? The money is only electronic, and your actual \"\"$'s\"\" may be in a federal reserve branch. Pension funds are invested in projects all over the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62c2505b9c73061efe7702f188ad3fbd", "text": "It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given. A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
84c1114ab0711602609d38f9512c30fd	Why do US retirement funds typically have way more US assets than international assets?	[ { "docid": "7d40e0940f7bca386ac3118b76bbdfbd", "text": "There are a few main economic reasons given why investors show a strong home bias: Interestingly, though if you ask investors about the future of their home country compared with other countries they will generally (though not always) significantly overestimate the future of their own country. It is difficult to definitively say what drives investors but this psychological home bias could be one of the larger factors. Edit in response to the bounty: Maybe this Vanguard article on their recommended international exposure is what you are looking for though they only briefly speculate about why people so consistently show a home bias in investing. The Wikipedia article mentioned above has some very good references and while there may be no complete answer with the certainty that you seek (as there are as many reasons as there are investors) a combination of the above list seems to capture much of what is going on across different countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f267f546a9aa7ca0178a43125fe42b50", "text": "\"It's likely that the main reason is the additional currency risk for non-USD investments. A wider diversification in general lowers risk, but that has to be balanced by the risk incurred when investing abroad. This implies that the key factor isn't so much the country of residence, but the currency of the listing. Euro funds can invest across the whole Euro zone. Things become more complex when you consider countries whose currency is less trusted and whose economy is less diversified. In those cases, the \"\"currency risk\"\" may be more due to the national currency, which justifies a more global investment strategy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "306f3a6fe8fd8857a8f456e4e684ea13", "text": "\"To expand a bit on @MSalters's answer ... When I read your question title I assumed that by \"\"retirement funds\"\" you meant target-date funds that are close to their target dates (say, the 2015 target fund). When I saw that you were referring to all target-date funds, it occurred to me that examining how such funds modify their portfolios over time would actually help answer your question. If you look at a near-term target fund you can see that a smaller percent is invested internationally, the same way a smaller percent is invested in stocks. It's because of risk. Since it's more likely that you will need some of the money soon, and since you'll be cashing out said money in US Dollars, it's risky to have too much invested in foreign currencies. If you need money that's currently invested in a foreign currency and that currency happens to be doing poorly against USD at the moment, then you'll lose money simply because you need it now. This is the same rationale that goes into target-date funds' moving from stocks to bonds over time. Since the value of a stock portfolio has a lot more natural volatility than the value of a bond portfolio, if you're heavily invested in stocks when you need to withdraw money, there's a higher probability that you'll need to cash out just when stocks happen to be doing relatively poorly. Being invested more in bonds around when you'll need your money is less risky. Similarly, being more invested in US dollars than in foreign currencies around when you'll need your money is also less risky.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15a6082d1454328277850caf56f59175", "text": "You need growth in your retirement fund. Sad to say but the broad U.S. marks still has better growth perspective than the emerging markets. Look at China they are only at 6.7% growth for next year the same as this year. Russia's economy is shrinking. These are the other two super powers of 2015. The USA is still the best market to invest in historically and in the present. That's why the USA market tends to be overweight in most retirement portfolios. Now by only investing in the USA market do you miss out on trends internationally? Well you do a bit but not entirely. Many USA companies are highly international in regards to their growth. Here are some: So in short the USA market still seems to be the best growth market and you still get some international exposure. Also by investing in USA companies they sometimes are more ethical in their book keeping as opposed to some other markets. I don't think I'm the only one that is skeptical of the numbers China's government reports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4fb93947461cf2614b37f4ea50bbec9b", "text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cb559b3a92b5f40f1f5c02c84656f0f", "text": "Because retirement account usually are tax effective vehicles - meaning you will pay less tax on any profits from your investments in a retirement account than you would outside. For example, in my country Australia, for someone on say $60,000 per annum, if you make $10,000 profits on your investments that year you will end up paying 34.5% tax (or $3,450) on that $10,000 profits. If you made the same profits in a retirement account (superannuation fund) you would have only paid 15% tax (or $1,500) on the $10,000 profit. That's less than half the tax. And if you are on a higher income the savings would be even greater. The reason why you can't take the money out of a retirement account is purely because the aim is to build up the funds for your retirement, and not take it out at any time you want. You are given the incentive to pay less tax on any investment profits in order for you to save and grow your funds so that you might have a more comfortable retirement (a time when you might not be able to work any more for your money).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c483acb58363d9f4b5159678bd56c98e", "text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49992736fd22c5c34efdd7992ee2229c", "text": "The logic is that the value of America could be determined by adding up the assets of all Americans. If houses are more expensive then America is richer (we own a large number of more expensive houses), even though no additional real assets have been created (as if more houses were built).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7541f07a95a913977a15cc8030734b8", "text": "\"I still don't understand this \"\"analysis.\"\" Even when the US became the world's largest economy in 1880, the British Pound remained the reserve currency of choice until the 1950s, some seventy years later! Investors prefer stability and property rights and the US has both, especially when considering the alternatives, i.e. Euro tax takings on bank deposits in Cyprus. What about the yuan? China may have recently surpassed US economic power, but it is very likely in the midst of a massive credit bubble. China has also been fudging some of their numbers and in many cases, chooses not to keep economic records at all. The fact that many Chinese elites themselves are buying property in Vancouver and the US as a safe harbor also does not bode well for their systemic problems IMO. I'm sticking with the dollar for now.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab49bc410881ee4bc8e5e5d965482653", "text": "\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5Asig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \"\"over the period tracked\"\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79ecb26ea9c0236996186ea69aed8152", "text": "\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1592b80f5b99de632e7d9825d8bde8e", "text": "Wow this is a bad article. This is a notional amount.... Eg. $500M US equity fund in Australia wants to hedge their US exposure. They buy a $500M forward contract and roll it over quarterly. Each quarter they settle on the difference (let's say $50 - 500k +/- depending on the way FX moves). What matters is the amount owed...not the notional value. Same goes for interest rates. $1B bond fund could short the 10yr to lower interest rate sensitivity...the end value isn't $1B. It's whatever they owe on the difference at settlement. The issue of swap spreads or settlement/liquidity is so much more important!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0848988ee6bf5d902b7090dcbc46de00", "text": "The location does matter in the case where you introduce currency risk; by leaving you US savings in USD, you're basically working on the assumption that the USD will not lose value against the EUR - if it does and you live in the EUR-zone, you've just misplaced some of your capital. Of course that also works the other way around if the USD appreciates against the EUR, you gained some money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56290eb39d292df78b8af33f4e308903", "text": "Mostly you nailed it. It's a good question, and the points you raise are excellent and comprise good analysis. Probably the biggest drawback is if you don't agree with the asset allocation strategy. It may be too much/too little into stocks/bonds/international/cash. I am kind of in this boat. My 401K offers very little choices in funds, but offers Vanguard target funds. These tend to be a bit too conservative for my taste, so I actually put money in the 2060 target fund. If I live that long, I will be 94 in 2060. So if the target funds are a bit too aggressive for you, move down in years. If they are a bit too conservative, move up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "118c4f391c47a9cef09d2b7a8617650b", "text": "Assuming you're in the United States, then International Equity is an equity from a different country. These stocks or stock funds (which reside in a foreign country) are broken out seperately becuase they are typically influenced by a different set of factors than equities in the United States: foreign currency swings, regional events and politics of various countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9eee8e19e9f44b9229656342cdb3bcb6", "text": "\"Excellent question, though any why question can be challenging to answer because it depends on the financial products in question. At least, I haven't seen many target date retirement funds that include a high percent of foreign stocks, so below explains the ones I've seen which are primarily US stocks. The United States (before the last twenty years) has been seen as a country of stability. This is not true anymore, and it's difficult for my generation to understand because we grew up in the U.S.A being challenged (and tend to think that China and India have always been powers), but when we read investors, like Benjamin Graham (who had significant influence with Warren Buffett), we can see this bias - the U.S.A to them is stable, and other countries are \"\"risky.\"\" Again, with the national debt and the political game in our current time, it does not feel this way. But that bias is often reflect in financial instruments. The US Dollar is still the reserve currency, though it's influence is declining and I would expect it to decline. Contrary to my view (because I could be wrong here) is Mish, who argues that no one wants to have the reserve currency because having a reserve currency brings disadvantages (see here: Bogus Threats to US Reserve Currency Status: No Country Really Wants It!; I present this to show that my view could be wrong). Finally, there tends to be the \"\"go with what you know.\"\" Many of these funds are managed by U.S. citizens, so they tend to have a U.S. bias and feel more comfortable investing their money \"\"at home\"\" (in fact a famous mutual fund manager, Peter Lynch, had a similar mentality - buy the company behind the stock and what company do we tend to know best? The ones around us.). One final note, I'm not saying this mentality is correct, just what the attitude is like. I think you may find that younger mutual fund managers tend to include more foreign stocks, as they've seen that different world.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "704b6900ee772c3bc8f88707d1921036", "text": "I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a1962707304e58f79eb56f2e61454ad", "text": "Significantly less effort to buy into any of several international bond index funds. Off the top of my head, VTIBX.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af7535b950b00daa65f3e587fcb3e827", "text": "Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations. Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year): https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap. Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it. Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning. Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market. Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already. Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver. There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again. The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc. Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e28b9d4776ecde4668d499d454730a6e	Do I need to file taxes when selling on eBay or Amazon?	[ { "docid": "2b20f947365127fa9960e94eccba69e3", "text": "\"In simple terms, it is a business operation when it becomes a profit-making enterprise. It is a grey area, but there is a difference between selling occasional personal items on eBay and selling for profit. I would imagine the sort of considerations HM Revenue & Customs would take into account are the size of your turnover, the extent to which you are both buying and selling, and whether you are clearly specialising in one particular commodity as opposed of disposing of unwanted presents or clearing the loft. http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/When-does-eBay-selling-become-taxable-/10000000004494855/g.html I don't believe that you selling your personal camera gear will be taxable, but as the link says, it is a grey area. They also recommend to do this It's far better than having to deal with an investigation a few years down the line. When it comes to completing your tax return, there is a section which is headed \"\"other income\"\", and it is here where you will enter the net earnings from the web business. \"\"Net\"\" here means your additional income, less all expenses associated with it. If you are still worried I would always encourage people to take a cautious approach and discuss their position with HMRC via its helpline on 08454 915 4515.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "598447d7fc5f43f2a053c5c29cf3c2a4", "text": "It's called bartering and the IRS has a page titled Four Things to Know About Bartering. The summary is - The bottom line is this is taxable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18bec4a970be8966d9135b371b8116bc", "text": "No they do not. From form 1040 instructions, a single, non-blind dependent under age 65 must file if the following are true: You must file a return if any of the following apply. There is no return required for receipt of a gift.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb3edb9346792440f6dfe9396e27c24c", "text": "If you have non Residency status in Canada you don't need to file Canadian tax return. To confirm your status you need to contact Canada Revenue (send them letter, probably to complete some form).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11aa0d830ce41e174690756c06ce534f", "text": "(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "810d4842bdc077402c3b1d10247a8e7f", "text": "If your gross income is only $3000, then you don't need to file: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf That said, pay careful attention to: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad You should be reporting ALL income, without regard to WHERE you earned it, on your US taxes. Not doing so could indeed get you in trouble if you are audited. Your level of worry depends on how much of the tax law you are willing to dodge, and how lucky you feel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f32d820d97c3f202be1a3c1a88a1820b", "text": "\"Does he need to file a tax return in this situation? Will the IRS be concerned that he did not file even if he received a 1099? No. However, if you don't file the IRS may come back asking why, or \"\"make up\"\" a return for you assuming that the whole amount on the 1099-MISC is your net earnings. So in the end, I suspect you'll end up filing even though you don't have to, just to prove that you don't have to. Bottom line - if you have 1099 income (or any other income reported to the IRS that brings you over the filing threshold), file a return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a195bc1db3e3089f9216fa4126fd4007", "text": "\"Yes, you can do that, but you have to have the stocks issued in your name (stocks that you're holding through your broker are issued in \"\"street name\"\" to your broker). If you have a physical stock certificate issued in your name - you just endorse it like you would endorse a check and transfer the ownership. If the stocks don't physically exist - you let the stock registrar know that the ownership has been transferred to someone else. As to the price - the company doesn't care much about the price of private sales, but the taxing agency will. In the US, for example, you report such a transaction as either a gift (IRS form 709), if the transaction was at a price significantly lower than the FMV (or significantly higher, on the other end), or a sale (IRS form 1040, schedule D) if the transaction was at FMV.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7416d510ca61428b034926cf72ad7b2", "text": "\"Appears to be a hypothetical question and not really worth answering but... Must it be explained.. no, not until audited. It's saying that for everything reported on a tax return, people have to include an explanation for everything, which you do not, unless you want to make some type of 'disclosure' which is a different matter. Must it be reported.. Yes, based on info presented. All income is taxable unless \"\"specifically exempted\"\" per the US Tax code or court cases. Gift vs Found Income... it's not 'found' income as someone gave (gifted) the money to him. Generally, gifts received are not taxable and don't have to be reported.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba1ad496da75fa89e0e779d75eb78141", "text": "\"Yes, your business needs to be in the business of making money in order for you to deduct the expenses associated with it. I suppose in theory this could mean that if you take in $10,000 and spend $30,000 every year, you not only don't get a net deduction of $20,000 (your loss) but you have to pay tax on $10,000 (your revenue). However this is super fixable. Just only deduct $9500 of your expenses. Tada! Small profit.For all the gory details, including how they consider whether you have an expectation of profits, see http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/gl/p-176r/p-176r-e.html This \"\"expectation of profit\"\" rule appears to apply to things like \"\"I sell home décor items (or home decorating advice) and therefore need to take several multi week trips to exotic vacation destinations every year and deduct them as business expenses.\"\" If you're doing woodworking or knitting in your home and selling on Etsy you don't particularly have any expenses. It's hard to imagine a scenario where you consistently sell for less than the cost of materials and then end up dinged on paying tax on revenue.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28bbf8163b26a822c22b96df8ef1fcec", "text": "You continue with this form. The fact that the trade in value is less than market value doesn't mean that you don't have taxable income from the sale. Since you depreciated the car before selling it, you need to compare the trade in value not to the market value, but to your cost basis, which may be lower.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44f7f02ebc9b4bba410c9a805b9ed00d", "text": "\"If you have income - it should appear on your tax return. If you are a non-resident, that would be 1040NR, with the eBay income appearing on line 21. Since this is unrelated to your studies, this income will not be covered by the tax treaties for most countries, and you'll pay full taxes on it. Keep in mind that the IRS may decide that you're actually having a business, in which case you'll be required to attach Schedule C to your tax return and maybe pay additional taxes (mainly self-employment). Also, the USCIS may decide that you're actually having a business, regardless of how the IRS sees it, in which case you may have issues with your green card. For low income from occasional sales, you shouldn't have any issues. But if it is something systematic that you spend significant time on and earn significant amounts of money - you may get into trouble. What's \"\"systematic\"\" and how much is \"\"significant\"\" is up to a lawyer to tell you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2ec0e4cfbb63734217e34fd4fd9f04d", "text": "You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f77159e3b4d193b5e3b72e959ddf5cf", "text": "You don't need to submit a K-1 form to anyone, but you will need to transcribe various entries on the K-1 form that you will receive onto the appropriate lines on your tax return. Broadly speaking, assets received as a bequest from someone are not taxable income to you but any money that was received by your grandmother's estate between the time of death and the time of distribution of the assets (e.g. interest, mutual fund distributions paid in cash, etc) might be passed on to you in full instead of the estate paying income tax on this income and sending you only the remainder. If so, this other money would be taxable income to you. The good news is that if the estate trust distributions include stock, your basis for the stock is the value as of the date of death (nitpickers: I am aware that the estate is allowed to pick a different date for the valuation but I am trying to keep it simple here). That is, if the stock has appreciated, your grandmother never paid capital gains on those unrealized capital gains, and you don't have to pay tax on those capital gains either; your basis is the appreciated value and if and when you sell the stock, you pay tax only on the gain, if any, between the day that Grandma passed away and the day you sell the stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71d5d98b04b8b3014d949fa925d595d7", "text": "As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4dcc6b3ab3c7a2c70e69426a6c8820e", "text": "You do not need to file 1099-MISC to yourself if you're running as a sole proprietor - you are yourself. However, you do not deduct this amount from your business income and report it as royalties either. Your self-published book is your business income subject to SE tax. You can only deduct the actual costs of producing/writing, and the remaining amount is your Schedule C income.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a2ebc7c88f67f889869cfcdf532d9f4e	What are the risks of Dividend-yielding stocks?	[ { "docid": "d2644f6e1393dd5456a5622d75f2ca7f", "text": "Yep, there just is no free lunch. So called high dividend stocks are usually from companies that have stable cash flows but relatively little or moderate growth potential. Utility companies come to mind, let's take telecommunications as an example. Such stocks, usually, indeed are considered more conservative. In a bull market, they won't make high jumps, and in a bear market they shouldn't experience deep falls. I mean, just because the stock market fell by 10%, you're not going to stop using your phone. The stock might suffer a bit but the divided is still yielding you the same. However, fundamental data can have a significant impact. Let's say a recession hits the country of the telco. People might not get the newest iPhone and lock in to an expensive contract anymore, they might use cheaper forms of communication, they might stop paying bills, go bankrupt etc. This will have a severe impact on the company's cash flow and thus hit the stock in a double whammy: One, the dividend is gone. Two, the price will fall even further. There are basically two scenarios after that. Either the recession is temporary and your stock became a regular growth stock that at some point might bounce back and re-establish at the previous levels. Or the economy has contracted permanently but regained stability in which case you will again have a stock with a high dividend yield but based on a lower price. In conclusion: High dividend stocks make sense in a portfolio. But never consider their income to be safe. Reduce your risk by diversifying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e3c8d461b7b18ae5317d268334ae9b0", "text": "Dividend Stocks like any stock carry risk and go both up and down. It is important to choose a stock based on the company's potential and performance. And, if they pay a dividend it does help. -RobF", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4930ad8b4477424986d9bb08fd76f2b", "text": "The risk in a divident paying stock can come from 2 sources. The business of the company, or the valuation of the stock at the time you buy. The business of the company relates to how they are running things, the risks they are taking with the company, innovations in their pipeline, and their competitive landscape. You can find all sorts of examples of companies that paid nice dividends but didn't end so well... Eastman Kodak, Enron, Lehman brothers, all used to pay very nice dividends at some point... On the other hand you have the valuation. The company is running great, but the market has unrealistic expectations about it. Think Amazon and Yahoo back in 2001... the price was way too high for the company's worth. As the price of a stock goes up, the return that you get from its future cash flows (dividends) goes down (and viceversa). If you want to go deep into the subject, check out this course from Chicago U they spend a lot of time talking about dividends, future returns from stocks and the risk rewards of finding stocks by methods such as these.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee5ebb3166c476aae0783c775c317dc4", "text": "Having a good dividend yield doesn't guarantee that a stock is safe. In the future, the company may run into financial trouble, stop paying dividends, or even go bankrupt. For this reason, you should never buy a stock just because it has a high dividend yield. You also need some criteria to determine whether that stock is safe to buy. Personally, I consider a stock is reasonably safe if it meets the following criteria:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5a3d6571cd81096cd5d15ac5f33b0bb", "text": "\"No stock is risk-free. Some of the biggest companies in the country, that seemed incredibly stable and secure, have suffered severe downturns or gone out of business. Twenty or thirty years ago Kodak ruled the camera film market. But they didn't react quickly enough when digital cameras came along and today they're a shadow of their former self. Forty years ago IBM owned like 90% of the computer market -- many people used \"\"IBM\"\" as another word for computer. Sears used to dominate the retail department store market. Etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "299853db8bcf407fd6521d9673dc0cde", "text": "One strategy to consider is a well-diversified index fund of equities. These have historically averaged 7-8% real growth. So withdrawing 3% or 4% yearly under that growth should allow you to withdraw 30+ years with little risk of drawing down all your capital. As a bonus you're savings target would come down from $10 million to $2.5 million to a little under $3.5 million.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0ccdc6551bab3d553a85e58f297e935e", "text": "A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c372d42ad4cbdb97645e1f11384d9124", "text": "\"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender \"\"such as a broker\"\" , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dda0fb223ab5a85f71808cc1cc96cd93", "text": "\"Good observation. In fact, the S&P index itself is guilty of not including dividends. So when you look at the index alone, the delta between any two points in time diverges, and the 20 return observed if one fails to include dividends is meaningless, in my my humble opinion. Yahoo finance will let you look at a stock ticker and offer you an \"\"adjusted close\"\" to include the dividend effect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b68a08ae762146bd2022814306162a4a", "text": "\"Random question: are there any companies with \"\"physical,\"\" \"\"real,\"\" or \"\"in-kind\"\" dividends? For clarification, suppose a winery offers a security with a dividend of X bottles of wine deliverable annually for every Y amount of shares owned. Does such a company or practice exist?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25642445db62867fabedea609cea9f71", "text": "Long-term bonds -- any bonds, really -- can be risky for two main reasons: return on principal, or return of principal. The former is a problem if interest rates are low (which they are now in the US) because existing bonds will fall in price if interest rates rise. The second is a problem if the lender defaults: IOU nothing. No investment is riskless. Short-term bonds command a lower interest rate than long-term bonds (usually) because of their quicker maturity, but short-term bonds carry risk just like long-term bonds (though the interest rate risk is lower, sometimes quite a bit lower, than for long-term bonds).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b67e4d82a9e0277becf00e9f95279d94", "text": "\"You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called \"\"meager return\"\" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios. In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk. You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals. For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain Investment option B Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "661faa4d48f96d63ec1a4467fefc9842", "text": "The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caaa941e38ec9ee827a9992f82a54e8c", "text": "\"Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have \"\"distributions\"\" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cfa0834b636fde849cb2ec3218d1032", "text": "To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay. Volitility relative to loan term effectively.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e699a0816100fcf20f7554246ab75094", "text": "Dividends are actually a very stable portion of equity returns, the Great recession and Great Depression notwithstanding: However, dividends, with lower variance have lower returns. Most of the return is due to the more variant price: So while dividends fell by 25% during the worst drop since the Great Depression, prices fell almost by 2/3. If one can accumulate enough wealth to live only off of dividend income, the price risk becomes much more manageable. This is the ideal circumstance for retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9", "text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92f0b60388d535a8b24ec5ee5eac7417", "text": "\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5800f63f0c10a1e5baba7f2a38d43ef", "text": "From the hover text of the said screen; Latest dividend/dividend yield Latest dividend is dividend per share paid to shareholders in the most recent quarter. Dividend yield is the value of the latest dividend, multiplied by the number of times dividends are typically paid per year, divided by the stock price. So for Ambev looks like the dividend is inconsistantly paid and not paid every quarter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b31af198fa10e9b9452c1f78618b999", "text": "I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover. Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier. Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ee8d4a941cc76b83c804066b7e40877", "text": "Your friend is investing time & money in a business that does not list an address or phone number on its website, not even in its 'press kit'. Even when they make a press release about moving into a new building, it does not list the address or even the street! C'mon, this is obviously a scam. No real business acts like this.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2c5a958f2efe42987fe096fc52e3a9cb	Effective returns on investment in housing vs other financial instruments	[ { "docid": "9446134c4389c8289474a7910980a74b", "text": "Then at the end, if you decide to cash in your house, you can roll the proceeds into a fancier house to avoid paying taxes on your profit. The problem is that the book was written in 1989. That comment is no longer true; that part of the tax law changed in the 1990's. Also in 1989 the maximum amount that person could put in an IRA was $2,000 and hadn't been raised for almost a decade and wouldn't be raised for another decade. Roth accounts didn't exist; nor did HSA's or 529's. Most people didn't have a 401K. You are asking to compare what options we have today compared to what was available in the late 1980's. For me except, for the years 2001-2005 and 2010-2015, the period from 1988 until now has had flat real estate values. Still the current values haven't returned to the peak in 2005. The score is 11 great years, 17 flat or negative. I know many people who during the 1990's had a zero return on their real estate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0574b5b0f9213013d170ade61b82d319", "text": "Thinking of personal residence as investment is how we got the bubble and crash in housing prices, and the Great Recession. There is no guarantee that a house will appreciate, or even retain value. It's also an extremely illiquid item; selling it, especially if you're seeking a profit, can take a year or more. ' Housing is not guaranteed to appreciate constantly, or at all. Tastes change and renovations rarely pay for themselves. Things wear out and have costs. Neighborhoods change in popularity. Without rental income and the ability to write off some of the costs as business expense, it isn't clear the tax advantage closes that gap, especislly as the advantage is limited to the taxes upon your mortgage interest (by deducting that from AGI). If this is the flavor of speculation you want to engage in, fine, but I've seen people screw themselves over this way and wind up forced to sell a house for a loss. By all means hope your home will be profitable, count it as part of your net wealth... but generally Lynch is wrong here, or at best oversimplified. A house can be an investment (or perhaps more accurately a business), or your home, but -- unless you're renting out the other half of a duplex,which splits the difference -- trying to treat it as both is dangerous accounting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cb8d2713786a67c691618f992ccd148", "text": "The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b2f2dc9071e084e677614bd296b2ff87", "text": "It depends on your tax rate. Multiply your marginal rate (including state, if applicable) by your 3.1% to figure out how much you are saving through the deduction, then subtract that from the 3.1% to get the effective rate on the mortgage. For example, if you are in the 28% bracket with no state tax impact from the mortgage, your effective rate on the mortgage is 2.232%. This also assumes you'd still itemize deductions without the mortgage, otherwise, the effective deduction is less. Others have pointed out more behavioral reasons for wanting to pay off the car first, but from a purely financial impact, this is the way to analyze it. This is also your risk-free rate to compare additional investing to (after taking into account taxes on investments).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "033272001584b44ca78b60db0b437eab", "text": "\"I think your analysis is very clear, it's a sensible approach, and the numbers sound about right to me. A few other things you might want to think about: Tax In some jurisdictions you can deduct mortgage interest against your income tax. I see from your profile that you're in Texas, but I don't know the exact situation there and I think it's better to keep this answer general anyway. If that's the case for you, then you should re-run your numbers taking that into account. You may also be able to make your investments tax-advantaged, for example if you save them in a retirement account. You'll need to apply the appropriate limits for your specific situation and take an educated guess as to how that might change over the next 30 years. Liquidity The money you're not spending on your mortgage is money that's available to you for other spending or emergencies - i.e. even though your default assumption is to invest it and that's a sensible way to compare with the mortgage, you might still place some extra value on having more free access to it. Overpayments Would you have the option to pay extra on the mortgage? That's another way of \"\"investing\"\" your money that gets you a guaranteed return of the mortgage rate. You might want to consider if you'd want to send some of your excess money that way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cfd122bd9fab80baa3b6d76c8f2a0c1", "text": "Lucky you - here where I live that does not work, you put money on the table year 1. Anyhow... You HAVE to account for inflation. THat is where the gain comes from. Not investment increase (value of item), but the rent goes higher, while your mortgage does not (you dont own more moeny in 3 years if you keep paying, but likely you take more rent). Over 5 or 10 years the difference may be significant. Also you pay back the mortgage - that is not free cash flow, but it is a growth in your capital base. Still, 1 flat does not make a lot ;) You need 10+, so go on earning more down payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d5e53ab2855fd2ab6a6e5876d1781fa", "text": "There is the opportunity cost. Let's say it cost you $1000 to buy 0.25% discount. Over N number of years that saves you let's say $2000 thus your profit is $1000. What if you took that $1000 and invested it? Would you have more than $2000 after N number of years? Obviously answering this question is not easy but you can make some educated guesses. For example, you can compare the return you'll likely get from investing in CD or treasury bond. A bit more risky is to invest in the stock market but an index fund should be fairly safe and you can easily find the average return over 5 - 10 year period. For example, if your loan is $200,000 at 0.25% per year you'll get $500 in savings. Over 10 years that's $5000 - $1000 to buy the point, you end up with $4000. Using the calculator on this site, I calculated that if you invested in the Dow Jones industrial average between 2007 and 2017 you total return would have been 111% (assuming dividends are reinvested) or you would've had a total of $2110. I'm not sure how accurate those numbers are but it seems likely that buying points is a pretty good investment if you stay in the house for 10 years or more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e725542c1d026fca1da7d80aedc71bca", "text": "I plotted your figures in my Buy or Rent app. It compares the equity of buying or renting by calculating what your mortgage payment would be and comparing the alternative case if you rented and invested an equivalent amount. Clearly for the amounts you specified it is better to buy, but if you change the amounts and interest or property appreciation you can see the equity effects.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6470741c89540d9d5adea1af37740f9b", "text": "\"I don't follow the numbers in your example, but the fundamental question you're asking is, \"\"If I can borrow money for a low cost, and if I think I can invest it and receive returns greater than that cost, should I do it?\"\" It doesn't matter where that money comes from, a mortgage that's bigger than it needs to be, a credit card teaser rate, or a margin line from your stock broker. The answer is \"\"maybe\"\" - depending on the certainty you have about the returns you'd receive on your investments and your tolerance for risk. Only you can answer that question for yourself. If you make less than your mortgage rates on the investments, you'll wish you hadn't! As an aside, I don't know anything about Belgian tax law, but in US tax law, your deductions can be limited to the actual value of the home. Your law may be similar and thus increase the effective mortgage interest rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74b3f1e58bda2b062d3ad816837fd262", "text": "Certainly, paying off the mortgage is better than doing nothing with the money. But it gets interesting when you consider keeping the mortgage and investing the money. If the mortgage rate is 5% and you expect >5% returns from stocks or some other investment, then it might make sense to seek those higher returns. If you expect the same 5% return from stocks, keeping the mortgage and investing the money can still be more tax-efficient. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 30%, the real cost of mortgage interest (in terms of post-tax money) is 3.5%. If your investment results in long-term capital gains taxed at 15%, the real rate of growth of your post-tax money would be 4.25%. So in post-tax terms, your rate of gain is greater than your rate of loss. On the other hand, paying off the mortgage is safer than investing borrowed money, so doing so might be more appropriate for the risk-averse. I'm oversimplifying a bit by assuming the deduction doesn't change your marginal tax rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71146df668f12b055a8d5912ca96a59b", "text": "It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1021105f9b691a94f55193b46aa9d692", "text": "Lets do the math, using your numbers. We start off with $100K, a desire to buy a house and invest, and 30 years to do it. Scenario #1 We buy a house for $100K mortgage at 5% interest over 30 years. Monthly payment ends up being $536.82/month. We then take the $100K we still have and invest it in stocks, earning an average of 9% annually and paying 15% taxes. Scenario #2 We buy a house for our $100K cash, and then, every month, we invest the $536.82 we would have paid for the mortgage. Again, investments make 9% annually long term, and we pay 15% taxes. How would it look in 30 years? Scenario #1 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $912,895 in investments Scenario #2 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $712,745 in investments Conclusion: NOT paying off your mortgage early results in an additional $200,120 in networth after 30 years. That's 28% more. Therefore, not paying off your mortgage is the superior scenario. Caveats/Notes/Things to consider Play with the numbers yourself:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "516c2d122e4ea621f52e35fbf8647cce", "text": "My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage. So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily. Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future. On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A. Let's say you lose your job a year from now. Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed. But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it. People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f18fc365689652e6ace8938a416fef9d", "text": "\"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce932128386e9ac1e3bdbe0c347a0ad7", "text": "If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c517ef7ba52c41d23492de2239036a19", "text": "Investing in property hoping that it will gain value is usually foolish; real estate increases about 3% a year in the long run. Investing in property to rent is labor-intensive; you have to deal with tenants, and also have to take care of repairs. It's essentially getting a second job. I don't know what the word pension implies in Europe; in America, it's an employer-funded retirement plan separate from personally funded retirement. I'd invest in personally funded retirement well before buying real estate to rent, and diversify my money in that retirement plan widely if I was within 10-20 years of retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50150ac90b2de391daae4d1c1855ce12", "text": "\"A home is an investment, but the value it returns isn't primarily financial ($$) - they are consumption (a place to live). This gives it different characteristics than other investments (e.g. increasing the amount invested by buying a more expensive home doesn't do much to assist your financial well-being and future income, and isn't necessarily the \"\"responsible\"\" thing to do). You may get some capital gains, typically in line with inflation, sometimes less, sometimes more, but those aren't the most reliable, and it's difficult to realize them (it involves selling your house and moving). Its main value as a hedge is a hedge against rising rent. But if you're still working full-time and can expect cost-of-living increases, that hedge may not be as valuable to you as it would to, say, someone living on a fixed income. But as for treating it as a \"\"low-risk investment\"\"? That's very problematic. Real low-risk investments are things like government bonds, where you can't lose principal. Unless you're going to live into your house until the day you die, the real estate crash should have disabused you of any notion that housing values never go down. Rather, your house is a single, indivisible, undiversified, illiquid investment. Imagine, if you will, going to your brokerage and borrowing a hundred thousand dollars or more on margin to invest in a single real estate investment trust... then take away whatever diversification the trust offered by holding multiple properties. Also, you can't sell any of it until you move away, and the transaction fee will take something like 3%. Still sound \"\"safe\"\"? Moreover, it's exactly the wrong kind of risk. Your house's value is tied to what people are willing to pay for housing where your house is, which is usually subject to the whims of the local economy. This means that in a recession and housing bust in the local economy, you can lose your job and have your mortgage go underwater at the same time. It totally makes sense to treat your house as an investment to some extent, and it makes double sense for a financial adviser to consider it as part of your investment recommendations. \"\"Safety\"\" is not the way you should be thinking of it, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "104851bebfcd64861002248134924b53", "text": "The finance sector is comprised of such enterprises as banks, investment funds, insurance companies and real estate. It is traditionally contrasted with what has been called the 'real economy' because funds created and utilized in this sector produce neither goods, services or fixed capital. The unproductive nature of transactions can easily be seen in such things as real estate. When a company undertakes to build a house or whatever its input goes directly to the labor and goods necessary for such a project. At its worst the financial sector mobilizes funds not just for production but for simple acquisition. Should a company raise the funds to buy an already existing building or the mortgage on same quite obviously nothing is produced. Same building on day one as when it was owned by another. That, of course, is an extreme example as are corporate takeovers via private equity. In that case the efforts of the financial sector are not just non-productive but are often in fact ''anti-productive'' as they destroy or prevent the use of real factors of production. This 'anti-productive' action was demonstrated on a massive global scale during the last financial crisis. The basically parasitic nature of the financial sector isn't always so blatant. There are some that argue that its 'services' can be valuable to the real economy. Perhaps, but that has to be determined on a case by case examination and while keeping the idea ''is there a better way to do this** in one's mind.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a8ccecb6ffa78b9d99799a79338225e0	Investor returns from crowdfunding	[ { "docid": "809e241fbfea8c8199c5d2883dee43b6", "text": "\"Crowdfunding can be a legitimate means of funding very small startups. It is an innovative, but obviously risky, method of raising small amounts of money. As such it is now regulated by the SEC under \"\"Regulation Crowdfunding\"\" They have published guides for these types of business startups to help them with required disclosures and reporting requirements: https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/rccomplianceguide-051316.htm Here's the introduction to the relevant regulatory authority of the SEC: Under the Securities Act of 1933, the offer and sale of securities must be registered unless an exemption from registration is available. Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012 added Securities Act Section 4(a)(6) that provides an exemption from registration for certain crowdfunding transactions.[2] In 2015, the Commission adopted Regulation Crowdfunding to implement the requirements of Title III.[3] Under the rules, eligible companies will be allowed to raise capital using Regulation Crowdfunding starting May 16, 2016. It is obviously a new form of investment but you should be able to get historical data on the SEC's real time Edgar reporting system once there is some history. This is a search for all Form C's filed as of 12/2/16\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c1402c618145c984650ff00198caab0f", "text": "Remember that unless you participate in the actual fund that these individuals offer to the public, you will not get the same returns they will. If you instead do something like, look at what Warren Buffet's fund bought/sold yesterday (or even 60 minutes ago), and buy/sell it yourself, you will face 2 obstacles to achieving their returns: 1) The timing difference will mean that the value of the stock purchased by Warren Buffet will be different for your purchase and for his purchase. Because these investors often buy large swathes of stock at once, this may create large variances for 2 reasons: (a) simply buying a large volume of a stock will naturally increase the price, as the lowest sell orders are taken up, and fewer willing sellers remain; and (b) many people (including institutional investors) may be watching what someone like Warren Buffet does, and will want to follow suit, chasing the same pricing problem. 2) You cannot buy multiple stocks as efficiently as a fund can. If Warren Buffet's fund holds, say, 50 stocks, and he trades 1 stock per day [I have absolutely no idea about what diversification exists within his fund], his per-share transaction costs will be quite low, due to share volume. Whereas for you to follow him, you would need 50 transactions upfront, + 1 per day. This may appear to be a small cost, but it could be substantial. Imagine if you wanted to invest 50k using this method - that's $1k for each of 50 companies. A $5 transaction fee would equal 1% of the value of each company invested [$5 to buy, and $5 to sell]. How does that 1% compare to the management fee charged by the actual fund available to you? In short, if you feel that a particular investor has a sound strategy, I suggest that you consider investing with them directly, instead of attempting to recreate their portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3451c2779bca4a3422a1edf0de832b52", "text": "At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94fd0ac68a72a65937095c6edeaedb74", "text": "Thanks very much. 12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at. I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what. For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account. I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc. I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree. I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2dd5540db63905132ff6419c895d1df", "text": "\"Because I'll be investing time, effort, energy and take some initial risks I would like to receive more shares (more than just purely financial contribution would suggest) I don't see money in that list. How much money will you be contributing to your own project? Mutual understanding, focusing on big image, rather that covering each and every edge case. These kinds of one page agreements are an excellent \"\"idea\"\" and they work just fine when everyone is happy and everything is working well; they are an utter nightmare if anything goes sideways. Coincidently, the reason you write anything down at all is to have everyone agree on the same big picture at the same time. People's memory of the original big picture gets fuzzy when their money might not come back to them. You don't need to cover all edge cases, but you need to cover obvious negative outcomes. What if you can't find a renter? What if you're late paying someone back? What if your vendor \"\"repairs\"\" something incorrectly? What if you forget to get a permit and the vendor needs to come back to tear it all apart and redo the work? What if your project needs more money, who is required to contribute, who has the option to contribute, who gets diluted? Who is doing the work of managing the project, how much is that person getting paid, how is that person's pay determined, how can it be adjusted? Is any work expected from any other investor, on what terms, who decides the terms? What if you get an offer to buy the building, who decides to sell, etc and so forth and on and on and on... You write down an agreement so everyone's understanding of the agreement is recorded. You write down what will happen in XYZ event so you don't argue about what you all should do when that event does ultimately occur. You take as much equity as your other investors will allow you to have, and you give them as much as required to get their money. Understand that the more cooks there are in the kitchen the more difficult it is to act on a problem when one arises; when not if. Your ego-stroking play to \"\"open source crowd-sourced wisdom\"\" is nothing more than a silly request for vague advice at no cost. Starting a project on trust, transparency and integrity is naive. This is about money. Why on earth should anyone trust you with their money if you won't do the most basic step of stewardship and spend a couple hundred pounds to talk to a local professional about organizing your first ever project. To answer your question directly, the first precaution you should take is not taking money from any of your friends or family.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a839d22bdaca27f1edc720c15bf63782", "text": "They return capital to investors every year to keep the fund size smaller, since there are a set number of money-making opportunities in the space. In other words, if they will make $1 billion per year regardless of invested capital, why not lever up a few times so you don't have to put as much in?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9ee0e3065b8cff148fbeed83d6a7226", "text": "\"i realize the required rate will need to be below the expected growth rate. not really the issue. i'm also not looking for insight into how i model these two possible options, i'm really just interested in how people would think about producing a discount rate for the projects. \"\"but you determine the required return(discount rate) based on the perceived risk of the investment and your particular views\"\" this was the ultimate question i was getting at. what would YOU use?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88cfe5b26b7ecbb169b03835ec119a19", "text": "TK didnt lose investor tens of billions of dollars. Also, for the past several years the whole market rewards growth over earnings, so that helped guys like Musk and Kalanick quite a lot and to a lessor degree, Bezos and Reddings. For all assets, investor profits come from either earnings or valuation growth and Kalanick provided quite a bit of the latter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d", "text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "972cada0712bdb15c5249e2fca6cd7a2", "text": "Disclosure - I love Jack Bogle. Jack basically invented the index fund, and as a result, let the common investor have an opportunity to choose a long term return of (S&P-.05%) instead of losing nearly 2% that many funds in that day charged. The use of index investing has saved investors many billions of dollars. The 1% round trip, total cost to buy/sell, was common. Fees for trading have since dropped. I happen to use Schwab who charges $9 for a trade. On $100,000, this is not .5% ($500) but less than .01%. I think it's safe to say that billion dollar mutual funds are paying even less for trades that I do. I believe Jack's example here is a combination of old data and hyperbole. The cost is not so much for the trades, per se, but for the people managing the fund. An index fund has a manager of course, but it's pretty much run by a computer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b39141e13117ae594047e1e04dc08ae2", "text": "What's a good proxy for the return of the market when utilizing CAPM for a WACC build up? I know I could rip data from Domadaran, but I'd like to calculate it for myself. Maybe S&P 500 earnings yield plus the 10yr? Also don't like taking the round assumption of 7%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b92089939e283a69c66535a345f7ecee", "text": "Ah, pardon me, so it's not either 10x return or zero, but also includes points in between there? Is it path dependent? Do you have any history on the asset? The usual crutches for dealing with unknown probabilities are using risk neutrality or arbitrage pricing, but if the market is inefficient then that will be an estimation at best.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d59301acd1b942e879c09beefec5df5d", "text": "tl;dr: The CNN Money and Yahoo Finance charts are wildly inaccurate. The TD Ameritrade chart appears to be accurate and shows returns with reinvested dividends. Ignoring buggy data, CNN most likely shows reinvested dividends for quoted securities but not for the S&P 500 index. Yahoo most likely shows all returns without reinvested dividends. Thanks to a tip from Grade Eh Bacon, I was able to determine that TD Ameritrade reports returns with reinvested dividends (as it claims to do). Eyeballing the chart, it appears that S&P 500 grew by ~90% over the five year period the chart covers. Meanwhile, according to this S&P 500 return estimator, the five year return of S&P 500, with reinvested dividends, was 97.1% between July 2012 to July 2017 (vs. 78.4% raw returns). I have no idea what numbers CNN Money is working from, because it claims S&P 500 only grew about 35% over the last five years, which is less than half of the raw return. Ditto for Yahoo, which claims 45% growth. Even stranger still, the CNN chart for VFINX (an S&P 500 index fund) clearly shows the correct market growth (without reinvesting dividends from the S&P 500 index), so whatever problem exists is inconsistent: Yahoo also agrees with itself for VFINX, but comes in a bit low even if your assume no reinvestment of dividends (68% vs. 78% expected); I'm not sure if it's ever right. By way of comparison, TD's chart for VFINX seems to be consistent with its ABALX chart and with reality: As a final sanity check, I pulled historical ^GSPC prices from Yahoo Finance. It closed at $1406.58 on 27 Aug 2012 and $2477.55 on 28 Aug 2017, or 76.1% growth overall. That agrees with TD and the return calculator above, and disagrees with CNN Money (on ABALX). Worse, Yahoo's own charts (both ABALX and VFINX) disagree with Yahoo's own historical data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0722e905b79687713fca6967cb3942c8", "text": "Currently reading Peter Thiel's Zero to One, and he discusses just that. He knew the bubble was about to burst so he got as much investment as quickly as he could for Pay Pal. $100 million dollars raised the month before the bubble burst, according to him.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a990852a5fbc94b6c23aa4c32112c7c2", "text": "There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "974ddb2aa065fb9d2f460b6cea10bad0", "text": "Depends entirely on the stock and your perception of it. Would you buy it at the current price? If so, keep it. Would you buy something else? If so, sell it and buy that.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e53d5904e1d823cc79de1d134bad620b	how does one start an investing club (as a company)?	[ { "docid": "35ed04b2dace3b1397574bc03dc60917", "text": "\"As for the letting the \"\"wise\"\" people only make the decisions, I guess that would be a bit odd in the long run. Especially when you get more experienced or when you don't agree with their decision. What you could do, is make an agreement that always 3/4 (+/-) of the partners must agree with an investment. This promotes your involvement in the investments and it will also make the debate about where to invest more alive, fun and educational). As for the taxes I can't give you any good advice as I don't know how tax / business stuff works in the US. Here in The Netherlands we have several business forms that each have their own tax savings. The savings mostly depend on the amount of money that is involved. Some forms are better for small earnings (80k or less), other forms only get interesting with large amounts of money (100k or more). Apart from the tax savings, there could also be some legal / technical reasons to choose a specific form. Again, I don't know the situation in your country, so maybe some other folks can help. A final tip if your also doing this for fun, try to use this investment company to learn from. This might come in handy later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57a608e57064a2ed2676dd2ae33d92f7", "text": "\"+1 for noting that you are in it for the long haul. I also think this is a great project and activity to do with friends. Setting up and start-up investment company could be done as a simple LLC. The decision making process can be decided among the members -- if you want to defer to the others then so be it. Make it flexible so that you can change your mind in the future. If this is not intended to be a source of revenue or income for you (note your \"\"in it for the long haul\"\") One way of sourcing the capital and managing the resulting taxes you might want to consider is setting up a self-directed retirement account and making the investment from there. proceeds as you and your friends choose to take them would flow back into the retirement account. As with most investment and tax related questions we should all take the little extra time and money to follow up on internet-based advice with your own lawyer, investment adviser and accountant. These licensed individuals when under contract assume a degree of responsibility for their answer which is not available online. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d71807b2da44a71b83e294ae53cad7f1", "text": "Taxes are the least of your concerns. Your friends need licenses. Although this COULD be avoided entirely with certain craftily worded disclaimers and exemptions and the WAY that money is given to them.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "824ed0c6128435f4ed078a8c39c90d8c", "text": "Sounds like you are starting an investment club. What you need is an investment club partnership agreement. Have a look at this free document. EDIT Based on OP's comments, it appears that the OP will be acting as an adviser/manager of a private investment fund. If the fund is not open to the public, it may still be treated as a type of investment club, but different rules -- including possibly having to register with the SEC -- may apply (quoted from the first link): If the adviser is compensated for providing the advice regarding the club's investments, the adviser may need to register according to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Also, if one person selects investments for the club, that person may have to register as an investment adviser. In general, a person who has $25 million or more in assets under management is required to register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. A person managing less than $25 million may be required to register under the securities laws of the state or states in which the adviser transacts business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24", "text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88c45e03f8757aab8fc52372a58788df", "text": "I had the same experience as Jeremy: made investments in both Prosper and Lending Club and got a much better returns with Lending Club, although in my cases both investments were ok: after 18 months i made 4-5% on prosper and 11-12% on Lending Club. I think they just have better underwriting standards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d73a1100303910d8ada4b30274fd5f9", "text": "Yes. Private companies have shares, they're just not liquid and there may be restrictions around selling them; founders get shares when they found a company (not options), as do VCs that invest. An options pool is oftentimes created as a result of a VC financing (when the cap table is being carved up and the existing owners are being diluted, anyway) for the purposes of attracting future employees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43544cf49d9103aa148b03b6f70b5ce4", "text": "Ask your colleagues! I know that sounds obvious, but just go to where people who do your sort of business hang out (or better, find some venture capital firms and ask their portfolio companies). It's not something people would keep secret from you...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60a9f5107226f646e8d26736cf930801", "text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06983316e10baed1be3506c87865051b", "text": "In theory you can buy shares directly from someone else who owns them. In practise, if the stock is listed on an exchange, they are unlikely to own them directly, they are likely to own them through an intermediary. You will have to pay fees to that intermediary to transfer the shares to your name. There are thousands of small companies owned by the guy who started it and a few other investors. You can buy stock in that kind of company directly from the existing owners, as long as they are willing to sell you some. It's a super-high risk investment strategy, though. This is the kind of deal that happens on Dragons Den.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e30c1a9481ded4a26c6feb5502718faa", "text": "My understanding is you can create a company 0 value. Then you need to either loan the company the money to buy the building (it will still have 0 value as it will have a debt equal to it's assets) or sell share to investors at any price you like to raise the money to buy the building. Once shares have value (as valued by a chartered accountant - not anyone can do this) then anyone recieving shares will have to pay income tax. This is why keeping the shares as no value for as long as possible can be preferable. Also a benefit of using share options. talk to your investors, see what they require.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3ead6164c50ccbd9cdb1398b9d611c2", "text": "I don't know if this is exactly what you're looking for but Seedrs sorta fits what you're looking for. Private companies can raise money through funding rounds on Seedrs website. It wouldn't necessarily be local companies though. I've only recently found it myself so not sure if it has a uk or European slant to it. Personally I think it's a very interesting concept, private equity through crowd funding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8a12e44cf5ee98e06bdcd04d98f3b1e", "text": "\"There obviously is not such a list of companies, because if there were the whole world would immediately invest in them. Their price would rise like a rocket and they would not be undervalued anymore. Some people think company A should be worth x per share, some people think it should be worth y. If the share price is currently higher than what someone thinks it should be, they sell it, and if it is lower than they think it should be they buy it. The grand effect of this all is that the current market price of the share is more or less the average of what all investors together think it should currently be worth. If you buy a single stock, hoping that it's undervalued and will rise, you may be right but you may equally well be wrong. It's smarter to diversify over lots of stocks to reduce the impact of this risk, it evens out. There are \"\"analysts\"\" who try to make a guess of which stocks will do better, and they give paid advice or you can invest in their funds -- but they invariably do worse than the average of the market as a whole, over the long term. So the best advice for amateurs is to invest in index funds that cover a huge range of companies and try to keep their costs very low.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1836169d4b281e472f6b660492a5e2ed", "text": "\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be5ac44a62ef5e8e8fc134d8b6c29b90", "text": "\"It is such a touchy subject for many people, I have to say that simple \"\"set it and forget it\"\" kind of investing isn't likely in the near term. Instead, if this is something you believe in, treat it like any other business opportunity and do some detailed research into people operating in the field. Look into their business plans and visit their operations. If there is a plan, and idea, a team and the intangible it you might consider doing some direct investing with a local company. Basically become a small business owner, silent partner or investor. If you believe in it go for it. If you don't believe in it that much, I think this is a market somebody else needs to develop before we invest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45f75f318140ab32ba09e27eb9b885aa", "text": "\"Investing in an existing company is almost like buying a house, or even becoming an \"\"Angel investor\"\" in a start-up. Before you start the process, decide how much you want to be involved in the day-to-day and which industries you would feel most comfortable in. The latter is an important consideration since you would have to know sufficient about the industry in order to evaluate the quality of your prospective investment. Searching for a suitable business is a time-consuming process: The guidance for evaluating any company has been answered in another question, so I'll simply link. Most business owners are looking to their businesses to provide them a pension, so they often look to sell around retirement age. Buying such a business is tricky - you may be assisting the next generation to finance the purchase which can have it's own struggles. Ideally you'll be looking for a young(ish) company with proven sales and which is looking to finance growth in an optimal way. Such a company may have many options for raising capital so you'll be competing to invest. As to whether or not it's a good idea... KFC only became a household name and global franchise after Pete Harman joined Harland Sanders as a partner. Richard and Maurice McDonald may have founded McDonald's but it was Ray Kroc who made it a success. New partners bring in new ideas and fresh energy which the original entrepreneurs may have lost during the difficulties of starting out. But that goes back to my first query; just how much do you want to get involved?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e53928f128307a21a43fe26ba4fc132", "text": "\"You can learn very little from it. Company directories are often given share options or shares as a bonus, and because of that they are unlikely to buy shares. When they sell shares, you'll hear people shouting \"\"so-and-so sold his or her shares, they must know something bad about the company\"\". The truth is that you can't eat or drink shares. If that company director owning shares worth a million dollars wants to buy a new Ferrari, he will find that Ferrari doesn't give free cars to people owning lots of shares. He actually has to sell the shares to get the money for the car, and that's what he does.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "150b659334d280ebad2c703db5e3618f", "text": "At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low. For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question. Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up. So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement. A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap. Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it. They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses. That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require. That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly. If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8d27458a8d9c06e0befd1f7814490fe0	Can this year's free extension-to-pay be filed electronically? IRS Form 1127	[ { "docid": "a5efaf1f0b78681048b5ebed5acd0e48", "text": "Form 1127 (updated link) should be filed in paper (with the supporting documents) to the IRS office that has jurisdiction in the area where you live. From the instructions (see the link above): File Form 1127 with the Internal Revenue Service (Attn: Advisory Group Manager), for the area where you maintain your legal residence or principal place of business. See Pub. 4235, Collection Advisory Group Addresses, to find the address for your local advisory group. However, if the tax due is a gift tax reportable on Form 709, send Form 1127 to: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Center Cincinnati, OH 45999", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "42491be125040c117b0ed28d837d1b74", "text": "Form 1099-misc reports PAYMENTS, not earnings. This does not imply the EARNINGS are not taxable in the year they were earned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c295f6219f707bffbc845d07fe07b2d1", "text": "I few years ago my company in the Washington DC area allowed employees to contribute their own pre-tax funds. The system at the time wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent what you are suggesting. The money each month was put on a special credit card that could only be used at certain types of locations. You could load it onto the Metro smart trip card, and use it for many months. Many people did this, even though the IRS says you shouldn't. But eventually the program for the federal employees changed, their employer provided funds were put directly onto their Smart Trip card. In fact there were two buckets on the card: one to pay for commuting, and the other to pay for parking. There was no way to transfer money between buckets. The first day of the new month all the excess funds were automatically removed from the card;and the new funds were put onto the card. If your employer has a similar program it may work the same way. HR will know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e1655fa5418bf3d25a7e3b7dda9b034", "text": "Assuming that the jobs where you've earned money from have sent you W-2s, 1099s, etc. Then yes, you can request a Wage and Income Transcript: Shows data from information returns we receive such as Forms W-2, 1099, 1098 and Form 5498, IRA Contribution Information. Current tax year information may not be complete until July. This transcript is available for up to 10 prior years using Get Transcript Online or Form 4506-T.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "853b3e27f63962682a49ed6503c3a23d", "text": "The instructions for Form W-7 include a table of exceptions to the requirement to attach a tax return. It looks like you might fall under Exemption 2a, but I don't think there's quite enough information in your question to be sure. The current instructions are here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/iw7.pdf The table of exceptions runs from page 7 to page 9, so I won't try to reproduce it here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "034e29cd4e755643f5e95ac6daae8337", "text": "I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b891606bf041cfd022f36635be258918", "text": "This form is due March 15. This year, the 15th is Saturday, so the deadline is Monday March 17th. Keep in mind, the software guys would have two choices, wait until every last form is finalized before releasing, or put the software out by late November when 80%+ are good to go. Nothing is broken in this process. Keep in mind that there are different needs depending on the individual. I like to grab a copy in early December, and have a preliminary idea of what my return with look like. I'll also know if I'll owe so much that I should send in a quarterly tax payment. The IRS isn't accepting any return until 1/31 I believe, so you've lost no time. When you open the program, it usually ask to 'phone home' and update. In a couple weeks, all should be well. (Disclosure - I have guest posted on tax issues at both TurboTax and H&R Block's blogs. The above are my own views.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e51a65eb4d4db5998634f1c89bd9d272", "text": "\"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \"\"deluxe\"\" or \"\"premier\"\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d31afd12a64e4b2b71c28cdd1bfc7dee", "text": "As others have mentioned yes it is taxable. Whether it goes through payroll and has FICA taken out is your issue in terms that you need to report it and you will an extra 7.5% self employment taxes that would normally be covered by your employer. Your employer may have problems but that isn't your issue. Contrary to what other users are saying chances are there won't be any penalties for you. Best case you have already paid 100% of last years tax liability and you can file your normal tax return with no issues. Worst case you need to pay quarterly taxes on that amount in the current quarter. IRS quarters are a little weird but I think you need to pay by Jan 15th for a December payment. You don't have to calculate your entire liability you can just fill out the very short form and attach a check for about what you will owe. There is a form you can fill out to show what quarter you received the money and you paid in it is a bit more complex but will avoid the penalty. For penalties quarterly taxes count in the quarter received where as payroll deductions count as if they were paid in the first quarter of the year. From the IRS The United States income tax is a pay-as-you-go tax, which means that tax must be paid as you earn or receive your income during the year. You can either do this through withholding or by making estimated tax payments. If you do not pay your tax through withholding, or do not pay enough tax that way, you might also have to pay estimated taxes. If you did not pay enough tax throughout the year, either through withholding or by making estimated tax payments, you may have to pay a penalty for underpayment of estimated tax. Generally, most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81ab7c9d49e66e287f971b92d3c14a58", "text": "?? Edit: that's what I thought. Unless there is some specific tax code that I don't know about, there's no way to pass through money to the next year. But if someone on Reddit is saying something and quoting a tax law, I'd at least like to see it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf0330082ac65d66aa4934120480a8fe", "text": "You need to give specific dates! In the United States, you have three years to file an amended tax return. https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Ten-Facts-about-Amended-Tax-Returns Did the restaurant fail in 2012? If so, that's probably the year to take the loss. If you need to amend your 2012 return, which you filed in 2013, you should have until 2016 to file this. The exact date may be based on when you filed 2012 taxes!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "353f51db94cf8b7edbcf4dbdb335d8b7", "text": "\"The 2 months extension is automatic, you just need to tell them that you're using it by attaching a statement to the return, as Pete Becker mentioned in the comments. From the IRS pub 54: How to get the extension. To use this automatic 2-month extension, you must attach a statement to your return explaining which of the two situations listed earlier qualified you for the extension. The \"\"regular\"\" 6 months extension though is granted automatically, upon request, so if you cannot make it by June deadline you should file the form 4868 to request a further extension. Automatic 6-month extension. If you are not able to file your return by the due date, you generally can get an automatic 6-month extension of time to file (but not of time to pay). To get this automatic extension, you must file a paper Form 4868 or use IRS e-file (electronic filing). For more information about filing electronically, see E-file options , later. Keep in mind that the due date is still April 15th (18th this year), so the 6-month extension pushes it back to October. Previous 2-month extension. If you cannot file your return within the automatic 2-month extension period, you generally can get an additional 4 months to file your return, for a total of 6 months. The 2-month period and the 6-month period start at the same time. You have to request the additional 4 months by the new due date allowed by the 2-month extension. You can ask an additional 2 months extension (this is no longer automatic) to push it further to December. See the publication. These are extension to file, not to pay. With the form 4868 you're also expected to submit a payment that will cover your tax liability (at least in the ballpark). The interest is pretty low (less than 1% right now), but there's also a penalty which may be pretty substantial if you don't pay enough by the due date. See the IRS tax topic 301. There are \"\"safe harbor\"\" rules to avoid the penalty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55b2e971e9b595c7abcc28b01ad0078c", "text": "Yes, there's a way. I actually wrote a blog post about it. Its a new service from the IRS which allows you pulling your account online. IRS also has an instruction page just for this case here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "370beb43113e2b31a710c65affc78535", "text": "The amount earned is taxable. It needs to shown as income from other sources. Although the last date for paying Advance tax is over [15 March], there is still time to pay Self-Assessment tax till 15 June. If the tax amount due is less than 10,000/- there is no penalty. If the tax is more than Rs 10,000/- there is penalty at the rate of 1% per month from March, and if the amount of tax exceeds 40% of the total tax, there will be additional 1% interest from December. The tax can be paid online via your Banks website or using the Income Tax website at https://onlineservices.tin.egov-nsdl.com/etaxnew/tdsnontds.jsp The form to be used is 280. You can use the Income tax website to calculate and file your tax returns at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/ or use the services of a CA. Edit: If the income is less than expenses, you need not pay tax. Maintain proper records [receipts] of income and expenses, if possible use a different Bank account so that they remain different from your main account. The tax to be paid depending on your income slab. The additional income needs to added to you salary. The tax and slabs will be as per this. There is no distinction on this amount. Its treated as normal income. All Tax for the given year has to be paid in advance. i.e. for Tax year 2013-14, 30% of total tax by 15-Sept, Additional 30% [total 60%] by 15-Dec and Balance by 15-Mar. Read Page 3 and page 10 of http://incometaxindia.gov.in/Archive/Taxation_Of_Salaried_Employees_18062012.pdf", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77949aaa5c2f792d03459069b783724d", "text": "Assuming US/IRS: If you filed on time and paid what you believed was the correct amount, they might be kind and let it go. But don't assume they will. If you can't file on time, you are supposed to file estimated taxes before the deadline, and to make that payment large enough to cover what you are likely to owe them. If there is excess, you get it back when you file the actual forms. If there is a shortfall, you may be charged fees, essentially interest on the money you still owe them calculated from the submission due date. If you fail to file anything before the due date, then the fees/interest surcharge is calculated on the entire amount still due; effectively the same as if you had filled an estimated return erroneously claiming you owed nothing. Note that since the penalty scales with the amount still due, large errors do cost you more than small ones. And before anyone asks: no, the IRS doesn't pay interest if you submit the forms early and they owe you money. I've sometimes wondered whether they're missing a bet there, and if it would be worth rewarding people to file earlier in order to spread out the work a bit better, but until someone sells them on that idea...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83b0ba3e5841488f99a591f1984b9dc7", "text": "\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
345dc4200dd11a05f00a6a5d13f60218	Filing 1040-NR when I have been outside the US the entire year?	[ { "docid": "b4631de9bda8f2ebb39cce887c51539a", "text": "Yes, you can still file a 1040nr. You are a nonresident alien and were: engaged in a trade or business in the United States Normally, assuming your withholding was correct, you would get a minimal amount back. Income earned in the US is definitely Effectively Connected Income and is taxed at the graduated rates that apply to U.S. citizens and resident aliens. However, there is a tax treaty between US and India, and it suggests that you would be taxed on the entirety of the income by India. This suggests to me that you would get everything that was withheld back.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1e9be9267b7d796c28f93fb7647721d8", "text": "\"1040 or 1040NR depends on whether you are a resident alien or nonresident alien -- 1040/1040A/1040EZ for resident aliens, and 1040NR/1040NR-EZ for nonresident aliens. Determining whether you are a resident is somewhat complex, and there is not enough information in your question to determine it. Publication 519 is the guide for taxes for aliens. (It hasn't been updated for 2014 yet, so mentally shift all the years in the publication up by one year when you read it.) Since you don't have a green card, whether you are a resident is determined by the Substantial Presence Test. The test says that if (the number of days you were in the U.S. in 2014) + 1/3 of (the number of days you were in the U.S. in 2013) + 1/6 of (the number of days you were in the U.S. in 2012) >= 183 days (half a year), then you are a resident alien for 2014. However, there are exceptions to the test. Days that you are an \"\"exempt individual\"\" are not counted toward the Substantial Presence Test. And \"\"exempt individuals\"\" include international students, trainees, teachers, etc. However, there are exceptions to the exceptions. Students are not \"\"exempt individuals\"\" for a year if they have been exempt individuals for any part of 5 previous calendar years. (Different exceptions apply for teachers and trainees.) So whether you are an \"\"exempt individual\"\" for one year inductively depends on whether you have been an \"\"exempt individual\"\" in previous years. Long story short, if before you came to the U.S. as an F-1 student, you haven't been in the U.S. on F-1 or J-1 status, then you will be a nonresident alien for the first 5 calendar years (calendar year = year with a number, not 365 days) that you've been on F-1. We will assume this is the case below. So if you started your F-1 in 2009 (any time during that year) or before, then you would have already been an exempt individual for 5 calendar years (e.g. if you came in 2009, then 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 are your 5 years), so you would not be an exempt individual for any part of 2014. Since you were present in the U.S. for most of 2014, you meet the Substantial Presence Test for 2014, and you are a resident alien for all of 2014. If, on the other hand, you started your F-1 in 2010 (any time during that year) or after, then you would still be an exempt individual for the part of 2014 that you were on F-1 status (i.e. prior to October 2014. OPT is F-1.). Days in 2014 in H1b status (3 months) are not enough for you to satisfy the Substantial Presence Test for 2014, so you would be a nonresident alien for all of 2014. If you fall into the latter case (nonresident alien), there are some alternative choices you have. If you were in the U.S. for most of those last 3 months, then you are eligible to choose to use the \"\"First-Year Choice\"\". I will not go into the steps to use this choice, but the result is that it makes you dual-status for 2014 -- nonresident until October, and resident since October. If you are single, then making this choice pretty much gives you no benefit. However, if you are married, then making this choice allows you to subsequently make another choice to become a resident for all of 2014. Being resident gives you some benefits, like being able to file as Married Filing Jointly (nonresidents can only file separately), being able to use the Standard Deduction, being able to use many other deductions and credits, etc. Though, depending on what country you're from, it may affect your treaty benefits, so check that before you consider it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd20e7a676ce12fcf7289300c994bbbc", "text": "I don't have any specific situation on the situation in Austria, but in general there are a few things that you should keep in mind. First of all, the official website of the Austrian tax authorities appears to be this one: https://www.bmf.gv.at/steuern/startseite-steuern.html. There is an English page there, but it is mainly aimed at international businesses. The part about tax treaties may be relevant, though. The general procedure is outlined here: https://www.bmf.gv.at/steuern/startseite-steuern.html. Like I said in my comment, most information is likely only available in German. I would strongly advise to ask help from someone who speaks German and is familiar with the tax system in Austria. The main thing that you would have to do first is to check of which country you are a resident for tax purposes. This is usually the country in which you lived for more than 183 days in the past year. If you moved during the year, and had income from more than one country, you may have to file tax returns in both countries. There are tax treaties between Austria and the UK (and most other countries), so you would have to check those treaties to find out what gets taxed where. In principle you get taxed only once, but usually you would have to declare all income. The last important thing is of course to make sure you submit before the relevant deadlines.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e39a1801cbfa777e2fda516c1822da31", "text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ff48ab59c694db453df646f2d03e011", "text": "\"If you're \"\"living off the land\"\" and make no money, then you don't have to file. Though you might be able to actually make money through credits and the like if you do file. If you've lost more than you've made, then you'll probably need to file since someone will have needed to report that they paid you (W-2 or 1099-MISC). If the IRS receives a form saying that you made X and you don't file, they aren't going to just take your word for it that you lost more than you made, right? That, and if you want a refund, you'll almost certainly need to file to get it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9589a3228d51c680546c138e8a52d9b", "text": "Do I pay tax to the US and then also pay it in India for my income, or does my American partner, who holds 15% of the monthly income, pay tax in the US for his income? Of course you do, what kind of question is this? You have income earned in the US by a US entity, and the entity is taxed. Since LLC is a disregarded entity - the tax shifts to you personally. You should file form 1040NR. You should also talk to a tax professional who's proficient in the Indo-US tax treaty, since it may affect your situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d402dc885d5d6ef6afda8b49de969880", "text": "You're doing business in the US and derive income from the US, so I'd say that yes, you should file a non-resident tax return in the US. And in Connecticut, as well, since that's where you're conducting business (via your domestic LLC registered there). Since you paid more than $600 to your contractor, you're probably also supposed to send a 1099 to him on that account on behalf of your LLC (which is you, essentially, if you're the only member).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffe42a6e748797d0223dd014d46a1239", "text": "As you have indicated, the 1042-S reflects no income or withholding. As such, you are not required to file a US tax return unless you have other income from the US. Gains on stocks are not reported until realized upon sale. FYI, your activity does not fit the requirements of being engaged in a trade or business activity. While the definition is documented in several places of the Code, I have attached Publication 519 which most accurately represents the application to your situation as you have described it. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch04.html#en_US_2016_publink1000222308", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ea257e050030729ba1e9a22e16e3923", "text": "\"I've been highly compensated for a while now, and I have never used a tax professional. My past complications include the year that my company was bought by a VC firm and my stock options and stock held were bought out to the tune of 5x my salary. And now I have two kids in college, with scholarships, and paying the remainder out of 529 accounts. Usually, I don't even use tax software. My typical method is to use the online software -- like turbotax online -- and let it figure out where I am. Then I use the \"\"Free File Fillable forms\"\" online to actually complete the process. Search for \"\"Free File Fillable Forms\"\" -- it's not the same as using turbotax or TaxAct for free. My suggestion to you: download the PDF form of 1040EZ and 1040A from the IRS. Print the EZ, and fill it out. This will give you a better feel for what exactly is going on. With your income, I don't think you can file the EZ, but it's a good way to get your feet wet. The way income taxes work here in the US: According to the IRS, the Personal Exemption this year is worth $4,050, and the Standard Deduction $6,300, assuming you're single. Lets assume that your salary will be in fact 75,000, and you don't pay for any benefits, but you do make a 401k contribution of 15% of your salary. Then your W-2 at the end of the year should tell you to put 63,750 in a particular box on your 1040 form. (63,750 is 85% of 75,000). Lets then assume 63,750 is your AGI after other additions and subtractions. 63,750 - 4,050 - 6,300 == 53,400. The federal Tax system is graduated, meaning there are different ranges (brackets) with different percentages. The term tax people use for taxable income of 53,400 is \"\"marginal tax rate\"\"...so the last dollar they tax at 25%. Other dollars less. According to the IRS, if you're single, then on 53,400, you pay \"\"$6,897.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,400\"\" Or 6897.50 + 750, or 7647.50. Note this is only Federal Income Tax. You will also be paying Social Security and Medicare payroll Tax. And I'm guessing you'll also be paying colorado state income tax. Each state has its own forms and methods for figuring out the taxes and stuff. By the way, when you start, you'll fill out a \"\"W-4\"\" form to \"\"help\"\" you figure out how much to withhold from every paycheck. (I find the W-4 is not helpful at all). Your company will withhold from your paycheck some mysterious amount, and the process of filling out your 1040A or 1040EZ or whatever will be, likely, to get the over-withheld amount back.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84d4f83c99c529b4aed1b5664848b939", "text": "\"When I was in this situation, I always did Married Filing Separately. In the space for spouse you just write \"\"non resident alien\"\". I'm assuming you don't make more than the Foreign Earned Income exclusion (about $100k), so the fact that you don't qualify for certain exemptions is probably irrelevant for you. As a side note, now that you are married you have \"\"a financial interest in\"\" all her bank accounts so if her and your foreign bank accounts had an aggregate value of over $10k at any point in 2015 you have until June 30th to file an FBAR, listing both her and your accounts. If you have a decent amount of assets you might need to fill out form 8938 with your tax return too. Here is a link with the reporting thresholds. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Summary-of-FATCA-Reporting-for-U.S.-Taxpayers\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b99725932ea29bc40671448a4319ab71", "text": "IANAL, I am married to someone in your situation. As a US citizen age 26 who has not had any contact with the IRS, you should most definitely be worried... As a US citizen, you are (and always have been) required to file a US tax return and pay any tax on all income, no matter where earned, and no matter where you reside. There are often (but not always) agreements between governments to reduce double taxation. The US rule as to whether a particular type of income is taxable will prevail. As a US citizen with financial accounts (chequing, saving, investment, etc.) above a minimum balance, abroad, you are required to report information, including the amounts in the account, to the US government annually (Look up FBAR). Failure to file these forms carries harsh penalties. A recent law (FATCA) requires foreign financial institutions to report information on their US citizen clients to the US, irrespective of any local banking privacy laws. It's possible that your application triggered these reporting requirements. You will not be allowed to renounce your US citizenship until you have paid all past US taxes and penalties. Good new: you are eligible in ten years or so to run for President. Don't believe any of this, or that nothing has been missed; you must consult with a local tax expert specializing in US/UK tax laws.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "819197acdc0e88afc44350dcccd999eb", "text": "\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9532e3944d518f5fadec4985faa3d889", "text": "You're most likely required to file in both for 2013 - since you've lived in both. From 2014 and on you're definitely a NY resident (since you're renting a place there and live there), and you may very well continue being NJ resident (since you're essentially continue being domiciled there). I suggest talking to a EA/CPA licensed in NY and NJ to try and see what you can do to avoid being resident in both the states, or see if it is at all an issue other than filing everything double.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e11cdeaad788b7bd62e45704991b7ad2", "text": "Plenty of retired people do stay in the US for longer than 60 days and don't pay taxes. In this IRS document 60 days stay appears to be the test for having a 'substantial presence' in the US, which is part of the test for determining residency. However the following is also written: Even if you meet the substantial presence test, you can be treated as a nonresident alien if you are present in the United States for fewer than 183 days during the current calendar year, you maintain a tax home in a foreign country during the year, and you have a closer connection to that country than to the United States. In other words, if your property in the US is not your main one, you pay tax in another country, and you stay there less than half the year, you should be treated as a non-resident (I am not a lawyer and this is not advice). This IRS webpage describes the tax situation of nonresident aliens. As I understand it, if you are not engaged in any kind of business in the US and have no income from US sources then you do not have to file a tax return. You should also look into the subject of double tax agreements. If your home country has one, and you pay taxes there, you probably won't need to pay extra tax to the US. But again, don't take my word for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79702816dfe3554f3eae54d04ca87ae3", "text": "I suggest you talk to a New York-licensed tax adviser (EA or NY-licensed CPA). New York is very aggressive when it comes to residency determination, and given your facts and circumstances you may end up being considered NY resident despite relocating to Florida. If you maintain a studio in NY, I'd say 99% chance is that you remain NY resident for the whole year (but verify with a professional).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f431551f93c52c2a7b9bb42ffb59e679", "text": "Tax liability in US: You would need to determine if you are a resident alien or non resident alien. Resident alien are taxed normally as per US citizens. For the annual remuneration you have quoted it would be in the range of 25%. Refer http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm To determine if you are resident alien or non resident alien, you need to be present for certain period in US. There is also an exemption even if you meet this you can still be treated as non resident alien if your tax home is outside US [India in this case] Refer to the link for details to determine your category, the durations are for number of days in financial year, hence it matters when you are in US and the exact durations. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html Also note that if you are assessed as resident alien, even the income from India will be taxed in US unless you declare there is no income in India. Tax liability in India: The tax liability in India would be depending on your NRI status. This again is tied to the financial year and the number of days you are in country. While the year you are going out of India you need to be away for atleast 183 days for you be considred are NRI. So if you are treated as Indian resident, you would have to pay tax in India on entire income. In the worst case, depending on the period you travel and the dates you travel, you could get classified as citizen in US as well as India and have to pay tax at both places. India and US do not have a dual tax avoidance treaty for individuals. Its there for certain category like small business and certain professions like teacher, research etc.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1020716aaaec32888344facc7b371987	Is buying a lottery ticket considered an investment?	[ { "docid": "a74ccfd8ffa26a2638753a76c7d37c52", "text": "There is a clear difference between investing and gambling. When you invest, you are purchasing an asset that has value. It is purchased in the hopes that the asset will either increase in value or generate income. This definition holds true whether you are investing in shares of stock, in real estate, or in a comic book collection. You can also purchase debt: if you loan money, you own debt that will (hopefully) be repaid and generate income. Gambling is playing a game for chance. When you gamble, you have not purchased an asset; you have only paid to participate in a game. Some games have a degree of skill (blackjack, poker), others are pure chance (slot machine). In most gambling games, the odds are against the player and in favor of the one running the game. Lottery tickets, without a doubt, are gambling. There is a good article on Investopedia that discusses the difference between investing and gambling in more detail. One thing that this article discusses is the house edge, or the advantage that the people running a gambling game have over the players. With most casino games, the house has an advantage of between 1 and 15% over the players. With a typical lottery, the house edge is 50%. To address some of the points made by the OP's recent edit and in the comments: I do not think the definitions of investment and gambling need to be dependent on expected value. There can be bad investments, where the odds of a good result are low. Similarly, there could be gambling games where the odds are in the player's favor, either due to the skill of the player or through some quirk of the game; it's still gambling. Investing is purchasing an asset; gambling is a game of chance. I do not consider a lottery ticket an asset. When you buy a lottery ticket, you are just paying a fee to participate in a game. It is the same as putting a coin in a slot machine. The fact that you are given a piece of paper and made to wait a few days for the result do not change this. Assets have inherent value. They might be valuable because of their ability to generate income (stocks, bonds, debt), their utility (precious metals, commodities, real estate), or their desirability as a thing of beauty (collectibles), for example. A lottery ticket, however, is only an element of a game. It has no value other than in the game.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81274e1b77476085f38c34e0060682d1", "text": "\"This question feels like an EL&U question to me, and so I will treat it as one. Investment, noun form of to invest, originally from the Latin investire, meaning to clothe, means: [T]o commit (money) in order to earn a financial return Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Invest, vb. tr., definition 1 As such, when a person commits money with the purpose of earning a financial return, they are investing. Playing the lottery, when done so for the purpose of financial return, would fall under this definition - even if it's a poor choice. Gambling, verb tense of to gamble, likely originally from the word gamen, meaning to play, means: a : to play a game for money or property b : to bet on an uncertain outcome Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Gamble, vb. itr., definition 1 Playing the lottery is clearly gambling (as a lottery is a game, by definition). The second definition could well include investing in the stock market, particularly certain kinds of investments (derivatives, currency speculation, for example). Aside from the definitions, however, normal usage clearly favors investment to be something with an expectation of positive return, while gambling is taking a risk without that expectation (rather with the hope of positive return). Legally, as well, playing the lottery is not something that is considered investment (so it is taxed differently). However, the question was \"\"Can\"\", and by definition, clearly it can be (assuming you are not asking legally).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aeb64b07561075ceb2b069672dc49c04", "text": "From a mathematical expected-value standpoint, there is no difference between gambling (e.g. buying a lottery ticket) and investing (e.g. buying a share of stock). The former probably has negative expected value while the latter probably has positive expected value, but that is not a distinction to include in a definition (else every company that gives a bad quarterly earnings report suddenly changes categories). However, investment professionals have a vested interest in claiming there is a difference; that justifies them charging fees to steer you into the right investment. Consequently, hair-splitting ideas like the motive behind a purchase are introduced. The classification of an item to be purchased should not depend on the mental state of its purchaser. Depending on the situation, it may be right to engage in negative EV behavior. For example, if you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan). Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000. So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e1a614a6c1eba9e5fe5b6d85ad36831", "text": "\"Why must terms must be mutually exclusive? This (false) dichotomy is what seems to cause the most debate. It is the SINGLE EVENT OUTCOME that defines gambling. Gambling will involve an aleatory contract. That is, the outcome is specifically tied to a single event that determines profit/loss. This could be the outcome of a race or the roll of a dice, but should involve chance. This is why gambling is often in the context of a game, but I would make the argument that some investment tools fall into this category - The price of a stock at a certain date, for example. This may also be called \"\"betting\"\", which opens up a whole other discussion. Investing has no such implication, and as such it is the broader term. Investing is to put something (money) to work to return a profit. Some forms of gambling could fall under this umbrella. Some would say that is a \"\"bad investment\"\" and even if they are right, it may still be the desire and intent of the investor to make a profit. Not all gambling falls under investing. You can gamble for pleasure. The profit/loss of most investments are not contractually tied to a specific event or outcome (e.g. the price of a stock over 10 years is the result of many events affecting its market value). Such an investment would not be considered gambling.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "943130ce93b4e51ffd1dd1b79a500bb6", "text": "\"logically, yes. legally, no. any reasonable definition of an \"\"investment\"\" must include some types of gambling and insurance. lottery tickets specifically are really crappy high risk/high return investment. obviously most people try to avoid investments with a negative average expected future value, but from a purely semantic perspective anything with a potential future value is an investment. conversely, anyone with a gambling problem should not pretend they are not gambling when making focused investments in high volatility stock options. that said, the irs taxes gains and losses differently depending on whether they are classified as \"\"gambling\"\", or just \"\"crappy investing\"\". so you will not be able to deduct your gambling losses from your earned income (unlike investment losses which can be deducted up to 3k$ per year).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f175d50b874cfd98fd91db1fb224437", "text": "\"I am reminded of a dozen year old dialog. I asked my 6 year old, \"\"If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?\"\" She replied, \"\"Four, you can call it anything you want, but the dog still has four legs.\"\" Early on in my marriage, my wife was heading out to the mall, and remarked that she was \"\"going to invest in a new pair of shoes.\"\" I explained to her that while I was happy she would have new shoes to wear, words have meaning, and unless she was going to buy the ruby red slippers Dorothy wore in the Wizard of Oz, or Elvis' Blue Suede Shoes, her's were not expected to rise in value and weren't an investment. Some discussion followed, and we agreed even the treadmill, which is now 20 years old, was not an 'investment' despite the fact that it saved us more than its cost in a combined 40 years of gym memberships we did not buy. In the end, no one who is financially savvy calls a lottery ticket an investment, and few who buy them acknowledge that it's simply throwing money away.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf558c2e2343e30252737004eaaee0fe", "text": "\"Although this has been touched upon in comments, I think the following line from the currently accepted answer shows the biggest issue: There is a clear difference between investing and gambling. The reality is that the difference isn't that clear at all. Tens of comments have been written arguing in both directions and looking around the internet entire essays have been written arguing both positions. The underlying emotion that seems to shape this discussion primarily is whether investing (especially in the stock market) is a form of gambling. People who do invest in this way tend to get relatively emotional whenever someone argues that this is a form of gambling, as gambling is considered a negative thing. The simple reality of human communication is that words can be ambiguous, and the way investors will use the words 'investments' and 'gambles' will differ from the way it is used by gamblers, and once again different from the way it's commonly used. What I definitely think is made clear by all the different discussions however is that there is no single distinctive trait that allows us to differentiate investing and gambling. The result of this is that when you take dictionary definitions for both terms you will likely end up including lottery tickets as a valid form of investment. That still however leaves us with a situation where we have two terms - with a strong overlap - which have a distinctive meaning in communication and the original question whether buying lottery tickets is an investment. Over on investorguide.com there is an absolutely amazing strongly recommended essay which explores countless of different traits in search of a difference between investing and gambling, and they came up with the following two definitions: Investing: \"\"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): sufficient research has been conducted; the odds are favorable; the behavior is risk-averse; a systematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play no role; the activity is ongoing and done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is not motivated solely by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is involved; a net positive economic effect results.\"\" Gambling: \"\"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results.\"\" The very interesting thing about those definitions is that they capture very well the way those terms are used by most people, and they even acknowledge that a lot of 'investors' are gambling, and that a few gamblers are 'investing' (read the essay for more on that). And this fits well with the way those two concepts are understood by the public. So in those definitions normally buying a lottery ticket would indeed not be an investment, but if we take for example Vadim's operation example If you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan). Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000. So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one. this can suddenly change the perception and turn 'gambling' into 'high-risk investing'.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b361912b65ba982ea0d1c4dfda2b2f4b", "text": "\"Buying lotteries tickets makes you the fish not the fisher. Just like casinos or drugs. If you like, you can call buying tickets an \"\"investment\"\" or better yet, a donation in the lottery's owner wealth. No real investor is dumb enough to get into a business where 99.9999999% of the \"\"investors\"\" lose EVERYTHING they invested. Besides, a real investments means BIG money. You can call it so if you are ready to sell your house and buy tickets of all those money, but still, the risk is so high that it's not worth it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7e3a33499478e63a156d3575cb9e11", "text": "Something that is missing from the discussion is the actual market for the lottery ticket -- if a market existed for the tickets themselves, that would make this far more obvious, but since there isn't one; buying a single ticket gives different Expected Values, but since the ticket has a defined 'game' instance, a single ticket is a gamble. Playing the lottery in the long run could be part of a high risk investment portfolio. [edited for clarity]", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2091cd62b5cbca7826df3753f9b1e77a", "text": "\"Situation #1: I keep playing, and eventually earn 1000 PED. I withdraw this. Will I get taxed? If so, by how much? This is probably considered an \"\"award\"\", so whatever your country taxes for lottery/gambling winnings would be applicable. If there's no specific taxation on this kinds of income - then it is ordinary income. Situation #2: I deposit $5000, play the game, lose some money and withdraw PED equal to $4000. Will I get taxed? If so, by how much? Since it is a game, it is unlikely that deducting losses from your income would be allowed. However, the $4000 would probably not be taxed as income (since you are getting your own money back). Situation #3: I deposit $5000 and use this to buy in-game items. I later sell these items for massive profits (200%+, this can happen over the course of 2 years for sure). I withdraw $10000. Will I get taxed? If so, by how much? Either the same as #1 (i.e.: ordinary income) or as capital gains (although tax authority may argue that this was not a for-profit investment, and capital gains treatment shouldn't be applicable). Will I get taxed on withdrawals from Real Cash Economy games? And do the taxes apply to the full withdrawal, or only on the profits? Or only on the profits above a certain amount? Generally income taxes only apply on income. So if you paid $10000 and got back $12000 - only the $2000 is considered income. However some countries may tax full amounts under certain conditions. Such taxes are called \"\"franchise taxes\"\". For a proper tax advice consult with the locally licensed tax adviser.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2fe5acd9728103715dfdf53c097f4c8", "text": "A large number of the general population spends the huge of their cash to purchase lotto tickets and further on some mystery frameworks that offer ensured to win lottery money. The Global Lottery deals ascend to $300 billion for each annum. Take this game as stimulation, not as a source of income since it doesn't ensure that you win. Our lotto e-book motto is to show people how to win small prizes on a regular basis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edc0718cfe98e4cb618686f18277840e", "text": "Easy. Start with 2 millions and lose only one. Jokes aside, if you want a million USD, you should be asking yourself how you can produce products or services worth $5 millions. (expect the extra to be eaten up by taxes, marketing, sales, workforce...) If by investment you mean making risky bets on the stock market, you might have a better time going to Las Vegas. On the other hand, if by investment you mean finding something that will produce $$$ and getting involved, it's a different matter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b6771db8851ff839a6450e6120b8f5d", "text": "If you hold a future plus enough cash collateral it is economically equivalent to owning the underlying asset or shorting the underlying asset. In general financial assets such as stock indices have a positive expected return - that's the main difference between investing and gambling. There's nothing that special about futures, they are just another contractual form of asset ownership. Well, one difference is that regulations or brokerages allow individual investors more leverage with options and futures than with straight borrowing. But this is more a regulatory issue than a conceptual issue with the securities themselves. In theory regulators or brokers could require you to hold enough collateral to make a future equivalent to buying the underlying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15e9d51f5d01bddba46fc1ea96a54e20", "text": "\"When you invest in a property, you pay money to purchase the property. You didn't have to spend the money on the property though - you could have invested it in the stock market instead, and expected to make a 4% annualized real rate of return or thereabouts. So if you want to know whether something's a \"\"good investment\"\", ask whether your annual net income will be more or less than 4% of the money you put into it, and whether it is more or less risky than the stock market, and try to judge accordingly. Predicting the net income, though, is a can of worms, doubly so when some of your expenses aren't dollar-denominated (e.g. the time you spend dealing with the property personally) and others need to be amortized over an unpredictable period of time (how long will that furnace repair really last?). Moreover your annualized capital gain and rental income is also unpredictable; rent increases in a given area cannot be expected to conform to a predetermined mathematical formula. Ultimately it is impossible to predict in the general case - if it were possible we probably would have skipped that last housing bubble, so no single simple formula exists.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a02957a9a32e31d2f640034772b0d3af", "text": "You're confused because the source you cite leaves out one number that isn't relevant to the argument they're making: total costs. The number you're expecting, $9 x 365 or $3285 is the total cost of buying the jewelry which, when subtracted from the $3650 sales volume gives us the net profit of $365. The investment is the amount of money original put into a system our company. In this case the merchant bought his first piece of jewelry for $9, sold it for $10, took one dollar in profit and used the other 9 to reinvest by buying a new piece of jewelry. We can extend the analogy further. After 9 days of selling, the merchant will posses $18, allowing him to now buy 2 pieces of jewelry each morning and sell them for $20. Every day his costs will be $18 and he'll turn a $2 profit, all with the original investment of $9.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a18ba9d2615f5c10a7d2b53e773cae58", "text": "Although I am not a tax professional, and in this case you would be better off with a professional advice, my understanding (at least of Arizona, New York and California individual tax regulations that I've been dealing with) is that you only pay taxes in the state in which you're domiciled. Lottery winnings are payed by States/State-run corporations and as such sourced to the State that pays it. Buying a ticket in SC links you to the lottery run in that State, even if you live in another. You'll be claiming your winnings in SC, not in NC, and the winnings will be sourced to SC, not NC. As such SC will be taxing them. NC will be taxing them as well, since you're NC resident.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f387828f56595e9bb2de18d7b44aa736", "text": "A lot of these answers are really weak. The expected value is pretty much the answer. You have to also though, especially as many many millions of tickets are purchased--make part of the valuation the odds of the jackpot being split x ways. So about 1 in 290--> the jackpot needs to be a take-home pot of $580 million for the $2 ticket. Assume the average # of winners is about 1.5 so half the time you're going to split the pot, bringing the valuation needed for the same jackpot to be $870 million. It's actually somewhat not common to have split jackpots because the odds are very bad + many people pick 'favourite numbers'.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98d9f2c9a4ae10eb6c2234f4874cd846", "text": "Speculation means putting your money on a hunch that some event may occur, depending on current circumstances and some future circumstances. So either you win huge or lose a lot. Investment is a conscious decision made on well defined research and grounded on good reasons i.e. economy, industry, company reports etc. Here is a link on wikipedia with more details on Speculation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c4e169b6c52731461477d99dd8a91b8", "text": "I think playing certain kinds of lottery is as economically sound as buying certain kinds of insurance. A lottery is an inverted insurance. Let me elaborate. We buy insurance for at least two reasons. The first one is clear: We pay a fee to protect ourselves from a risk which we don't want to (or cannot) bear. Although on average buying insurance is a loss, because we pay all the insurance's office buildings and employee's salaries, it still is a reasonable thing to do. (But it should also be clear that it is unreasonable to buy insurance for risks one could easily bear oneself.) The second reason to buy insurance is that it puts us at ease. We don't have to be afraid of theft or of a mistake we make which would make us liable or of water damage to our house. In that sense we buy freedom of sorrow for a fee, even if the damage wouldn't in fact ruin us. That's totally legitimate. Now I want to make the argument that buying a lottery ticket follows the same logic and is therefore not economically unreasonable at all. While buying a lottery ticket is on average a loss, it provides us with a chance to obtain an amount of money we would normally never get. (Eric Lippert made this argument already.) The lottery fee buys us a small chance of something very valuable, much as the insurance frees us from a small risk of something very bad. If we don't buy the ticket, we may have 0% chance of becoming (extremely) rich. If we buy one, we clearly have a chance > 0%, which can be considered an improvement. (Imagine you'd have a 0.0000001% chance to save the life of a loved one with a ticket who'd be 100% doomed otherwise. You'd bite.) Even the second argument, that an insurance puts us at ease, can be mirrored for lotteries. The chance to win something may provide entertainment in our otherwise dull everyday life. Considering that playing the lottery only makes sense for the chance to obtain more money than otherwise possible, one should avoid lotteries which have lots of smaller prizes because we are not really interested in those. (It would be more economical to save the money for smaller amounts.) We ideally only want lotteries which lean on the big money prizes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b31c1ca4e910dfd4bbe5570f884252d", "text": "No. You owe taxes in the state you made the money. So unless you can convince the lottery company to retroactively move to Puerto Rico or such, you can't. As others said, if you win, that should not be your worries..", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b0c1e7fed13cf2a37b7ee9f879cd5af", "text": "Firstly, playing the lottery is not investing it is gambling. The odds in gambling are always against you and with the house. Secondly, no one would ever give you a payout of 3 to 1 when the odds are 50:50, unless they were looking to give away money. Even when you place your chips on either red or black on a roulette table your payout if you are correct is 100% (double your money), however the odds of winning are less than 50%, there are 18 reds, 18 blacks and 2 greens (0 and 00). Even if you place your chips on one single number, your payout will be 35:1 but your odds of winning are 1:38. The odds are always with the house. If you want to play the lotto, use some money you don't need and expect to lose, have some fun and enjoy yourself if you get any small winnings. Gambling should be looked at as a source of entertainment not a source of investing. If you take gambling more serious than this then you might have a problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "180d2a7f0af42c2226913663d438e41b", "text": "\"I think that the answer by @jkuz is good. I'd add that the there's a mathematically precise difference: Gambling games are typically \"\"zero-sum\"\" games, which means that every dollar won by one person is lost by another. (If there's a \"\"house\"\" taking a cut then it's worse than zero-sum, but let's ignore that for the moment.) None of the markets that you mentioned are zero-sum because it's possible for both parties in the transaction to \"\"win\"\" since they typically have different objectives. If I buy stock, I typically desire for it to go up to make money, but, if I sell stock, I typically sell it because I want the money to do something else completely. The \"\"something else\"\" might be invest in another instrument if I think it's better or I'm rebalancing risk. It might also be to buy a house, pay for college, or (if I'm in retirement living on my investments) to buy food. If the stock goes up, the buyer won (increased investment) but the seller also won (got the \"\"other thing\"\" that they wanted/needed), which they would not have been able to get had there not been a buyer willing to pay cash for the stock. Of course it's possible that in some cases not everyone wins because there is risk, but risk should not be considered synonymous with gambling because there's varying degrees of risk in everything you do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8357a729b20014c82aa2ce046b89fe1c", "text": "\"Gambling is perhaps not well defined, but it certainly doesn't include things like reality show winnings. However, it is possible he could deduct something for this. If the reality show qualifies as a \"\"hobby\"\", and his expenses exceed the 2% of AGI requirement, it's possible he could deduct those airplane tickets and such. That deduction is explained in Publication 529.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7acc0cc7b924cbf49ca9a80edd4ec788", "text": "The satisfaction from gains packs less of an emotional impact than the fear of loss. It's very difficult for many people to overcome this fear, so when prices begin to fall, many investors sell to minimize their potential loss. This causes a further drop, which can lead to more selling as other investors reach their emotional threshold for loss. This emotion-based selling keeps the market inefficient in the short term. If there aren't enough value investors waiting to scoop up the stock at the new discount, it can stay undervalued for a long time.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
95e910144f1c4501842fab0b09ad0004	Good at investing - how to turn this into a job?	[ { "docid": "aa706c78eb65dc0e73d27be0980001c0", "text": "Staying in Idaho, you could pursue some additional degree and try to get a job with a bank in the area as an investment advisor of some sort. However, I have doubts as to whether or not you'd be able to employ your creativity and test your own instincts in that sort of a position. If you really want to get into the big-money investment sector, I'd suggest a move to a financial hub (Chicago, New York, San Francisco) and getting a job programming for a big firm. After obtaining some experience there, you may be able to transfer to a more investment-oriented position (at the same firm or another) and from there to a position where you can unleash your talent (assuming you have some). Putting a degree in finance somewhere in the mix would help too. Consider the following. You want to make $50,000/yr (low) by running a fund with a 1% expense ratio (high) investing other peoples' money... you're dealing with at least $5 million. That's a good chunk of change. To be entrusted with that kind of money is kind of a big deal, and you'll need to get some people to believe in your capabilities. You're not likely to get that kind of trust working out of Boise. Even if you're just doing research for some fund manager, you're not likely to find too many of those in Boise either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e29cffd92873ce7bd0d57d81102cb04", "text": "You need to do a few things to analyze your results. First, look at the timing of the deposits, and try to confirm the return you state. If it's still as high as you think, can you attribute it to one lucky stock purchase? I have an account that's up 863% from 1998 till 2013. Am I a genius? Hardly. That account, one of many, happened to have stocks that really outperformed, Apple among them. If you are that good, a career change may be in order. Few are that good. Joe", "title": "" }, { "docid": "003e10251585cd7b5cdf6042ae837ae0", "text": "Step 1: Get a part-time job in sales. Perhaps selling appliances at Sears. Step 2: If you are great at that, then look into becoming a stock broker/investment adviser in Boise ... which is a sales job. Step 3: If you are great at that, then you might be able to become a portfolio manager, perhaps a hedge fund manager for the clients you collected as a stock broker/ investment consultant. That seems to be the steps I have seen from reading the bios of a number of professional investors. The other method seems to be an MBA from a top 10 business school.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c4d74a187ce9d827a308f17fa8561d36", "text": "okay, I was thinking of an investment advisor. I believe in not doing it alone too. But i don't believe in just one more person. Investing advisors, tax advisors, business and law. I don't go to an advisor bc I can't balance my monthly budget and also want to save, you know. Questions more like, highest growth sectors, diversified strategies, etc. And right, they wouldn't get fired bc their client is still happy, (even though their losing money during a record bull market). Guy must be a good sales man. I'd just want to know that my advisors performance is decent relative to the market. But again, I'm not handing over checks to people, only speaking with them. edit: Yes, the average person should worry about making their kids soccer games and shit, not necessarily the markets and what their investment is worth in 30yrs", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5c7f7d203e7382c51786e86d48f3934", "text": "Before you even enroll in a good financial school, register for an account with a bank that allows you to manage a stock portfolio. I prefer TD Ameritrade. You do have to be 18 (Just register it under your parents, it doesn't matter. Just make sure they fill out the information portion. Get the SSN and tax info right. Basically it's their account, you're just managing it. ) That way you'll have some good, practical experience going into it. Understand that working with money can be a very cut-throat industry, be ready to be competing with people constantly. Also, surround yourself with books from successful stock brokers, investment bankers, things like that. When you're working you'll want information like that. Good luck, and I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db1ccbc57a778e7a93f06a6a95ab0dde", "text": "\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6733503969aa5c9d4a28db6682da7ab3", "text": "Unless and until you are ready to do the ground work and get your hands dirty in the market, it is better to let the money where it is. But how to distribute money in which asset classes, industry etc is your choice to make. But remember that a big investment company doesn't guarantee that you will always earn a return higher than the market or it is safe with them. They are also bound to make mistakes and go bust, but it would be quite rare for companies, with billions of assets because they have strict checks in place and invest with extreme caution and proper research. One option is to try dabbling in the markets yourself, slowly, not everything at once. You will learn a lot and there are loads of information on the net and books in stores which could get you started. You will need to do a lot of groundwork to beat the market. That is difficult but not impossible. People have done it time and time again and they have put in hard work to do so. And I don't see with a little bit of work and time, why you shouldn't be able to do that, unless and until you are lazy and don't intend to do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c255f9fe7a02eec2d330e649199f09dc", "text": "Unfortunately, in this market environment your goal is not very realistic. At the moment real interest rates are negative (and have been for some time). This means if you invest in something that will pay out for sure, you can expect to earn less than you lose through inflation. In other words, if you save your $50K, when you withdraw it in a few years you will be able to buy less with it then than you can now. You can invest in risky securities like stocks or mutual funds. These assets can easily generate 10% per year, but they can (and do) also generate negative returns. This means you can and likely will lose money after investing in them. There's an even better chance that you will make money, but that varies year by year. If you invest in something that expects to make 10% per year (meaning it makes that much on average), it will be extremely risky and many years it will lose money, perhaps a lot of it. That's the way risk is. Are you comfortable taking on large amounts of risk (good chances of losing a lot of your money)? You could make some kind of real investment. $50K is a little small to buy real estate, but you may be able to find something like real estate that can generate income, especially if you use it as a down payment to borrow from the bank. There is risk in being a landlord as well, of course, and a lot of work. But real investments like that are a reasonable alternative to financial markets for some people. Another possibility is to just keep it in your bank account or something else with no risk and take $5000 out per year. It will only last you 10 years that way, but if you are not too young, that will be a significant portion of your life. If you are young, you can work and add to it. Unfortunately, financial markets don't magically make people rich. If you make a lot of money in the market, it's because you took a risk and got lucky. If you make a comfortable amount with no risk, it means you invested in a market environment very different from what we see today. --------- EDIT ------------ To get an idea of what risk free investments (after inflation) earn per year at various horizons see this table at the treasury. At the time of this writing you would have to invest in a security with maturity almost 10 years in order to break even with inflation. Beating it by 10% or even 3% per year with minimal risk is a pipe dream.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "252851bb2da3621d7ad059dcc0ae87fb", "text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1de9922aee25c5dcff6072c4d5429de7", "text": "Yeah true that. Counseling people to avoid the negatives has been more beneficial in my life than great recommendations. Even one mistake and you're up shit's creek. And I will say I have the knowledge to help people to avoid mistakes, but sometimes it devolves into mud slinging (unfortunately). If this wasn't a new account then it might give you an indication of how I've done this in the past. Most of the time it takes too much explaining to get people up to speed though. A word to the wise: I'd recommend being open to switching industries. Everyone in finance is pretty toxic and all ended up there because of money. End up chasing the CFA (cancer distilled into three exams), grad school, nonsense corporate jobs, or the dream in high finance/small shops where the founders don't think they need another smart hard-working person. Even if if it's obvious they do. I remember reaching out and counseling a firm on selling a position that I felt was really stupid. It was not at all in line with their investing objectives and also was one I would never touch. The guy actually agreed with me, didn't hire me (I was after a job), didn't sell the position, and lost them approx. $12 million within 12 months with my math on their 13-F's. I only reach out to firms I respect, which works out to about 1 firm per 100k people in population from what I've seen (in a city like Pittsburgh this was only 4 shops). That means there are maybe 200 people in the US who would make a hiring decision on me for what I like to do. But I've stopped playing that game. I now run a healthcare business I started. It was hard as hell to open but I now run circles around people because nobody actually is in the business of the industry. The doctors, nurses, etc. are all extremely bright - just not in my area. Makes for a much more fun workday.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "463fa73a0da279bb43beb2b3d9493116", "text": "\"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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "126517c7db1abd5867ef8b628dc95969", "text": "How does one get into a position in their career where their work involves a lot of personal judgement to value investments? I'm going into my junior year of undergrad...does it take years of certain experience in the finservices industry to actually get a job/position type like yours? Sounds like an ideal job!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3da0cd1c67d1c4cc43b2d6c2096f217", "text": "Not sure why you're posting in r/finance; did you meant to post in /r/PersonalFinances ? Or /r/financialindependence ? Anyway, I'll play. There are 3 ways you can go about it, make it 4: 1. Commercial: find yourself a job/career that you'd do it for free. I once met a guy who was in your similar situation and he had a hot dog stand in the hearth of the financial district of a large US city; he did it for the fun and to be social. He'd be there only when the Stock Market was open and if the weather was good. You could also develop a more challenging career for the satisfaction of it: writer, artists, craftsman.... You could go back to school, or take an online class, or do an online degree for the pure satisfaction of it all 2. Start a company. Similar to #1 above, but this this 100% entrepreneurial. It could be just yourself, or enlist the help of the wife; full time or part time. This again, follow your passion; since you're set financially it should not that difficult to break even. With time you could grow and hire people, but that increase the complexity and you might find yourself managing the business and not actually getting the satisfaction of doing what you had set to do. 3. Volunteer: find a non profit whose mission aligns with your values, and volunteer there; 1 or a couple of organizations; if you're up to it with time you could climb up the ranks ... 4. Mentoring: there are a lot of people who dream about being in your situation. I am sure it was not luck but hard work as well. You could become a blogger, write a book (in your name or anonymously); or mentor directly someone, reddit and a web site is a good marketing start. If you have enough money (accredited investor) you could become an angel investor, or join an angel consortium to help people with your background to make something out of themselves. 5. A combination of 2 or more from the above.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4af05e63f5307611cd4398055972c67c", "text": "After losing my job (age 59) I started trading currencies. Many people have talents that they can use online and turn them into a business. Once I figured out how to trade I started writing eBooks on how to trade. What is your area of expertise, I bet you have one or can develop one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0602eb2408df6d73c04c5a0a08efd72a", "text": "\"If that's your goal. Watch the entire webinar on warren buffet books by Preston Pysh first for a good intro into stocks bonds etc: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLECECA66C0CE68B1E&v=KfDB9e_cO4k Read Dale Carnegies book \"\"How to Win Friends and Influence People\"\" in order to learn how to communicate to people effectively and create networks. The most important skill in any field you choose to go into. Read \"\"The Everything Store\"\" for essentially an MBA in business. Read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin graham for a bachelors in finance. Then take classes that get you the very best professors in the field of finance, economics, and business at your school and make sure you never stop asking questions. Continue to develop your skills and create good saving & communication habits. And if you want great jobs, get internships. To get internships be involved in as much as you can in campus and take leadership roles (especially when you think you can't handle it) you will grow quickly as a leader and businessman if you do it right. If reading is a bit much for you, try audiobooks. And make sure you enjoy college and surround yourself with ambitious youngsters like yourself. It will help you grow. Enjoy school and be social, make mistakes and do whatever it takes to get a minimum 3.5 GPA (get old tests study groups easy teachers or GPA boosting classes if you need to) Aight that's all I got haha\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f873732b1561ed479b43d1d2d0c5ae3", "text": "\"I switched to the buy side, here is some things you should do. First of all, you already had 6 interviews. I would say the HR people are going to be less helpful because its harder to differentiate yourself. If you are talking to an investment portfolio, and they ask you any of type of... What are you interested in? How did you get into this space? You better have multiple stock pitches lined up. For example, on the the first question I'm interested in IM because I was exposed at an early age by my parents. Although I didn't know what I was doing, I kept following (STOCK 1, you're first crack in the doorway). more about your background stuff In fact, STOCK 1 turned out to be one of my best/worst trades. I thought it was going here and it went there due to this and that and etc...more info about stock 1 Now, I like to look at names such as STOCK 2-5 because they are show (this multiple or that yield or these moats, depending on who you are talking to). That is how you get a job through an informational interview. As for how you get an informational interview? Go run through linkedin. Sort for investment management. Any person you have a 2nd degree network or Group network is fair game. Just shoot your common friend an email (hey whats up, i saw you were friends with X, i'm really interested in his company can you put me in touch). Although the end person may never respond, the connection is like almost guaranteed to help (assuming you're a nice friendly person). Recruiting for IM is a full time job. Even other industries as well. My roommate graduated Haas Business Undergrad program (top 3 in the country) in TWO years (not 2 letters and science + 2 business, but 2 total years) at 19 years old, took him a full year of recruiting and paying his own way out to NY to meet people to land an banking job (due to similar circumstances, as he was fully out of school and wasn't in the normal rotation). What really concerns me is you keep saying \"\"analysis.\"\" It makes me think that you have no clue what you want to do. Tell me what analysis means. If you want to recruit for IM, you better be watching the markets everyday (esp if you are unemployed), have opinions on lots of companies, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cc39d91d4ee180fe587330a6019f814", "text": "You can try paper trading to sharpen your investing skills(identifying stocks to invest, how much money to allocate and stuff) but nothing compares to getting beaten black and blue in the real world. When virtual money is involved you mayn't care, because you don't loose anything, but when your hard earned money disappears or grows, no paper trading can incite those feelings in you. So there is no guarantee that doing paper trading will make you a better investor, but can help you a lot in terms of learning. Secondly educate yourself on the ways of investing. It is hard work and realize that there is no substitute for hard work. India is a growing economy and your friends maybe safe in the short term but take it from any INVESTOR, not in the long run. And moreover as all economies are recovering from the recession there are ample opportunities to invest money in India both good and bad. Calculate your returns and compare it with your friends maybe a year or two down the lane to compare the returns generated from both sides. Maybe they would come trumps but remember selecting a good investment from a bad investment will surely pay out in the long run. Not sure what you do not understand what Buffet says. It cannot get more simpler than that. If you can drill those rules into your blood, you mayn't become a billionaire but surely you will make a killing, but in the long run. Read and read as much as you can. Buy books, browse the net. This might help. One more guy like you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b8f5ad2035755610aa45bc32b482f3c", "text": "I'd say only look for business opportunities in areas where you have quite a lot of specific knowledge, or the ability to learn from someone who already has it. Further, particularly in a saturated market like the one you describe, you need to have a clear idea of how you're going to be better than other players. It's not enough to just want to do something to make money. You need a solid plan and a solid angle on how you're going to be better than others. If you don't have those things yet for what you're looking at, do more research until you do. If you never get there, don't bother. You're essentially saying you want to exploit arbitrage opportunities, which is a legitimate way to make a living, but it requires a LOT of market knowledge, because there are probably millions of people doing the exact same thing.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
521adda36c0b95cb3a8d7b89443bb084	Is Bogleheadism (index fund investing) dead?	[ { "docid": "bfb844efdcbda51b6ec1bb6a74c2bfb2", "text": "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000. I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year. Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200. Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance. Repeat that activity every 12-18 months. This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets. This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbcdc3ea9bf228d4bf12f852eef8e693", "text": "If the ship is sinking, switching cabins with your neighbor isn't necessarily a good survival strategy. Index funds have sucked, because frankly just about everything has sucked lately. I still think it is a viable long term strategy as long as you are doing some dollar cost averaging. You can't think about long term investing as a steady climb up a hill, markets are erratic, but over long periods of time trend upwards. Now is your chance to get in near the ground floor. I can completely empathize that it is painful right now, but I am a believer in market efficiency and that over the long haul smart money is just more expensive (in terms of fees) than set-it-and-forget it diversified investments or target funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aac84e8f8334ccd8fda74433b189625a", "text": "It's incredibly difficult to beat the market, especially after you're paying out significant fees for managed funds. The Bogleheads have some good things going for them on their low cost Vanguard style funds. The biggest winners in the financial markets are the people collecting fees from churn or setting up the deals which take advantage of less sophisticated/connected players. Buy, Hold and Forget has been shown as a loser as well in this recession. Diversifying and re-balancing however takes advantage of market swings by cashing out winners and buying beaten down stocks. If you take advantages of general market highs and lows (without worrying about strict timing) every few months to re-balance, you buy some protection from crashes in any given sector. One common guideline is to use your age as the percentage of your holdings that are in cash equivalents, rather than stocks. At age 28, at least 28% of my account should be in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This should help guide your allocation and re-balancing strategy. Finally, focusing on Growth and Income funds may give you a better shot at above S&P returns, but it's wise to hold a small percentage in the S&P 500 as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cb7eb913f9f29b9425752068c1fd065", "text": "\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "897210fbc785440af682a59544834ec4", "text": "Dogma always disappoints. The notion that an index fund is the end-all, be-all for investing because the expense ratios are low is a flawed one. I don't concern myself with cost as an independent factor -- I look for the best value. Bogle's dogma lines up with his business, so you need to factor that in as well. Vendors of any product spend alot of time and money convincing you that unique attributes of their product are the most important thing in the world. Pre-crash, the dogmatics among us were bleating about how Fixed-date Retirement Funds were the new paradigm. Where did they go?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a2f3874313270fac9674ad2cccbc5c1", "text": "Excellent Question! I agree with other repliers but there are some uneasy things with index funds. Since your view is death, I will take extremely pessimist view things that may cause it (very big may): I know warnings about stock-picking but, in imperfect world, the above things tend to happen. But to be honest, they feel too much paranoia. Better to keep things simple with good diversification and rebalancing when people live in euphoria/death. You may like Bogleheads.org.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84af74fe96101aba83d1b6e7c3bc8013", "text": "I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b683b5c56dadebd966fea31964fadf1", "text": "\"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost). It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either. One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what \"\"traditionally\"\" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates? Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40. As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely. I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5e94e5d41bae9c399526f9811866f985", "text": "It's quite alright, it's been over a decade since he passed so I'm not particularly sensitive about it any more. I'll have a look at investopedia, but what I'm mainly interested in is private equity. I wanted to ask directly about that, but I feel that I need a frame of reference to understand what's going on. As in, I doubt I'd be able to really get private equity without first having an understanding of public trading. Is this subreddit really that reputable? I've learned to not really trust reddit, for the most part. Is there some kind of curation here?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "842ba6cab5bdbcd099f09cd5f35e37ca", "text": "Fair, but to the first point, taking action on the climate change/stranded asset risk would disqualify the fund as a passive investment. Half the point of passive funds is to take that part of risk out of the equation - poor investment decisions - and rely on the average S&P500 performance instead. I get the second point, though I question whether that point has validity until activist investors are in significant, which is a long way off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cbbc2352d0e322816d8a9623eee9235", "text": "\">those fossil free funds have been outperforming their fossilized index counterparts Why am I not surprised that over a 3 year or less time period, during the worst oil crash in at least 20 years, a fund the excludes that sector is performing better? What a misleading statement. Like saying in early 2000, \"\"oh my tech-free fund is outperforming the funds with tech stocks\"\" while ignoring the dot com bubble bursting having any effect, and implying that tech stocks will never recover.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d2b124795bc36a1421cb615e4b3ab19", "text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72728dfe747564351ad248445cf8d524", "text": "There's an interview with Andrew Lo on the WSJ that's worth a listen. One idea he touched on briefly is how the rise of index funds may be creating an investor monoculture. If this is the case, then he thinks it could lead to more market volatility. Interesting stuff. http://www.wsj.com/podcasts/andrew-w-lo-talks-how-to-evolve-with-adaptive-markets/4B141ED2-23EA-409E-BFEE-96791EEB473E.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be3f373f8d70b137501de20014c0ab9d", "text": "> So what’s the problem? When investors put their money in an index like the S&P 500, they believe that they are just investing in “the market”, broadly. But now, these for-profit indices have made an active decision to exclude certain stocks on the basis of their voting structures. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between the companies creating the passive funds that track the indices and the companies creating the indices that are being tracked. Indices have always been subject to somewhat arbitrary rules for what is being included and how its value is calculated. So this article is completely missing the point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08d5925d71bac21221c3b6a39b518ede", "text": "There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91ac0fed77d4e280fa2c49c0ad065fa6", "text": "\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "071c2132ddf7a9b2e7d73def17bc4916", "text": "Wheee . . .what fun . .these fucking bankers never learn and on the other side of the shit spectrum we have the Jolly octopus (AKA Goldman) with investors pulling out of their Rainbow unicorn fund. I am watching you octopus and if you need [help vs the Octopus](http://www.investorclaims.com/Brokerage-Firms/Goldman-Sachs.aspx)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "545e9e42cce983a37760a9ff4bb41ede", "text": "I tried direct indexing the S&P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db5cee669f27b0a3197bf6309cf96007", "text": "Statistically speaking active strategies are strictly on par with, or worse when you subtract fees, than passive strategies (regardless of how much time or money you spend investigating companies). Actively managed mutual funds are by and large just a racket where one class of rich people soaks another class of rich people plus some of the middle class. So yeah they should go ahead and call it a day. About time IMO.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be6485d1e027582bd54cfed4272ca86a", "text": "\"Hope springs eternal in the human breast. No actively managed fund has beaten the indices over a long period of time, but over shorter periods, actively managed funds have beaten the indices quite often, sometimes quite spectacularly, and sometimes even for many years in a row. Examples from the past include Fidelity Magellan and Legg Mason Value Trust. So people buy actively managed funds hoping to cash in on such good performance. The difficulty is, of course, that many people don't even think about investing in a fund until it is listed in some \"\"Top Forty Funds of last year\"\" compilation, and for many funds, they have already peaked, and new buyers are often disappointed. Some people who invested earlier plan on getting out of the fund before the fund falls flat on its face, and fewer even succeed in doing so. As to why 401k plans often have high-cost actively managed funds, there are several reasons. A most important one is that there are numerous companies that act as administrators of 401k programs and these companies put together package deals of 401k programs (funds, administrative costs etc), and small employers perforce have to choose from one of these packages. Second, there are various rules that have come into existence since the first days of 401k (and 403b) programs such as the investment choices must include funds of different types, and actively managed funds (large cap, small cap etc) are one of the choices that must be offered. Gone are the days when the only choice was a variable annuity offered by the insurance company administering the 401k program. Finally, program participants also have hopes (cf. opening sentence) and used to demand that the 401k program offer a few actively managed funds, not just index funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c107b901b430498b1ecacaf3deb6978", "text": "\"I have seen Dave Ramsey give extremely bad retirement advice in the past. For example, he turned fund fees into a political issue and said people who worry about mutual fund fees are [\"\"from a liberal political perspective...\"\"](https://youtu.be/zR64-Ea_r5U?t=214) They are actually concerned about the [compounding returns of investors ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZvu_h3x1A) and how higher fees will eat at them, rather than the amount of money that investment companies will get in fees. There's no politics involved at all, he's just a blabbering idiot. I don't see any reason to follow his advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39111f34d9ea66aec5d967ac0e8e8f75", "text": "Nice attempt at trying to obfuscate the math by suggesting your wage was half of what you actually got paid. You were paid $9/hr, not $4.50. Was your CEO spending billions of other people's money playing martian when he could have been paying his employees instead?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f824112e5846e465882fb442b9ec6dd2", "text": "\"As an exercise, I want to give this a shot. I'm not involved in a firm that cares about liquidity so all this stuff is outside my purview. As I understand it, it goes something like this: buy side fund puts an order to the market as a whole (all or most possibly exchanges). HFTs see that order hit the first exchange but have connectivity to exchanges further down the pipe that is faster than the buy side fund. They immediately send their own order in, which reaches exchanges and executes before the buy side fund's order can. They immediately put up an ask, and buy side fund's order hits that ask and is filled (I guess I'm assuming the order was a market order from the beginning). This is in effect the HFT front running the buy side fund. Is this accurate? Even if true, whether I have a genuine issue with this... I'm not sure. Has anyone on the \"\"pro-HFT\"\" side written a solid rebuttal to Lewis and Katsuyama that has solid research behind it?\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1c99cdbfa36e28eb90984e35bd0a0bf3	How do I get a Tax Exemption Certificate for export from the US if I am in another country?	[ { "docid": "e6bc39b53fb5cdee06c5ef1a03a1b326", "text": "Assuming you are being charged sales tax, it all depends on where you take possession of the shipment. Are your suppliers shipping to a US address, say your freight forwarder, from where you handle the ongoing shipment, or directly to you in South America? If the latter, per Michael Pryor's answer, you should not be charged sales tax. If the former, if the address is in a state in which your supplier has a physical location they will have to charge sales tax. That said, your freight forwarder should be able to furnish your supplier with a letter stating that the goods have been exported (with a copy of the relevant Bill of Lading) which will allow your supplier to refund you the taxes (a company I was at before would allow refunds up to two years past the date of sale per various tax regulations). Alternatively, you could see if just a letter of intent from your freight forwarder is enough to not charge you in the first place, but that's technically not proof of exportation. You might be able to get a refund or an exception from the state's tax department directly, but I would recommend going through your supplier - much less hassle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a377f67fb9ea0522d326e45b041eb6d5", "text": "How do you know you are playing their cost plus tax? Retailers in the US currently only collect state sales tax on purchasers who are based in the same state they are in. For example, our business is in NY so we charge NY state sales tax. We do not charge sales tax for anyone living in any other state (or country). If your shipping address is in South America, the people you are buying from in the US should not be charging you any tax. You may have to pay customs duties and fees, but these are not sales tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a36f5394cf6bbe4093906c74e603f2f", "text": "Depends on the state, in Texas you should charge sales tax because the shipment is going to a freight forwarder in Texas. That being said, once you have the bill of lading you can have your tax credited by the vendor. It is one of the documents the state will except in lieu of sales tax for exports. There are five. You can find this info at the Comptrollers website. I would validate that you are being charged sales/use tax and not withholding tax, withholding would be related to your country. Doc requirements for export vary from state to state.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "aa6b5fd3a2691763e0186d3daa30563b", "text": "Buyer A didn't send money to the US government, Buyer A sent money to Seller B, a US resident. I think the most common way to facilitate a transaction like this is a regular old international wire transfer. Buyer A in India goes to their bank to exchange X INR to $1mm USD. $1mm USD is then wire transferred to Seller B's bank account. The USD was sold to Buyer A, either by funds held by Buyer A's bank, or foreign exchange markets, or possibly the US government. Seller B may owe taxes on the gain derived from the sale of this thing to Buyer A, but that taxation would arise regardless of who the buyer was. Buyer A may owe an import tax in India upon importing whatever they bought. I don't think it's common to tax imported money in this sort of transactional setting though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6ad013cf08e69dbb6805502c23c936c", "text": "Fear tactics posted above, likely by IRS agents. Yes, you qualify based on the residence test. You perform your work outside the US. You gather business data in a foreign country. The income is excluded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb6a63bb1abd8ee6d5c4b1cde0087a9f", "text": "I took littleadv's advice and talked to an accountant today. Regardless of method of payment, my US LLC does not have to withhold taxes or report the payment as payments to contractors (1099/1042(S)) to the IRS; it is simply a business expense. He said this gets more complicated if the recipient is working in the US (regardless of nationality), but that is not my case", "title": "" }, { "docid": "810d4842bdc077402c3b1d10247a8e7f", "text": "If your gross income is only $3000, then you don't need to file: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf That said, pay careful attention to: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad You should be reporting ALL income, without regard to WHERE you earned it, on your US taxes. Not doing so could indeed get you in trouble if you are audited. Your level of worry depends on how much of the tax law you are willing to dodge, and how lucky you feel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6930ffd3459df51d2e594465b3b8a9f1", "text": "There's nothing wrong with your reasoning except that you expect the tax laws to make perfect sense. More often than not they don't. I suggest getting in touch with a professional tax preparer (preferably with a CPA or EA designation), who will be able to understand the issue, including the relevant portions of the French-US tax treaty, and explain it to you. You will probably also need to do some reporting in France, so get a professional advice from a French tax professional as well. So, in my tax return, can I say that I had no US revenue at all during this whole year? I doubt it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6681aab67e513952ed9e5130e3f33fcc", "text": "\"If you're a US citizen, money earned while in the US is sourced to the US. So you can't apply FTC/FEIE to the amounts attributable to the periods of your work while in the US even if it is a short business trip. Tax treaties may affect this. Most tax treaties have explicit provisions to exclude short trips from the sourcing rules, however due to the \"\"saving clause\"\" these would probably not apply to you if you're a US citizen - you'll need to read the relevant treaty. Your home country should allow credit for the US taxes paid on the US-sourced income, and the double-taxation avoidance provision should apply in this case. The technicalities depend on your specific country. You would probably not just remove it from the taxable income, there probably is a form similar to the US form 1116 to calculate the available credit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1f72824ef2b3072f154a0d2fa565ef4", "text": "Depending on what software you use. It has to be reported as a foreign income and you can claim foreign tax paid as a foreign tax credit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "071a251118a8b48aa4362f2e706e4b35", "text": "Tax Refund: The US generally does not refund tax like other countries. For larger sales, you might want to try state tax refunds, check here: https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/373/~/how-to-obtain-a-refund-of-sales-tax-paid-while-visiting-the-united-states US Customs: You never pay US customs when you leave, they don't care about what you take out of the country. You might have to pay customs in your arrival country afterwards, and the rules depend on the country you arrive in. Most countries have a limit on how much you can bring for free, typically in the range of 500 $, but that varies a lot. Also, some countries do not count used articles, so if you wear your new clothing once, it does not count against the limit anymore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7195053464f2555973061c1a472f0ed3", "text": "You should probably get a professional tax advice, as it is very specific to the Philipines tax laws and the US-Philippine tax treaty. What I know, however, is that if it was the other way around - you paying a foreigner coming to the US to consult you - you would be withholding 30% of their pay for the IRS which they would be claiming for refund on their own later. So if the US does it to others - I'm not surprised to hear that others do it to the US. Get a professional advice on what and how you should be doing. In any case, foreign taxes paid can be used to offset your US taxes using form 1116 up to some extent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0152ba06545b89e5d1178360243f5d4b", "text": "\"If you live outside the US, then you probably need to deal with foreign tax credits, foreign income exclusions, FBAR forms (you probably have bank account balances enough for the 10K threshold) , various monsters the Congress enacted against you like form 8939 (if you have enough banking and investment accounts), form 3520 (if you have a IRA-like local pension), form 5471 (if you have a stake in a foreign business), form 8833 (if you have treaty claims) etc ect - that's just what I had the pleasure of coming across, there's more. TurboTax/H&R Block At Home/etc/etc are not for you. These programs are developed for a \"\"mainstream\"\" American citizen and resident who has nothing, or practically nothing, abroad. They may support the FBAR/FATCA forms (IIRC H&R Block has a problem with Fatca, didn't check if they fixed it for 2013. Heard reports that TurboTax support is not perfect as well), but nothing more than that. If you know the stuff well enough to fill the forms manually - go for it (I'm not sure they even provide all these forms in the software though). Now, specifically to your questions: Turbo tax doesn't seem to like the fact that my wife is a foreigner and doesn't have a social security number. It keeps bugging me to input a valid Ssn for her. I input all zeros for now. Not sure what to do. No, you cannot do that. You need to think whether you even want to include your wife in the return. Does she have income? Do you want to pay US taxes on her income? If she's not a US citizen/green card holder, why would you want that? Consider it again. If you decide to include here after all - you have to get an ITIN for her (instead of SSN). If you hire a professional to do your taxes, that professional will also guide you through the ITIN process. Turbo tax forces me to fill out a 29something form that establishes bonafide residency. Is this really necessary? Again in here it bugs me about wife's Ssn Form 2555 probably. Yes, it is, and yes, you have to have a ITIN for your wife if she's included. My previous state is California, and for my present state I input Foreign. When I get to the state tax portion turbo doesn't seem to realize that I have input foreign and it wants me to choose a valid state. However I think my first question is do i have to file a California tax now that I am not it's resident anymore? I do not have any assets in California. No house, no phone bill etc If you're not a resident in California, then why would you file? But you might be a partial resident, if you lived in CA part of the year. If so, you need to file 540NR for the part of the year you were a resident. If you have a better way to file tax based on this situation could you please share with me? As I said - hire a professional, preferably one that practices in your country of residence and knows the provisions of that country's tax treaty with the US. You can also hire a professional in the US, but get a good one, that specializes on expats.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "551209fba299aa15ed4dd94754ca16ad", "text": "Use prepaid cards. You only have to declare, or mention, or convert CASH. You can get as many $500 prepaid cards as you like and carry them across. US Code only mentions cash, so even if customs thought it was peculiar that you had one thousand prepaid cards in your trunk, it isn't something they look into. Prepaid cards come with small transaction fees though. And of course, you could also use a bank account in America and just withdraw from an ATM in canada. Finally, the FBAR isn't that much of a hassle, in case you did decide to get a canadian bank account. The US Federal Gov't doesn't care about all these crafty things you might do, as long as you are using POST-TAX money. If your foreign account earns interest, then you have some pre-tax money that the US Federal Gov't will care about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb0647f840b95233af703f5eabf08a32", "text": "\"1. What forms do I need to file to receive money from Europe None. Your client can pay you via wire transfer. They need to know your name, address, account number, and the name of your bank, its SWIFT number and its associated address. The addresses and names are required to make sure there are no typos in the numbers. 2. What forms do I need to file to pay people in Latin America (or any country outside the US) None. 1099s only need to be filled out when the contractor has a US tax ID. Make sure they are contractors. If they work for you for more than 2 years, that can create a problem unless they incorporate because they might look like \"\"employees\"\" to the IRS in which case you need to be reporting their identitites to the IRS via a W-8BEN form. Generally speaking any foreign contractor you have for more than 2 years should incorporate in their own country and you bill that corporation to prevent employee status from occurring. 3. Can I deduct payments I made to contractors from other countries as company expense Of course.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d96a217cfd999cfcfdccb979a8068a15", "text": "\"Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! You will have to submit on your income from the business. The term \"\"partnership\"\" refers to a specific business entity type in the U.S. I'm not sure if you're using it the same way. In a partnership in the U.S. you pay income tax on your share of the partnership's income whether or not you actually receive income in your personal account. There's not enough information here to know if that applies in your case. (In the U.S., the partnership itself does not pay income tax - It is a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" for tax purposes, with the tax liability passed through to the partners as individuals.) Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? As regards language, you will file a tax return on a U.S. form presumably in English. You will not have to submit your account information on any other form, so the fact that your documentation is in German does not matter. The only exception that comes to mind is that you could potentially get audited (just like anyone else filing taxes in the U.S.) in which case you might need to produce your documentation. That situation is rare enough that I wouldn't worry about it though. I'm not sure if they'd take it in German or force you to get a translation. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? Q) Is this correct!? The long-term capital gains rate is 15% for most people. (At very high incomes it is 20%.) It sounds like you would qualify for long-term (held for greater than 1 year) capital gains in this case, although the details might matter. There is a foreign tax credit, but I'm not completely sure if it would apply in this case. (If forced to guess, I would say that it does.) If you search for \"\"foreign tax credit\"\" and \"\"IRS\"\" you should get to the information that you need pretty quickly. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Even in this case you will not need to submit any of your paperwork to the IRS, unless you get audited. See earlier comments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44f7f02ebc9b4bba410c9a805b9ed00d", "text": "\"If you have income - it should appear on your tax return. If you are a non-resident, that would be 1040NR, with the eBay income appearing on line 21. Since this is unrelated to your studies, this income will not be covered by the tax treaties for most countries, and you'll pay full taxes on it. Keep in mind that the IRS may decide that you're actually having a business, in which case you'll be required to attach Schedule C to your tax return and maybe pay additional taxes (mainly self-employment). Also, the USCIS may decide that you're actually having a business, regardless of how the IRS sees it, in which case you may have issues with your green card. For low income from occasional sales, you shouldn't have any issues. But if it is something systematic that you spend significant time on and earn significant amounts of money - you may get into trouble. What's \"\"systematic\"\" and how much is \"\"significant\"\" is up to a lawyer to tell you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c6959426bd997ccef966bf5cc436b54", "text": "You need to fill out form 8606. It's not taxable, but you still need to report it", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
584f6b1f16d34971d8e43e60b1f776c4	Any extra fees charged by passive stock and bond ETFs on top of the standard fees?	[ { "docid": "675a70aadcb10c31e3cc28eca8b61c0c", "text": "Brokers will have transaction fees in addition to the find management fees, but they should be very transparent. Brokering is a very competitive business. Any broker that added hidden fees to their transactions would lose customers very quickly to other brokers than can offer the same services. Hedge funds are a very different animal, with less regulation, less transparency, and less competition. Their fees are tolerated because the leveraged returns are usually much higher. When times are bad, though, those fees might drive investors elsewhere.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b7c8115416ff9f0bb1c0fe23627ab8ab", "text": "The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f4a5b3c153b0ee7c0d8c166d89883c0", "text": "\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \"\"fee\"\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \"\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\"\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed0ed68df5683cfbdc67e5ce8577bcd3", "text": "Any ETF has expenses, including fees, and those are taken out of the assets of the fund as spelled out in the prospectus. Typically a fund has dividend income from its holdings, and it deducts the expenses from the that income, and only the net dividend is passed through to the ETF holder. In the case of QQQ, it certainly will have dividend income as it approximates a large stock index. The prospectus shows that it will adjust daily the reported Net Asset Value (NAV) to reflect accrued expenses, and the cash to pay them will come from the dividend cash. (If the dividend does not cover the expenses, the NAV will decline away from the modeled index.) Note that the NAV is not the ETF price found on the exchange, but is the underlying value. The price tends to track the NAV fairly closely, both because investors don't want to overpay for an ETF or get less than it is worth, and also because large institutions may buy or redeem a large block of shares (to profit) when the price is out of line. This will bring the price closer to that of the underlying asset (e.g. the NASDAQ 100 for QQQ) which is reflected by the NAV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd894d1730795d2534bc64b24977b373", "text": "Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a71e54c51a33edaa86448edea5040c1", "text": "Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd8c0400df705973b49bbd16a1792a82", "text": "Usually the ADR fee comes out of dividend payments and is modest. The ADR that I am most familiar with (Vodafone - VOD) pays dividends twice a year and deducts either $0.02 or $0.01 per share. IMO, the ADR fee is not really a material factor. ADRs do have some disadvantages though:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a06204d0c55ccb723b886366940db61", "text": "I don't think that you'll notice a difference in the NAV in a fund with fees that are low as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund. Their management fees are incorporated into the NAV, but keep in mind that the fund has a total of $144 billion in assets, with $66 billion in the investor class. The actual fees represent a tiny fraction of the NAV, and may only show up at all on the day they assess the fees. With Vanguard total stock market, you notice the fee difference in the distributions. In the example of Vanguard Total Stock Market, there are institutional-class shares (like VITPX with a minimum investment of $200M) with still lower costs -- as low as 0.0250% vs. 0.18% for the investor class. You will notice a different NAV and distributions for that fund, but there may be other reasons for the variation that I'm not familar with, as I'm not an institutional investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "071df86f32434f8df1a73e00cec448e1", "text": "It really depends on the hedge fund, my hedge fund gives back all rebates for routes that are public knowledge back to the client. Also the rebate is based on the route, not the stock, so it may not offset all expenses on each ETFs. Most of the BATS IEX and other routes have public websites where you can get the infos on what are the rebates for each.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9dbe7f5f0b136736a208fcb32b3c391", "text": "\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43c7802718feab88d1054220636e2c0d", "text": "Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca2dd5f266d4df81c365b3c9d5171ced", "text": "Many brokers offer a selection of ETFs with no transaction costs. TD Ameritrade and Schwab both have good offerings. Going this route will maximize diversification while minimizing friction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0614273d91d85965c4ba9eaaef0c1251", "text": "Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a561e2ff079274876b663253e7d2d371", "text": "\"You're correct that the trading costs would be covered by the expense ratio. Just to be clear here, the expense ratio is static and doesn't change very often. It's set in such a way that the fund manager expects it to cover all of their operational costs. It's not some sort of slider that they move around with their costs. I'm not familiar with any ETF providers doing agreements which cover rent and equipment (hedge funds do - see \"\"hedge fund hotels\"\"). ETF providers do routinely enter into agreements with larger institutions that cover stuff like marketing. PowerShares, for a while, outsourced all of the management of the Qs to BNY and was responsible solely for marketing it themselves.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88bb43b977aa1af15ce7a4b0fd2dbc66", "text": "Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdffb915d0dd1bd742154da933a60b2b", "text": "The points given by DumbCoder are very valid. Diversifying portfolio is always a good idea. Including Metals is also a good idea. Investing in single metal though may not be a good idea. •Silver is pretty cheap now, hopefully it will be for a while. •Silver is undervalued compared to gold. World reserve ratio is around 1 to 11, while price is around 1 to 60. Both the above are iffy statements. Cheap is relative term ... there are quite a few metals more cheaper than Silver [Copper for example]. Undervalued doesn't make sense. Its a quesiton of demand and supply. Today Industrial use of Silver is more widespread, and its predecting future what would happen. If you are saying Silver will appreciate more than other metals, it again depends on country and time period. There are times when even metals like Copper have given more returns than Silver and Gold. There is also Platinum to consider. In my opinion quite a bit of stuff is put in undervalued ... i.e. comparing reserve ratio to price in absolute isn't right comparing it over relative years is right. What the ratio says is for every 11 gms of silver, there is 1 gm of Gold and the price of this 1 gm is 60 times more than silver. True. And nobody tell is the demand of Silver 60 times more than Gold or 11 times more than Gold. i.e. the consumption. What is also not told is the cost to extract the 11 gms of silver is less than cost of 1 gm of Gold. So the cheapness you are thinking is not 100% true.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0e9bb490f19ddc132161c113aa072bf5	Foreign company incorporated in US and W9	[ { "docid": "fe5cfb09968ac4444f604fac9e9b16c9", "text": "According to the W9 instructions you are considered a U.S. person if: According to the following section, it looks like a C corporation may be easier then an LLC: All of this information can be found here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf Hope this helps!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f32db279288b5726c22159492891b6d4", "text": "\"Since as you say, an LLC is a pass-through entity, you will be making income in the U.S. when you sell to U.S. customers. And so you will need to file the appropriate personal tax forms in the US. As well as potentially in one or more States. The US government does not register LLCs. The various States do. So you'll be dealing with Oregon, Wisconsin, Wyoming, one of those for the LLC registration. You will also need to have a registered agent in the State. That is a big deal since the entire point of forming an LLC is to add a liability shield. You would lose the liability shield by not maintaining the business formalities. Generally nations aim to tax income made in their nation, and many decline to tax income that you've already paid taxes on in another nation. A key exception: If money is taxed by the U.S. it may also be taxed by one of the States. Two States won't tax the same dollar. Registering an LLC in one State does not mean you'll pay state taxes there. Generally States tax income made in their State. It's common to have a Wyoming LLC that never pays a penny of tax in Wyoming. Officially, an LLC doing business in a State it did not form in, must register in that State as a \"\"foreign LLC\"\" even though it's still in the USA. The fee is usually the same as for a domestic LLC. \"\"Doing business\"\" means something more than incidental sales, it means having a presence specifically in the State somehow. It gets complicated quick. If you are thinking of working in someone's app ecosystem like the Apple Store, Google Play, Steam etc. Obviously they want their developers coding, not wrestling with legalities, so some of them make a priority out of clearing and simplifying legal nuisances for you. Find out what they do for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f732bdd6254aa7f83b1bfdb31ddc9704", "text": "Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42bb64664ad39c4ddb15eb14658076b3", "text": "We offer a variety of business enterprise formation applications designed to make putting in a private organization as simple and straightforward as feasible. They range from the simple Digital Package - providing the minimum prison requirements for reputable Company formation - to the All Inclusive, which includes a variety of beneficial extras, including a prestigious registered office, a commercial enterprise provider. This corporation shape is usually utilized by non-earnings Company inside the United States. It protects the private finances of the business enterprise owners in a comparable manner as a corporation limited via stocks. Instead of getting shareholders and stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "938db83ce9d0d8d64a670ca38b919a3b", "text": "Note: This is not professional tax advice. If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000? US$100,000? I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own. Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation. Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising. Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors. Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned. Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes. BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d96a217cfd999cfcfdccb979a8068a15", "text": "\"Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! You will have to submit on your income from the business. The term \"\"partnership\"\" refers to a specific business entity type in the U.S. I'm not sure if you're using it the same way. In a partnership in the U.S. you pay income tax on your share of the partnership's income whether or not you actually receive income in your personal account. There's not enough information here to know if that applies in your case. (In the U.S., the partnership itself does not pay income tax - It is a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" for tax purposes, with the tax liability passed through to the partners as individuals.) Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? As regards language, you will file a tax return on a U.S. form presumably in English. You will not have to submit your account information on any other form, so the fact that your documentation is in German does not matter. The only exception that comes to mind is that you could potentially get audited (just like anyone else filing taxes in the U.S.) in which case you might need to produce your documentation. That situation is rare enough that I wouldn't worry about it though. I'm not sure if they'd take it in German or force you to get a translation. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? Q) Is this correct!? The long-term capital gains rate is 15% for most people. (At very high incomes it is 20%.) It sounds like you would qualify for long-term (held for greater than 1 year) capital gains in this case, although the details might matter. There is a foreign tax credit, but I'm not completely sure if it would apply in this case. (If forced to guess, I would say that it does.) If you search for \"\"foreign tax credit\"\" and \"\"IRS\"\" you should get to the information that you need pretty quickly. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Even in this case you will not need to submit any of your paperwork to the IRS, unless you get audited. See earlier comments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f08dea59bc4403adf5766bf5c83627e7", "text": "Hi, apologize for my English. Extremely moronic question incoming (corporate finance, Modigliani&Miller). Let's say an unlevered company is valued at 1 bln: it issues 200 mln of debt and the corporate tax is at 40%. What is its value now? The sum of unlevered value, fiscal shield (2000.4) and debt or just the sum of unlevered value and fiscal shield?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2948cd0e63af02de801485656a7996bc", "text": "\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.* Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e20a9c8c36738492aa0363c1113b6ca9", "text": "\"I'm working on similar problem space. There seems to be some working ambiguity in this space - most focus seems to be on more complex cases of income like Dividends and Capital Gains. The US seems to take a position of \"\"where the work was performed\"\" not \"\"where the work was paid\"\" for purposes of the FEIE. See this link. The Foreign Tax Credit(FTC) is applied (regardless of FEIE) based on taxes paid in the other Country. In the event you take the FEIE, you need to exclude that from the income possible to claim on the FTC. i.e. (TOTAL WAGES(X) - Excluded Income) There is a weird caveat on TOTAL WAGES(X) that says you can only apply the FTC to foreign-sourced income which means that potentially we are liable for the on-US-soil income at crazy rates. See this link.. Upon which... there is probably not a good answer short of writing your congressperson.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d97c06abad3c4a42d88565ee028e4e58", "text": "\"It appears as others have said that companies are not required to state this on as any sort of Asset. I remembered a friend of mine is a lawyer specializing in Intellectual Property Rights so asked him and confirmed that there's no document companies are required to file which states all patent holdings as assets. There are two ways he suggested for finding out. Once you find a company you're interested in can search patents by company using one of the two following: US Patent Office website's advanced search: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm aanm/company for example entering into the textarea, \"\"aanm/google\"\" without the quotation marks will find patents by Google. The other is a Google Patent Search: http://www.google.com/patents/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb0647f840b95233af703f5eabf08a32", "text": "\"1. What forms do I need to file to receive money from Europe None. Your client can pay you via wire transfer. They need to know your name, address, account number, and the name of your bank, its SWIFT number and its associated address. The addresses and names are required to make sure there are no typos in the numbers. 2. What forms do I need to file to pay people in Latin America (or any country outside the US) None. 1099s only need to be filled out when the contractor has a US tax ID. Make sure they are contractors. If they work for you for more than 2 years, that can create a problem unless they incorporate because they might look like \"\"employees\"\" to the IRS in which case you need to be reporting their identitites to the IRS via a W-8BEN form. Generally speaking any foreign contractor you have for more than 2 years should incorporate in their own country and you bill that corporation to prevent employee status from occurring. 3. Can I deduct payments I made to contractors from other countries as company expense Of course.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40d2d9a6d76c74ae1e084e4f54346719", "text": "See I believe that it's pretty in the open. A shell company whose only purpose is to license out some intellectual property to an affiliate company should be easy to spot. A company with 5 employees and a tiny office should not be claiming millions of income that originated in an affiliate company. My point is that these things are not clearly defined in the code and should be, not that they are necessarily being hidden. I've seen at least 5 articles in the last year similar to this one about other large companies, so I wish congress and whoever else would do something about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "503261d5bff005c524a8682b785a5b54", "text": "International equity are considered shares of companies, which are headquartered outside the United States, for instance Research in Motion (Canada), BMW (Germany), UBS (Switzerland). Some investors argue that adding international equities to a portfolio can reduce its risk due to regional diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a79425e75db9bb30af8a6dfaf1f9aef4", "text": "> foreign company I mean, I agree with the rest of the post but this dude is from the US and works in NY. The equity research division has nothing to do with foreign entities, especially when the foreign country of origin is Germany......Being a foreign company really doesnt have anything to do with this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80d9204384953c46d31e6ba2bec967c0", "text": "\"By living in Sweden and having a Swedish personal identification number (personnummer), you are required to declare your entire worldwide income for tax purposes with the Swedish tax authorities, Skatteverket. It would seem to not make any difference if some of that income is kept outside of Sweden. A company that has no permanent base of operations within Sweden should not deduct any preliminary taxes for an employee that lives in Sweden. Rather, the employee should apply for \"\"special A tax\"\" (\"\"SA\"\" tax status), and pay the taxes that, had the company had a permanent base of operations in Sweden, the company would have paid. The information available on the tax authority's web site in English seems limited, but the relevant page in Swedish in your situation is very likely Lön från utländska arbetsgivare utan fast driftställe i Sverige. There is a summary at Paying taxes – for individuals. Particularly do note the summary section: When staying for at least six months, you are considered as resident in Sweden for tax purposes, and are liable for taxation in Sweden on all of your worldwide income. You must also file a Swedish income tax return. Your tax return must be filed no later than May 2nd of the year after the fiscal year. as well as that: If you stay in Sweden for a continuous period of at least six months you are considered to be resident in Sweden. /.../ As a resident you are liable for taxation in Sweden on all of your worldwide income. In some cases a tax treaty with with your ordinary country of residence may limit the Swedish taxation. /.../ For a more detailed answer, including which exact forms you need to fill out and what data is needed, I strongly recommend that you either contact Skatteverket (they are usually quite nice to deal with, and they tend to realize that everyone benefits from getting the tax paperwork and payments right from the beginning), or find an attorney specializing in Swedish tax law. They even point out themselves that (my emphasis): the practical applications of these rules are relatively complicated and for more information you can contact the Tax Information (“Skatteupplysningen”) at 0771 567 567.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3045b1ad7e9c1c05dfbe5e0f484b250c", "text": "According to the Form W-8BEN instructions for Part II, Line 10: Line 10. Line 10 must be used only if you are claiming treaty benefits that require that you meet conditions not covered by the representations you make on line 9 and Part III. For example, persons claiming treaty benefits on royalties must complete this line if the treaty contains different withholding rates for different types of royalties. In tax treaties, some of the benefits apply to every resident of a foreign country. Other benefits only apply to certain groups of people. Line 10 is where you affirm that you meet whatever special conditions are necessary in the treaty to obtain the benefit. If you are claiming that Article 15 of the U.S.-India Tax Treaty, you could use Line 10 to do this. It is important to remember that this form goes to the company paying you; it does not actually get sent to the IRS. Therefore, you can ask the company themselves if filling out Line 9 only will result in them withholding nothing, or if they would need you to fill out Line 10.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
788063a586aa1bd18d74a904a7b7605b	Why are typical 401(k) plan fund choices so awful?	[ { "docid": "5dddeefab58515aa461298ae819ed1ce", "text": "401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c69713d90bd91bd6142580bd765e223", "text": "I would point this out to the committee or other entity in charge of handling this at work. They do have a fiduciary responsibility for the participant's money and should take anything reasonable seriously. The flip side to this is 95% of participants -- especially participants under 35 or so -- really pay next to no attention to this stuff. We consider it a victory to get people to pony up the matching contributions. Active participation in investment would blow our minds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f637d28ed2f20cecce20e34bab4e0cd2", "text": "The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "164a04ce2cf9f242e658d9350ca128fb", "text": "To piggy back mbhunter's answer, the broker is going to find a way to make the amount of money they want, and either the employee or the company will foot that bill. But additionally, most small businesses want to compete and the market and offer benefits in the US. So they shop around, and maybe the boss doesn't have the best knowledge about effective investing, so they end up taking the offering from the broker who sells it the best. Give you company credit for offering something, but know they are as affected by a good salesperson as anybody else. Being a good sales person doesn't mean you are selling a good product.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8278b4e51960984a764e5fa69a584add", "text": "401K accounts, both regular and Roth, generally have loans available. There are maximum amounts that are based on federal limits, and your balance in the program. These rules also determine the amount of time you have to repay the loan, and what happens if you quit or are fired while the loan is outstanding. In these loan programs the loan comes from your 401K funds. Regarding matching funds. This plan is not atypical. Some match right away, some make you wait. Some put in X percent regardless of what you contribute. Some make you opt out, others make you opt in. Some will direct their automatic amounts to a specific fund, unless you tell them otherwise. The big plus for the fund you describe is the immediate vesting. Some companies will match your investments but then only partially vest the funds. They don't want to put a bunch of matching funds into your account, and then have you leave. So they say that if you leave before 5 years is up, they will not let you keep all the funds. If you leave after 2 years you keep 25%, if you leave after 3 years you keep 50%... The fact they immediately vest is a very generous plan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6afaace264db953883616071a4e578d", "text": "This is literally the worst article ever. First dividends are not guaranteed, and the higher the yield the higher the risk for a dividend paying stock. When buying a stock that pays dividends make sure they have the cash flows to cover it long term. Utility stocks are interest rate sensitive. If we head into a period of high interest rates, utility stocks are going to underperform, if not get killed. Exchange traded funds can be extremely risky, and some have much higher fees than mutual funds. Variable Annuities should never be purchased unless you have exhausted all other tax deferred strategies, and then probably still to be avoided because of high fees. Money markets and CDs aren't really investments. They're a cash alternatives that May not keep up with inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b90dc3f316e64f6d93f0fd4e355334d", "text": "An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d2575931e7d2b1704a1830353b1842d", "text": "\"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \"\"not most people\"\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65145beacef7b0c43b871f77760ba90b", "text": "While the other answers are good, I wanted to expand a little on why I feel a ROTH is a bad way to go unless you are young. First, let's pretend you have a 25% tax rate. And your investments will go up 5% per year for 10 years. You contribute 6% of income for one year. You can do a traditional or a roth 401k/IRA. Here's the math: Traditional: 6% of income invested. Grows at 5% for 10 years. Taxed at 25% on withdrawl. = (Income * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) * (100% - 25%) = (Income * 6%) * 1.63 * .75 = 7.33% of your original income - but this is after taxes ROTH: Taxes taken out of income. Then 6% of that goes into the fund(s). Still grows at 5% for 10 years. Not taxed at withdrawl. = (Income * (100% - 25%) * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) = (Income * 75% * 6%) * 1.63 = 7.33% of your original income - again this is after taxes. Look familiar? They are the same. It's the simple transitive property of mathematics. So why do a traditional vs. a ROTH? The reason is that your tax bracket changes. This changes because your income changes. Say when you retire you plan to have your home or vehicle paid for. You expect to be able to live on $50,000 per year. This means when you make MORE than $50,000 you should do a traditional plan and when you make less than this you should do a ROTH plan. Example: You make $100,000 and your upper bracket is now 30%. You save 30% by doing a traditional and then pay back 10, 20, and 30% as you withdraw a salary of $50,000. Traditional = better. Example: You make $30,000 annually. Your upper bracket is 20%. You pay 20% on a roth. Then you withdraw funds to get to $50,000 anually and never pay the higher bracket. Roth = better. ROTH advocates typically bring up tax rates. Of course they will go up they insist. So you always should do a ROTH. Not so fast. Taxes have gone down in recent years (No one please start a political debate with me. Some went up, some went down, but overall, federal income rates dropped). Even if taxes rose 5%, a traditional will still be better than a ROTH in many cases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bca170f15ded47fda9327e000cb5cbe", "text": "\"The \"\"Money 70\"\" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are \"\"bad,\"\" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0e35575aa64bebb6e39286109ddf921", "text": "\"Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the \"\"Freedom Funds\"\" offered. They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds. That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account. All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older. If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here? Let's do a quick example. Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%). I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds. Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year! Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company. This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee. Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund). Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA. That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want. Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those. Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7436eb25a30020c21f3702ee266941b", "text": "\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68fd6f1ecbf65aa1c53d6bdf59d9e714", "text": "Let me throw in one more variable to consider. Company 401K plans typically have MUCH higher fees than you are likely to get if you shop around on your own as long as you don't go with a high dollar broker. You won't see these fees on your statements typically, which I think is criminal, but they are hidden in the prices of the funds you are buying in the 401K. If you don't believe me, get the quotes for a fund from the 401K company's web-site then look up the same fund on a site like MSMoney. The share prices won't match and you will be angry until you come to terms with it. So if you have a choice of money in a personal retirement account versus a 401K always go with your own account... UNLESS: or", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e3db5c45ccaa6589d0bcc62baed7712", "text": "\"Your question has a built in faulty premise. \"\"ASSUMING a person knows how to use and invest their money wisely\"\" I'd ask if you were wise enough to beat the investments offered in your 401(k) after expenses, and with respect to the potential tax savings. Then, since I'm a proponent of \"\"deposit to the match, even if you have to eat rice and beans to find the cash to do\"\" I'll extend the question to ask if you can beat the choices taking the match into account. 401(k) - Your $1000 starts as $1500 and has a tax due on withdrawal years later. AeroAccount - You start with $750 (after the tax) and might spend a decade before hitting $1500. Start your own company? That might be another story. But to invest in the market and still beat the matched 401(k) takes a bit more wisdom than I'd claim to have.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56290eb39d292df78b8af33f4e308903", "text": "Mostly you nailed it. It's a good question, and the points you raise are excellent and comprise good analysis. Probably the biggest drawback is if you don't agree with the asset allocation strategy. It may be too much/too little into stocks/bonds/international/cash. I am kind of in this boat. My 401K offers very little choices in funds, but offers Vanguard target funds. These tend to be a bit too conservative for my taste, so I actually put money in the 2060 target fund. If I live that long, I will be 94 in 2060. So if the target funds are a bit too aggressive for you, move down in years. If they are a bit too conservative, move up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8abab3a7c58f602a64ee42553c53c2d9", "text": "\"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that \"\"reasonable\"\" and \"\"diversified\"\" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then \"\"age\"\" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "019436e3750e0037cce98d04021422c0", "text": "the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you. You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns. I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement. Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees - 1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better. The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years. They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9582508ff18f868305f5e696269c7552", "text": "\"Assuming the numbers work out roughly the same (and you can frankly whip up a spreadsheet to prove that out), a defined benefit scheme that pays out an amount equal to an annuitized return from a 401(k) is better. The reason is not monetary - it is that the same return is being had at less risk. Put another way, if your defined benefit was guaranteed to be $100/month, and your 401(k) had a contribution that eventually gets to a lump sum that, if annuitized for the same life expectancy gave you $100/month, the DB is better because there is less chance that you won't see the money. Or, put even simpler, which is more likely? That New York goes Bankrupt and is relieved of all pension obligations, or, the stock market underperforms expectations. Neither can be ruled out, but assuming even the same benefit, lower risk is better. Now, the complication in your scenario is that your new job pays better. As such, it is possible that you might be able to accumulate more savings in your 401(k) than you might in the DB scheme. Then again, even with the opportunity to do so, there is no guarantee that you will. As such, even modelling it out really isn't going to dismiss the key variables. As such, can I suggest a different approach? Which job is going to make you happier now? Part of that may be money, part of that may be what you are actually doing. But you should focus on that question. The marginal consideration of retirement is really moot - in theory, an IRA contribution can be made that would equalize your 401(k), negating it from the equation. Grant you, there is very slightly different tax treatment, and the phaseout limits differ, but at the salary ranges you are looking at, you could, in theory, make decisions that would have the same retirement outcome in any event. The real question is then not, \"\"What is the effect in 20 years?\"\" but rather, which makes you happier now?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4ec1d889d25ed417131dc2a91cefb11", "text": "\"Holding pure cash is a problem for 401K companies because they would then have follow banking rules because they would be holding your cash on their balance sheets. They don't want to be in that business. Instead, they should offer at least one option as a cash equivalent - a money market fund. This way the money is held by the fund, not by 401K administrator. Money Market funds invest in ultra-short term paper, such as overnight loans between banks and other debt instruments that mature in a matter of days. So it is all extremely liquid, as close to \"\"Money\"\" as you can get without actually being money. It is extremely rare for a money market fund to lose value, or \"\"break the buck.\"\" During the crisis of 2008, only one or two funds broke the buck, and it didn't last long. They had gotten greedy and their short term investments were a little more aggressive as they were trying to get extra returns. In short, your money is safe in a money market fund, and your 401K plan should offer one as the \"\"cash\"\" option, or at least it should offer a short-term bond fund. If you feel strongly that your money should be in actual cash, you can always stop contributing to the 401K and put the money in the bank. This is not a good idea though. Unless you're close to retirement, you'll be much better off investing in a well diversified portfolio, even through the ups and downs of the market.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4edf20cdb2236e67c2ec8972df5ec841	What are institutional investors?	[ { "docid": "8c1451567018ae65689b6bac99a969b5", "text": "\"Professional investors managing large investment portfolios for \"\"institutions\"\" -- a college, a museum, a charitable organization, et cetera. I'm not sure whether those managing investments for a business are considered institutional investors or not. The common factor tends to be large to immense portfolios (let's call it $100M and up, just for discussion) and concern with preserving that wealth. Having that much money to work with allows some investment strategies that don't make sense for smaller investors, and makes some others impractical to impossible. These folks can make mistakes too; Madoff burned a lot of charities when his scam collapsed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a39e5f0fa23d8f3eef2d9f75eafd4b26", "text": "FINRA defines institutional investors as: Institutional investors include banks, savings and loan associations, insurance companies, registered investment companies, registered investment advisors, a person or entity with assets of at least $50 million, government entities, employee benefit plans and qualified plans with at least 100 participants, FINRA member firms and registered persons, and a person acting solely on behalf of an institutional investor. From: http://www.finra.org/industry/issues/faq-advertising Based on Rules 2210(a)(4) and 4512(c). Institutional investors are expected to understand market risks and as a result, disclosure requirements are much lower (perhaps no SEC filings and no prospectus).", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e3542af0fa7a035b01c65284f3a39088", "text": "Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af07ba093ad3bf3c12d63cecac20e87c", "text": "\"In the article itself, it's stated: \"\"Yale University, where we work, has a de minimis exposure to IEX through an investment by one of the university’s external managers.\"\" I mean, that's pretty straightforward to me. I promise you that Yale is also indirectly invested in every single public exchange out there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18bf086eb9e21e1d63410fb0a3786dab", "text": "The role of business investors differs greatly within different organisations. If you are starting a business or already have a small business, business investors can be a key tool to get your business of the ground. Business investors give money to small businesses or start-ups in exchange for ownership in a part of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b18dfb2f980c7c6e0d47ae978440fba3", "text": "\"The definition you cite is correct, but obscure. I prefer a forward looking definition. Consider the real investment. You make an original investment at some point in time. You make a series of further deposits and withdrawals at specified times. At some point after the last deposit/withdrawal, (the \"\"end\"\") the cash value of the investment is determined. Now, find a bank account that pays interest compounded daily. Possibly it should allow overdrafts where it charges the same interest rate. Make deposits and withdrawals to/from this account that match the investment payments in amount and date. At the \"\"end\"\" the value in this bank account is the same as the investment. The bank interest rate that makes this happen is the IRR for the investment...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c285533b113f9073d2326dd82af1a7a2", "text": "Little investors rarely have a say in it. If you have direct control over routing, that's one thing (some platforms allow it). But if you're a fund investor or a pension beneficiary, it's completely out of your hands. Re: The author. One of them - [David Swensen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_F._Swensen) - is actually the chief investment officer at Yale University. I'm pretty sure he has a clue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f619e556111df0fd3eaf002df79a9597", "text": "Yep, you have it pretty much right. The volume is the number of shares traded that day. The ticker is giving you the number of shares bought at that price in a given transaction, the arrow meaning whether the stock is up or down on the day at that price. Institutional can also refer to pensions, mutuals funds, corporates; generally any shareholder that isn't an individual person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e9ebc57e4df203c6ab584cc9e5ec0ed", "text": "\"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the \"\"underclass\"\" and the \"\"upperclass\"\". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e1635a637bbb1a5c4363476bdfa51e1", "text": "\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09d73bab00ea66f3a7bab0e5279f1939", "text": "> Also the institutional investor only has the advantage of leverage And, you know, capital, better data, better technical knowledge, and better just about everything else. It's the same reason why the average investor is better off buying a blue-chip stock while a buy-side guy buys more complex financial products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38f347119ddb7ea280ce6191e1008d26", "text": "\"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84684ca8001220b80db21a461e7b2e21", "text": "You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cec8e3718d450184a4146aeaa725fb9", "text": "\"David F. Swensen David F. Swensen (born 1954) is an American investor, endowment fund manager, and philanthropist. He has been the chief investment officer at Yale University since 1985. Swensen is responsible for managing and investing Yale's endowment assets and investment funds, which total $25.4 billion as of September 2016. He invented The Yale Model with Dean Takahashi, an application of the modern portfolio theory commonly known in the investing world as the \"\"Endowment Model.\"\" His investing philosophy has been dubbed the \"\"Swensen Approach\"\" and is unique in that it stresses allocation of capital in Treasury inflation protection securities, government bonds, real estate funds, emerging market stocks, domestic stocks, and developing world international equities. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^\| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^\| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^\| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^\| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^\| ^v0.24\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e683e94cf2644484ac1676cade3c202", "text": "\"private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment. This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this \"\"index ETF parasitism\"\" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue. Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93e6f4f2c4c147ccebf57367703b8672", "text": "Its less about retail investors and more about the large institutions. Harvard's endowment for example, is held in trust. So is the endowment for every university, charity, and foundation. In terms of retail investors its probably much less than 50%. Its just that the massive amount of wealth in the wealthiest people tips the balance drastically. The top 20 wealthiest people in the world have ALL of their assets in trust. They probably dont have much personal ownership in anything and they hold more money than almost everyone else combined.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c020cee61c8b52238f5db2dd9a7d507", "text": "Perhaps this is lasting result of the recession. I realize that the article specifically states that Lego notably grew and profited through the recession. However, other parts of society and other markets didn't. Now, years later, perhaps those other scenarios are affecting Lego's market. Specifically, I'm drawing a parallel to my personal experience. My kids were born just before the recession. Their grade is the largest grade in the school system. Every grade behind them (the kids born during the recession) is significantly smaller. Whatever the driver(s) was, people were having fewer kids during the recession. Further, although the general view is that the recession is over and the stock markets are back, household spending and income continues to stagnate. With fewer kids and a reluctance to spend, perhaps people in the US and Europe just aren't buying as many premium toys.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
de6c922bcf16b0cd49756c3d6cc190f7	Should I get an accountant for my taxes?	[ { "docid": "0558a80afed828bd2262174cd31e57a8", "text": "\"A reason to get an accountant is to avoid penalties for possible mistakes. That is, if you make a mistake, the IRS can impose penalties on you for negligence. If the professional makes the SAME mistake, the burden of proof for \"\"negligence\"\" shifts to the IRS, which probably means that you'll pay more taxes and interest, but NO penalties; hiring an accountant is prima facie evidence of NOT being negligent. I would get an accountant since this the first time for you in the present situation, when mistakes are most likely. If you feel that s/he did the same for you that you would have done for yourself, then you might go back to doing your own taxes in later years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9478270799efce08532b04471c07d88b", "text": "I don't know if I would go so far as to hire an accountant. None of those things you listed really complicates your taxes all that much. If you were self-employed, started a business, got a big inheritance, or are claiming unusually large deductions, etc. then maybe. The only thing new from your post seems to be the house and a raise. The 3rd kid doesn't substantially change things on your taxes from the 2nd. I'd suggest just using tax preparation software, or if you are especially nervous a tax-preparation service. An accountant just seems like overkill for an individual.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20356b4f622f09c7e6e8bd7cbfd0e6e7", "text": "Let me offer an anecdote to this - I started helping a woman, widowed, retired, who had been paying $500/yr to get her taxes done. As I mentioned in my comment here, she got a checklist each year and provided the info requested. From where I sat, it seemed a clerk entered the info into tax software. As part of the transition to me helping her, I asked the prior guy (very nice guy, really) for a quick consult. She took the standard deduction, but also showed a nice annual donation. Didn't take advantage of the QCD, donate directly from an IRA (she was over 70-1/2) to save on the tax of this sum. That could have saved her $500. She was in the 15% bracket, with some room left for a Roth conversion. Converting just enough to 'fill' that bracket each year seemed a decent strategy as it would avoid the 25% rate as her RMDs rose each year and would push her to 25%. To both items the guy suggested that this was not his area, he was not a financial planner. Yes, I understand different expertise. With how simple her return was, I didn't understand the value he added. If you go with a professional, be sure you have an understanding of what he will and won't do for you.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "fb199bd0ef2285143a2bb58b8cf31b1a", "text": "Your tax rate is 20% for turnover below £300000. So deducting your expenses and all the tax your accountant thinks you need to pay is £450. But you can claim relief on your tax payments. Visit the UK gov website to check your options under which you can claim relief. Frankly speaking for such a low turnover you shouldn't have opened a limited company. Or do you expect your turnover to increase in the coming years ? If your turnover isn't going to increase any further or if there isn't going to be a substantial increase, better to go as a sole trader or an umbrella company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0e9967665553edac81ace1efc5956fc", "text": "\"Well this is a bit of a shameless plug... but you could always check out the TaxQueries website. The site is \"\"similar\"\" to this one but geared more towards accountants and tax preparers. Looks around for someone who seems to know what they're talking about and check their bio. If you're REALLY having a problem finding a good accountant, email me directly. I have over 700 of them connected to my Linked-In profile. ;-) Andrew Smith [email protected] http://www.taxqueries.com\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cd9ddbb33a39b667b4b1e0f1df1a920", "text": "If you have complicated taxes (own a business, many houses, you are self employed, you are a contractor, etc etc) a person can make the most of your situation. If you are a w-2 single job, maybe with a family, the programs are going to be so close to spot on that the extra fees aren't worth it. I would never bother using HR Block or Liberty or those tax places that pop up. Use the software, or in my state sometimes municipalities put on tax help days at the library to assist in filling out the forms. If you have tough taxes, get a dedicated professional based on at least a few recommendations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90d0f60baf23f68e50157d52c6ab539b", "text": "\"I would advise against \"\"pencil and paper\"\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \"\"Fillable Forms\"\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \"\"interview\"\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14f54c5f328b37ac4f40a2b243f8e46c", "text": "You should seek professional advice from an accountant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e1b623f2c6c87c3cee30609c34c9f12", "text": "Without knowing specifics about your personal situation, there are two items to consider: 1. Pre-pay as many items as possible this year. (rent/lease, insurance premiums, etc.) to reduce your profit on paper in this tax year. 2. If you don't have a retirement plan for yourself, look into it as a way to put some money aside for retirement pre-tax. If your accountant can't help with this, perhaps find a financial planner. Congrats though, great problem to have!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c93f3024d8d4bde48399c1dabe42032b", "text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "712613fd44b118bc59e533fdedca797b", "text": "I think it is, unless you have another protection. For example, I have a legal plan sponsored by my employer that amongst other things, covers representation in case of audits for personal taxes. If, however, you don't have any other legal plan to cover this, I'd suggest getting the TurboTax audit protection. Hiring a professional to represent you in case of an audit will cost several hundreds of dollars per hour. Of course chances are slim, but that's the nature of insurance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29392f0f37fbabadd75e643e01fc97a7", "text": "\"Getting a specific service recommendation is off-topic, but the question of what type of professional you need seems on-topic to me. You may be looking for more than one professional in this case, but you could try these to start your search: Different people do things differently, but I think it would be pretty common to have a relationship (i.e. contract, retainer agreement, at least have met the person in case you have an \"\"emergency\"\") with a business law attorney and either a CPA or tax attorney. You may try not to use them too much to keep costs down, but you don't want to be searching for one after you have an issue. You want to know who you're going to call and may establish at least a basis working relationship.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca68b853da4903c868ef1cf8c1746131", "text": "\"Actually, if you don't care about paying a bit more, either hire an accountant and dump the paper on them, or (may be cheaper but a bit more work) spring for tax software. Modern tax programs can often download most of your data directly. If you don't care about claiming deductions you can skip a lot of the rest. I'm perfectly capable of doing my taxes on paper or in a spreadsheet... but I spring for tax software every year because I find it a _LOT more pleasant. Remember that most of the complexity does come from policies intended to reduce your taxes. When you call for simplification, you may not like the result. It's better than it was a decade or two ago. I used to joke that the battle cry of the next revolution would be \"\"No Taxation Without Proper Instructions!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ff7ff77c27135f1c844d712bc5d1580", "text": "It depends on what you paid for, but usually audit support is an unrelated engagement to the return preparation. If the accountant made a professional mistake, you can request correction and compensation from that accountant, other than that any accountant can help you with audit regardless of who prepared the return. The original accountant would probably be better informed about why you reported each number on the return and how it was calculated, but if you kept all the docs, it can be recalculated again. That's what happens in the audit anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b115a0c0baf5344690c57db6be4e425e", "text": "Yeah, but is licensing a logo from yourself a legitimate expense? I know this is /r/business, and if my accountant told me to do that, then I'd probably do that. But as a citizen and a taxpayer, I don't want global corporates to get away with tax evasion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bc58462d1b93a9debd7c1241a6979f9", "text": "\"I am perfectly qualified to not use an accountant. I am a business professor, and my work crosses over into accounting quite a bit. I would certainly find a CPA that is reputable and hire them for advice before starting. I know a physicist who didn't do that and found they ended up with $78,000 in fines. There are a number of specific things an accountant might provide that Quickbooks will not. First and foremost, they are an outsider's set of eyes. If they are good, they will find a polite way to say \"\"you want to do what?!?!?!\"\" If they are good, they won't fall out of their chair, their jaw won't drop to the floor, and they won't giggle until they get home. A good accountant has seen around a hundred successful and unsuccessful businesses. They have seen everything you may have thought of. Intelligence is learning from your own mistakes, wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others. Accountants are the repositories of wisdom. An accountant can point out weaknesses in your plan and help you shore it up. They can provide information about the local market that you may not be aware of. They can assist you with understanding the long run consequences of the legal form that you choose. They can assist you in understanding the trade-offs of different funding models. They can also do tasks that you are not talented at and which will take a lot of time if you do it, and little time if they do it. There is a reason that accountants are required to have 160 semester hours to sit for the CPA. They also have to have a few thousand field hours before they can sit for it as well. There is one thing you may want to keep in mind though. An accountant will often do what you ask them to do, so think about what you want before you visit the accountant. Also, remember to ask the question \"\"is there a question I should have asked but didn't?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e516905444b5f8601052766e9d6301a", "text": "An accountant should be able to advise on the tax consequences of different classes of investments/assets/debts (e.g. RRSP, TFSA, mortgage). But I would not ask an accountant which specific securities to hold in these vehicles, or what asset allocation (in terms of geography, capitalization, or class (equity vs fixed income vs derivatives vs structured notes etc). An investment advisor would be better suited to matching your investments to your risk tolerance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "263da072b39d927d176ff13eda02d7cf", "text": "\"It's a certified accountant who has passed the CPA exam in order to hold the designation. If you don't pay taxes on your income, you'll be completely fucked down the line. If you're self reporting and it's not automatically deducted, definitely speak to a CPA. They may even recommend filing taxes quarterly. The sub you're using is more for high finance and capital markets, I'd suggest /r/personalfinance for your situation. Also, far be it from me to say, because $2k/mo is great for an 18 year old who is presumably in college, but you won't get in trouble as long as you pay taxes. If you mean in a long-term sense of financial stability, yeah that could be bad. $24k is absolutely amazing now and if being hot on instagram can pay for your college, then 100000% do it, that's fucking awesome. Just make sure to get a degree because if you're still only making $24k in your mid 20's, yes you could be in \"\"trouble\"\" as in dire financial straits. That's not much to live off of when you finally have lots of bills to pay.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2b9b49848acd73e0956999c6b0fe62e3	Live in Oregon and work in Washington: Do I need to file Oregon state taxes?	[ { "docid": "6f99de8c7958c0d3021748790f921142", "text": "Yes. Here's the answer to this question from oregon.gov: 3. I am moving into Oregon. What income will be taxed by Oregon? As an Oregon resident, you are taxed on ALL income regardless of the source of the income. This includes, but is not limited to: You may need to pay estimated taxes if you don't have Oregon withholding on your income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4aa07f26f949b47c07d71acff501526", "text": "Unfortunately, you are required, but most states do have agreements with neighboring states that let the states share the collected taxes without the person having to pay double taxes. So being as this is your first tax return in your current situation, you might be wise to have a professional fill it out for you this year and then next year you can use it as a template. Additionally, I really would like to see someone challenge this across state lines taxation in court. It sure seems to me that it is a inter-state tariff/duty, which the state's are expressly forbidden from doing in the constitution.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "eb3edb9346792440f6dfe9396e27c24c", "text": "If you have non Residency status in Canada you don't need to file Canadian tax return. To confirm your status you need to contact Canada Revenue (send them letter, probably to complete some form).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "911df199ca187b4ee1e9ef008adcf0a7", "text": "Yes, you do. You also need to file a tax return every year, and if you have more than $50k of total savings you need to declare this every year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28526f65abdc2985664cffeb477ba4eb", "text": "\"IRS Pub 554 states (click to read full IRS doc): \"\"Do not file a federal income tax return if you do not meet the filing requirements and are not due a refund. ... If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must file a return if your gross income for the year was at least the amount shown on the appropriate line in Table 1-1 below. \"\" You may not have wage income, but you will probably have interest, dividend, capital gains, or proceeds from sale of a house (and there is a special note that you must file in this case, even if you enjoy the exclusion for primary residence)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b80f37a9693776121b787c7f4caa04d8", "text": "No, you probably do not need to file a tax return if you received no income, and if you meet a number of other criteria. The below is copied and pasted, slightly edited, from the CRA: You must file a return for 2014 if any of the following situations apply: You have to pay tax for 2014. We sent you a request to file a return. You and your spouse or common-law partner elected to split pension income for 2014. See lines 115, 116, 129, and 210. You received working income tax benefit (WITB) advance payments in 2014. You disposed of capital property in 2014 (for example, if you sold real estate or shares) or you realized a taxable capital gain (for example, if a mutual fund or trust attributed amounts to you, or you are reporting a capital gains reserve you claimed on your 2013 return). You have to repay any of your old age security or employment insurance benefits. See line 235. You have not repaid all amounts withdrawn from your registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) under the Home Buyers’ Plan or the Lifelong Learning Plan. For more information, go to Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) or see Guide RC4112, Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) or You have to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). This can apply if, for 2014, the total of your net self-employment income and pensionable employment income is more than $3,500. See line 222. You are paying employment insurance premiums on self-employment and other eligible earnings. See lines 317 and 430. In general, you will want to file a tax return even if none of the above applies. You could, for example, claim a GST/HST credit even with no income. Now, if you receive any income at all, you are going to have to pay taxes, which means you are obligated to file a tax return. If sufficient taxes were deducted from your paycheque, you are still obligated to file a tax return. However, you will not have to pay penalties if you file late, even if you file very late, at least not until the CRA sends you a request to file. But be aware, you won't likely be able to tell if you owe the CRA money until you do your taxes, and if you do end up owing, there are substantial penalties for filing late. In general, I'd strongly advise filing your tax return in almost all circumstances.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d7a63f5121c2c343600372138c27dbe", "text": "Having 401k or HSA is not income and doesn't trigger filing requirements. Withdrawing from 401k or HSA does. Also, in some States, HSA gains are taxed as investment income, so if you have gains in an HSA and you're a resident of such a State - you'll need to file a State tax return and pay taxes on the gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4670b0910632a066c4f05dc13cb178eb", "text": "Answering for just the US part, yes, you should be able to do this and it's a good strategy. The only additional gotcha I can think of is that if you've made after-tax contributions to your traditional IRA, you need to prorate the conversion, you can't just convert all the pre-tax or all the after-tax. I'm not familiar with Oregon personal income tax so there may be additional gotchas there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1318010b545beed42ab41bb2b647d1b5", "text": "A couple things. First of all, most people's MAIN source of income is from their job, but they have others, such as bank interest, stock dividends, etc. So that income has to be reported with their wage income. The second thing is that most people have deductions NOT connected with their job. These deductions reduce income (and generate refunds). So it's in their interest to file.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caac26bdd391f8e851b7ad6108cc0407", "text": "Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "734867313a623f2f57edf5c18acbae18", "text": "Yes, you need to include income from your freelance work on your tax return. In the eyes of the IRS, this is self-employment income from your sole-proprietorship business. The reason you don't see it mentioned in the 1040EZ instructions is that you can't use the 1040EZ form if you have self-employment income. You'll need to use the full 1040 form. Your business income and expenses will be reported on a Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ, and the result will end up on Line 12 of the 1040. Take a look at the requirements at the top of the C-EZ form; you probably meet them and can use it instead of the more complicated C form. If you have any deductible business expenses related to your freelance business, this would be done on Schedule C or C-EZ. If your freelance income was more than $400, you'll also need to pay self-employment tax. To do this, you file Schedule SE, and the tax from that schedule lands on form 1040 Line 57.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58fd1222e8565395bee7290f7a71a3e3", "text": "\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97cbde3c965690a53a5b344eaf7ebe19", "text": "Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e54f8026b89f25711e7092dcbbaf3e1", "text": "From the Massachusetts Department of Revenue: 1st - Massachusetts Source Income That is Excluded Massachusetts gross income excludes certain items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts: non-business related interest, dividends and gains from the sale or exchange of intangibles, and qualified pension income. 2nd - Massachusetts Source Income That is Included: Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: 3rd - Trade or business, Including Employment Carried on in Massachusetts: A nonresident has a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if: A nonresident generally is not engaged in a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if the nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts is casual, isolated and inconsequential. A nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts will ordinarily be considered casual, isolated and inconsequential if it meets the requirements of the Ancillary Activity Test (AAT) and Examples. When nonresidents earn or derive income from sources both within Massachusetts and elsewhere, and no exact determination can be made of the amount of Massachusetts source income, an apportionment of income must be made to determine that amount considered Massachusetts gross income. 4th - Apportionment of Income: Apportionment Methods: The three most common apportionment methods used to determine Massachusetts source income are as follows: Gross income is multiplied by a: So if you go to Massachusetts to work, you have to pay the tax. If you collect a share of the profit or revenue from Massachusetts, you have to pay tax on that. If you work from Oregon and are paid for that work, then you don't pay Massachusetts tax on that. If anything, your company might have to pay Oregon taxes on revenue you generate (you are their agent or employee in Oregon). Does the answer change depending on whether the income is reported at 1099 or W-2? This shouldn't matter legally. It's possible that it would be easier to see that the work was done in Oregon in one or the other. I.e. it doesn't make any legal difference but may make a practical difference. All this assumes that you are purely an employee or contractor and not an owner. If you are an owner, you have to pay taxes on any income from your Massachusetts business. Note that this applies to things like copyrights and real estate as well as the business. This also assumes that you are doing your work in Oregon. If you live in Oregon and travel to Massachusetts to work, you pay taxes on your Massachusetts income in Massachusetts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d402dc885d5d6ef6afda8b49de969880", "text": "You're doing business in the US and derive income from the US, so I'd say that yes, you should file a non-resident tax return in the US. And in Connecticut, as well, since that's where you're conducting business (via your domestic LLC registered there). Since you paid more than $600 to your contractor, you're probably also supposed to send a 1099 to him on that account on behalf of your LLC (which is you, essentially, if you're the only member).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8429265033f2b74acb269e7e2c43e9f", "text": "In the USA, you probably owe Self Employment Tax. The cutoff for tax on this is 400$. You will need to file a tax return and cover the medicaid expenses as if you were both the employer and employee. In addition, if he earns income from self-employment, he may owe Self-Employment Tax, which means paying both the employee’s and employer's share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes. The trigger for Self Employment Tax has been $400 since 1990, but the IRS may change that in the future. Also see the IRS website. So yes, you need to file your taxes. How much you will pay is determined by exactly how much your income is. If you don't file, you probably won't be audited, however you are breaking the law and should be aware of the consequences.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b00dcf0b2faaae67c0b38a657cffcb20", "text": "\"I'm not a tax professional, but as I understand it, you are not expected to commute from San Francisco to Boston. :) If your employer has not provided you with an external office, then yes, you have very likely met the \"\"convenience of the employer\"\" test. However, to take the home office deduction, there are many requirements that have to be met. You can read more at the Nolo article Can You Deduct Your Home Office When You're an Employee? (Thanks, keshlam) The home office deduction has many nuances and is enough of an IRS red flag that you would be well-advised to talk to an accountant about it. You need to be able to show that it is exclusively and necessarily used for your job. Another thing to remember: as an employee, the home office deduction, if you take it, will be deducted on Schedule A, line 21 (unreimbursed employee expenses), among other Miscellaneous Deductions. Deductions in this section need to exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income before you can start to deduct. So it will not be worth it to pursue the deduction if your income is too high, or your housing expenses are too low, or your office is too small compared to the rest of your house, or you don't itemize deductions.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
61035dbe0257a11b2e9bfb3a5992998b	Is the gross amount of US debt dangerous for the small investor?	[ { "docid": "591fde6462bdc8788489682c11ad5f5b", "text": "\"Not a lot, directly. Your biggest direct risk is that you could buy the debt, and buy it at too high a price (i.e. too low an interest rate) and not make as much money as you ought (and maybe not enough to cover inflation, especially if you buy long-term bonds at low interest rates.) The indirect risks are mostly that the debt could weigh on economic growth: There is also a question of monetary policy, inflation, and interest rates set by the Federal Reserve. Theoretically the government could be tempted to keep interest rates low (to save money) and buy its own bonds (\"\"printing money\"\"), which could cause inflation. Theoretically, they shouldn't, as price stability is one of the Fed's primary mandates. But if they did, inflation makes everything less predictable and is generally obnoxious, which makes everything more risky and drags on the economy. Also, if the nominal value of an asset rises due to inflation, you will likely need to pay taxes on that at some point if you sell it, even though its real value is the same.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a53203e93e54c64b01441646a3c92d95", "text": "\"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker). You may also have heard them described as \"\"leverage\"\". It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one). As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be \"\"bad\"\" debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a040eda3ed2664e5f7bbb8bd1ddbf82c", "text": "\"First off, with startups, forget that you know about common structures of debt and equity. Just try to think of this money as a generic \"\"investment\"\" that meets the investors risk and return objectives. Startups are unique in that they are high risk but generally have almost no assets or security for an investor. Investors generically want two things: 1) Return and 2) Limited Risk. Without speculating too much: consider that the investor might be viewing the return component as the 30% equity and the 8% dividend and he views the risk management component as the additional 30% equity, until repaid. A different way of looking at this might be that the investor would require an equity stake greater than 30% with greater than a 8% dividend if he did not get the initial investment back in return for the reduced stake. In other words, this structure is debt and equity because that is what the investor can demand. Maybe you can get around this by offering a higher equity stake or offering something else although this structure is common because it aligns interests of the investor and the startup.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1c8eb4c1f7b0575154056ff28ed2dd9", "text": "\"Long answer: [Interest Rates and Fiscal Sustainability](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722986) Short(er) answer: The issuer of the currency isn't revenue-constrained in its own currency. So the \"\"debt situation\"\" isn't bad at all, it's just a record of net issuance. On interest payments, two considerations. First is that when the interest rate is less than the growth rate, debt:GDP levels off. Second is that the interest rate is a price set by the issuer. So interest payments aren't a problem either. Does that mean the government can just spend without limit or consequence? No. A thousand times, no. What it does mean though is that those limits and consequences are properly described in terms of what the economy needs and not in terms of budget constraints. Or to put it another way, they're balancing an economy, not a budget.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ff686a1b505bc0321186daa6657e650", "text": "\"From a purely financial standpoint (psychology aside) the choice between paying off debt and investing on risky investments boils down to a comparison of risk and reward. Yes, on average the stock market has risen an average of 10% (give or take) per year, but the yearly returns on the S&P 500 have ranged from a high of 37.6% in 1995 to a low of -37% in 2008. So there's a good chance that your investment in index funds will get a better return than the guaranteed return of paying off the loan, but it's not certain, and you might end up much worse. You could even calculate a rough probability of coming out better with some reasonable assumptions (e.g. if you assume that returns are normally distributed, which historically they're not), but your chances are probably around 30% that you'll end up worse off in one year (your odds are better the longer your investment horizon is). If you can tolerate (meaning you have both the desire and the ability to take) that risk, then you might come out ahead. The non-financial factors, however - the psychology of debt, the drain on discretionary cash flow, etc. cannot be dismissed as \"\"irrational\"\". Paying off debt feels good. Yes, finance purists disagree with Dave Ramsey and his approaches, but you cannot deny the problems that debt causes millions of households (both consumer debt and student loan debt as well). If that makes them mindless \"\"minions\"\" because they follow a plan that worked for them then so be it. (disclosure - I am a listener and a fan but don't agree 100% with him)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e83cf9600a661b6e9cfb96af960b43a5", "text": "\"> Firstly, comparing debt to GDP is comparing a stock to a flow, you're committing a transgression that is warned about in Econ 101. Perhaps you should learn a bit more. He's talking bonds not stocks ... and even with stocks you've got a dividend discount model for establishing fair value (sum of discounted dividend flows = fair value of the company), etc.. With regard to the size of debt, you need to consider 3 things: current interest expense (as a % of both GDP and Income (taxe revenue)), refinance cost ( change in interest expense if total debt is refinanced at current rates), and the first derivative of interest expense w.r.t. current yields. This helps one understand the probability of a \"\"death spiral\"\" such as what was experienced in Greece (et. al.) where it was impossible to make debt payments at refinance rates. The fact is that with US interest expenses on the debt of $450B/year this is 13.5% of all government revenue. If you factor in the interest expenses with even slightly higher yields ... one sees that you can quickly get a debt crisis. If Trump gives as large a tax cut as he has promised, it has a much higher prospect of a debt death spiral. Do the math.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5997e6ec7e713084af4c61b9c04ffb6", "text": "First of all, Mezz lending is, in my opinion, the riskiest piece of the capital stack. It has all the drawbacks of debt with none of the benefits of equity. You can be rest assured, when shit goes south, the market goes through the mezz about as fast as you can blink. They are the most marginal piece of the capital stack and only seem to appear in red hot markets (which, is to say, late stage markets). Also, this article defines terms and talks about economic macro metrics like that somehow informs the reader that the Chinese Real estate market is a good investment. Yes, GDP growth informs rent growth and overall demand but that like saying GDP growth increases corporate earning. No duh. That doesn't tell me if the the cap rate already prices in that growth or what if the pipeline of development is overbuilt. Not to mention, investing in another market, in the most speculative risk curve of an alternative asset with no liquidity or legal recourse. Yeah, no. edit: and current exchange risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c965f9506589dbb1de321b737b94f94", "text": ">This buildup of excessive debt started so long ago -- Levy dates it to the 1980s in the U.S. -- that people no longer know what's prudent. This is echoed elsewhere. At this time, people that use capital don't truly know how much it's worth because it's so abundant. Consequently, creates difficult in making business decisions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "661faa4d48f96d63ec1a4467fefc9842", "text": "The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1704a42ebc5a256b5f09de11d61a567a", "text": "\"Starting with small amount of money is definitely a good idea, as it is a fact that majority of the online traders lose their initial investment. No wonder that for example in the UK, FCA decided to make steps to raise the chances of clients staying in business by limiting leverage to 1:50 and 1:25. http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/bloggers/new-fca-regulations-going-affect-retail-brokers/ Trading leveraged products is risky and you will lose some, or all your money with very high chance. But that doesn't mean necessarily it is a \"\"bad investment\"\" to trade on your own. Imagine you have a $1000 account, and you trade max 0,1 lot fx position at once maximum (=$10.000 position size, that is 1:10 leverage max). Beginner steps are very challenging and exiting, but turning back to your initial question: is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money Obviously you could purchase a cheap ETF that follows a broad market index or an already existing successful portfolio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cfa0834b636fde849cb2ec3218d1032", "text": "To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay. Volitility relative to loan term effectively.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b7a57ad24c8ca846d881dd967346d8a", "text": "Your logic is not wrong. But the risk is more significant than you seem to assume. Essentially you are proposing taking a 2.6% loan to buy stocks. Is that a good strategy? On average, probably. But if your stocks crash you might have significant liabilities. In 1929, the Dow Jones dropped 89%. In 1989, >30%. In 2008-9, 54%. This is a huge risk if this is money that you owe in taxes. If you operate the same system year after year the chance of it going horribly wrong increases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4553349fecda42e7d3fb6c6f864dbef3", "text": "\"When I look at debt I try to think of myself as a corporation. In life, you have a series of projects that you can undertake which may yield a positive net present value (for simplicity, let's define positive net present value as a project that yields more benefit than its cost). Let's say that one of the projects that you have is to build a factory to make clothing. The factory will cost 1 million dollars and will generate revenue of 1.5 million dollars over the next year, afterwhich it wears out. Although you have the knowledge to build this wonderful factory, you don't have a million bucks laying around, so instead, you go borrow it from the bank. The bank charges you 10% interest on the loan, which means that at the end of the year, the project has yielded a return of 400k. This is an extremely simplified example of what you call \"\"good\"\" debt. It is good if you are taking the debt and purchasing something with a positive value. In reality, this should be how people should approach all purchases, even if they are with cash. Everything that you buy is an investment in yourself - even entertainment and luxury items all could be seen as an investment in your happiness and relaxation. If more people approached their finances in this way, people would have much more money to spend, William\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4181063121ffff659c8d31269874b07f", "text": "\"How many of these loans have been rehypothecated and/or chained to synthetic derivatives? That was the \"\"force multiplier\"\" in 07-08. Agreed that the impact will be a lot less since it is a much smaller market, but it might be bigger than many assume if these factors are present. (And if it is bigger you get the risk of a chain reaction beyond that, though I think the Fed & Co. are much more on-guard about that now.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59f54cbaa67b1798e28fbcb031da4510", "text": "\"The term \"\"stock\"\" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument. Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons. Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce8676528e1a2a117a0179043c2db82d", "text": "\"Money is a token that you can trade to other people for favors. Debt is a tool that allows you to ask for favors earlier than you might otherwise. What you have currently is: If the very worst were to happen, such as: You would owe $23,000 favors, and your \"\"salary\"\" wouldn't make a difference. What is a responsible amount to put toward a car? This is a tricky question to answer. Statistically speaking the very worst isn't worth your consideration. Only the \"\"very bad\"\", or \"\"kinda annoying\"\" circumstances are worth worrying about. The things that have a >5% chance of actually happening to you. Some of the \"\"very bad\"\" things that could happen (10k+ favors): Some of the \"\"kinda annoying\"\" things that could happen (~5k favors): So now that these issues are identified, we can settle on a time frame. This is very important. Your $30,000 in favors owed are not due in the next year. If your student loans have a typical 10-year payoff, then your risk management strategy only requires that you keep $3,000 in favors (approx) because that's how many are due in the next year. Except you have more than student loans for favors owed to others. You have rent. You eat food. You need to socialize. You need to meet your various needs. Each of these things will cost a certain number of favors in the next year. Add all of them up. Pretending that this data was correct (it obviously isn't) you'd owe $27,500 in favors if you made no money. Up until this point, I've been treating the data as though there's no income. So how does your income work with all of this? Simple, until you've saved 6-12 months of your expenses (not salary) in an FDIC or NCUSIF insured savings account, you have no free income. If you don't have savings to save yourself when bad things happen, you will start having more stress (what if something breaks? how will I survive till my next paycheck? etc.). Stress reduces your life expectancy. If you have no free income, and you need to buy a car, you need to buy the cheapest car that will meet your most basic needs. Consider carpooling. Consider walking or biking or public transit. You listed your salary at \"\"$95k\"\", but that isn't really $95k. It's more like $63k after taxes have been taken out. If you only needed to save ~$35k in favors, and the previous data was accurate (it isn't, do your own math): Per month you owe $2,875 in favors (34,500 / 12) Per month you gain $5,250 in favors (63,000 / 12) You have $7,000 in initial capital--I mean--favors You net $2,375 each month (5,250 - 2,875) To get $34,500 in favors will take you 12 months ( ⌈(34,500 - 7,000) / 2,375⌉ ) After 12 months you will have $2,375 in free income each month. You no longer need to save all of it (Although you may still need to save some of it. Be sure recalculate your expenses regularly to reevaluate if you need additional savings). What you do with your free income is up to you. You've got a safety net in saved earnings to get you through rough times, so if you want to buy a $100,000 sports car, all you have to do is account for it in your savings and expenses in all further calculations as you pay it off. To come up with a reasonable number, decide on how much you want to spend per month on a car. $500 is a nice round number that's less than $2,375. How many years do you want to save for the car? OR How many years do you want to pay off a car loan? 4 is a nice even number. $500 * 12 * 4 = $24,000 Now reduce that number 10% for taxes and fees $24,000 * 0.9 = $21,600 If you're getting a loan, deduct the cost of interest (using 5% as a ballpark here) $21,600 * 0.95 = $20,520 So according to my napkin math you can afford a car that costs ~$20k if you're willing to save/owe $500/month, but only after you've saved enough to be financially secure.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
178001ed8e888532a1aded6a69e84e08	How is an ETF's NAV determined?	[ { "docid": "5acb6d88c6363d318d1539663550de7f", "text": "An ETF manager will only allow certain financial organisations to create and redeem ETF shares. These are called Authorised Participants (APs). The APs have the resources to bundled up packages of shares that they already own and hold in order to match the ETFs requirements. In the case of the EDEN ETF, this portfolio is the MSCI Denmark Index. Only APs transact business directly with the ETF manager. When ETF shares need to be created, the AP will bundle up the portfolio of shares and deliver them to the ETF manager. In return, the ETF manager will deliver to the AP the corresponding number of shares in the ETF. Note that no cash changes hands here. (These ETF shares are now available for trading in the market via the AP. Note that investors do not transact business directly with the ETF manager.) Similarly, when ETF shares need to be redeemed, the AP will deliver the ETF shares to the ETF manager. In return, the ETF manager will deliver to the AP the corresponding portfolio of shares. Again, no cash changes hands here. Normally, with an established and liquid ETF, investors like you and me will transact small purchases and sales of ETF shares with other small investors in the market. In the event that an AP needs to transact business with an investor, they will do so by either buying or selling the ETF shares. In the event that they have insufficient ETF shares to meet demand, they will bundle up a portfolio deliver them to the ETF provider in return for ETF shares, thus enabling them to meet demand. In the event that a lot of investors are selling and the AP ends up holding an excessive amount of ETF shares, they will deliver unwanted shares to the ETF manager in exchange for a portfolio of the underlying shares. According to this scheme, large liquidations of ETF holdings should not effect the share prices of the underlying portfolio. This is because the underlying shares are not sold in the market, rather they are simply returned to the AP in exchange for the ETF shares (Recall that no cash is changing hands in this type of transaction). The corresponding trail of dividends and distributions to ETF share holders follows the same scheme.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6db8ff167a2027d4fa6c4eb9c132fc41", "text": "\"I think the key concept here is future value. The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities. For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom. I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously. A definition I like to use for market cap is \"\"the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company\"\"... so let's dissect that a little. The term \"\"present value\"\" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year. A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later. The \"\"all future earnings\"\" part is exactly what it sounds like. So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that \"\"the market\"\" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86187aff29a5958bb1351d248820ce19", "text": "NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1cfbd0fec76678e5f433988678292d4", "text": "\"Assuming that the ETF is tracking an index, is there a reason for not looking at using details on the index? Typically the exact constituents of an index are proprietary, and companies will not publish them publicly without a license. S&P is the heavyweight in this area, and the exact details of the constituents at any one time are not listed anywhere. They do list the methodology, and announcements as to index changes, but not a full list of actual underlying constituents. Is there a easy way to automatically (ie. through an API or something, not through just reading a prospectus) get information about an ETF's underlying securities? I have looked for this information before, and based on my own searches, in a word: no. Index providers, and providers of APIs which provide index information, make money off of such services. The easiest way may be to navigate to each provider and download the CSV with the full list of holdings, if one exists. You can then drop this into your pipeline and write a program to pull the data from the CSV file. You could drop the entire CSV into Excel and use VBA to automagically pull the data into a usable format. For example, on the page for XIU.TO on the Blackrock site, after clicking the \"\"All Holdings\"\" tab there is a link to \"\"Download holdings\"\", which will provide you with a CSV. I am not sure if all providers look at this. Alternatively, you could write the ETF company themselves.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87ea66c4f598e96d55550813d79da5aa", "text": "ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1eee4f33571648fb95733b26e6f5736", "text": "\"Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7", "text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5f224b6fc38f1c0aa1c127dc0e0c132", "text": "If I invest X each month, where does X go - an existing (low yield) bond, or a new bond (at the current interest rate)? This has to be viewed in a larger context. If the fund has outflows greater than or equal to inflows then chances are there isn't any buying being done with your money as that cash is going to those selling their shares in the fund. If though inflows are greater than outflows, there may be some new purchases or not. Don't forget that the new purchase could be an existing bond as the fund has to maintain the duration of being a short-term, intermediate-term or long-term bond fund though there are some exceptions like convertibles or high yield where duration isn't likely a factor. Does that just depend on what the fund manager is doing at the time (buying/selling)? No, it depends on the shares being created or redeemed as well as the manager's discretion. If I put Y into a fund, and leave it there for 50 years, where does Y go when all of the bonds at the time I made the purchase mature? You're missing that the fund may buy and sell bonds at various times as for example a long-term bond fund may not have issues nearing maturity because of what part of the yield curve it is to mimic. Does Y just get reinvested in new bonds at the interest rate at that time? Y gets mixed with the other money in the fund that may increase or decrease in value over time. This is part of the risk in a bond fund where NAV can fluctuate versus a money market mutual fund where the NAV is somewhat fixed at $1/share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ae06451df0a095d66d02dd73776f07a", "text": "\"Trading on specific ECNs is the easy part - you simply specify the order routing in advance. You are not buying or selling the exact same shares. Shares are fungible - so if I simultaneously buy one share and sell another share, my net share position is zero - even if those trades don't settle until T+3. PS \"\"The Nasdaq\"\" isn't really an exchange in the way that the CME, or other order-driven markets are. It's really just a venue to bring market makers together. It's almost like \"\"the internet,\"\" as in, when you buy something from Amazon, you're not buying it from \"\"the internet,\"\" but it was the internet that made your transaction with Amazon possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c02e759961fc1045b5c3846be9ea8436", "text": "The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80b1b71e85c9750a58d2fe8403945c6a", "text": "It depends on your cost structure and knowledge of the exchanges. It could be optimal to make a manual exchange selection so long as it's cheaper to do so. For brokers with trade fees, this is a lost cause because the cost of the trade is already so high that auto routing will be no cheaper than manual routing. For brokers who charge extra to manually route, this could be a good policy if the exchange chosen has very high rebates. This does not apply to equities because they are so cheap, but there are still a few expensive option exchanges. This all presumes that one's broker shares exchange rebates which nearly all do not. If one has direct access to the exchanges, they are presumably doing this already. To do this effectively, one needs: For anyone trading with brokers without shared rebates or who does not have knowledge of the exchange prices and their liquidities, it's best to auto route.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d37d9a994626f347749725d7d6066a17", "text": "With the disclaimer that I am not a technician, I'd answer yes, it does. SPY (for clarification, an ETF that reflects the S&P 500 index) has dividends, and earnings, therefore a P/E and dividend yield. It would follow that the tools technicians use, such as moving averages, support and resistance levels also apply. Keep in mind, each and every year, one can take the S&P stocks and break them up, into quintiles or deciles based on return and show that not all stock move in unison. You can break up by industry as well which is what the SPDRs aim to do, and observe the movement of those sub-groups. But, no, not all the stocks will perform the way the index is predicted to. (Note - If a technician wishes to correct any key points here, you are welcome to add a note, hopefully, my answer was not biased)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cb549009ae9d2f1a8976238da587253", "text": "\"My knowledge relates to ETFs only. By definition, an ETF's total assets can increase or decrease based upon how many shares are issued or redeemed. If somebody sells shares back to the ETF provider (rather than somebody else on market) then the underlying assets need to be sold, and vice-versa for purchasing from the ETF provider. ETFs also allow redemptions too in addition to this. For an ETF, to determine its total assets, you need to you need to analyze the Total Shares on Issue multipled by the Net Asset Value. ETFs are required to report shares outstanding and NAV on a daily basis. \"\"Total assets\"\" is probably more a function of marketing rather than \"\"demand\"\" and this is why most funds report on a net-asset-value-per-share basis. Some sites report on \"\"Net Inflows\"\" is basically the net change in shares outstanding multiplied by the ETF price. If you want to see this plotted over time you can use a such as: http://www.etf.com/etfanalytics/etf-fund-flows-tool which allows you to see this as a \"\"net flows\"\" on a date range basis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3bf8deef4aa1a57d273ab02cd54fbce", "text": "I'm not sure how detailed of an explanation you're hoping for. Bear ETFs basically just short sell the underlying asset. The more highly levered ETFs will also use a combination of options, futures, and swaps to achieve their target leverage. The inversion isn't perfect though, and their target is usually just to close inverse to the daily return of their underlying asset. If you feel like reading, [here is an example.](http://direxioninvestments.onlineprospectus.net/DirexionInvestments//SPXS/index.html?open=Summary%20Prospectus) You can find the investment overview on page 4.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3cc2326e8fa93452b5c41bfe54f0584", "text": "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7252370787b0eb06f8699bd008627e83", "text": "\"Most of your money doesn't exist as physical cash, but simply as numbers in a ledger. At any given time, banks expect their clients to withdraw a certain percentage of their balances... For instance, checking accounts are frequently drawn down to zero, savings accounts might be emptied once our twice a year, CDs are almost never withdrawn, etc. To cover those withdrawals, banks keep a certain amount of physical cash on hand, and an additional amount remains on the ledgers. The rest gets loaned out to their customers for use in buying homes, cars, credit cards,etc. Anything they can't loan out directly gets deposited with the federal reserve or loaned directly to other institutions who need it. However, those last two options tend to be short term (ie overnight) loans. With debit cards functioning 24/7, you could get cash at an atm or make a purchase anytime of the day our night. The weekend has nothing to do with it. Which is a long way of saying \"\"No, they do it all the time, not just on weekends\"\" ;)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bc36dbe1107fee2dc8194bab9b4a2cc7	Can one be non-resident alien in the US without being a resident anywhere else?	[ { "docid": "866b5c9cc2f9d0044adca9577f629247", "text": "\"You'll need to read carefully the German laws on tax residency, in many European (and other) tax laws the loss of residency due to absence is conditioned on acquiring residency elsewhere. But in general, it is possible to use treaties and statuses so that you end up not being resident anywhere, but it doesn't mean that the income is no longer taxed. Generally every country taxes income sourced to it unless an exclusion applies, so if you can no longer apply the treaty due to not being a resident - you'll need to look for general exclusions in the tax law. I don't know how Germany taxes scholarships under the general rules, you'll have to check it. It is possible that they're not taxed. Many people try to raise the argument of \"\"I'm not a resident\"\" to avoid income taxes altogether on earnings on their work - this would not work. But with a special kind of income like scholarship, which may be exempt under the law, it may. Keep in mind, that the treaty has \"\"who is or was immediately before visiting a Contracting State a resident of the other Contracting State\"\" language in some relevant cases, so you may still apply it in the US even if no longer resident in Germany.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7eac2e73f8d413f7e41d518f1fd205ce", "text": "\"You may be considered a resident for tax purposes. To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least: 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count: All of the days you were present in the current year, and One-third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and One-sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. If you are exempt, I'd check that ending your residence in Germany doesn't violate terms of the visa, in which case you'd lose your exempt status. If you are certain that you can maintain your exempt status, then the income would definitively not be taxed by the US as it is not effectively connected income: You are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States if you are temporarily present in the United States as a nonimmigrant on an \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" visa. The taxable part of any U.S. source scholarship or fellowship grant received by a nonimmigrant in \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" status is treated as effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. and your scholarship is sourced from outside the US: Generally, the source of scholarships, fellowship grants, grants, prizes, and awards is the residence of the payer regardless of who actually disburses the funds. I would look into this from a German perspective. If they have a rule similiar to the US for scholarships, then you will still be counted as a resident there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7361debbd3f6c67a4ca4122071f829bd", "text": "If you aren't a US National (citizen or Green Card holder or some other exception I know not of), you're an alien, no matter where else you may or may not be a citizen. If you don't meet the residency tests, you're nonresident. Simple as that.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a96857cf8f4229f9687b18538caa3dcc", "text": "\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \"\"Dual\"\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5d2001ca58f759753d9a18ad721d99a", "text": "So it voids what you claim. And hardly anyone renounces their citizenship. Something tells me the government won't allow apple to pack up and move to Europe seeing as large companies have to get permission to buy or merge with other companies. And I don't think the executives would enjoy flying to Europe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a10abd935ad3dad849df2ac17dd7683c", "text": "J-1 students are considered to be nonresidents for taxation purposes during their first five years of presence in the US. J-1 scholars are considered to be non-residents for taxation purposes during their first two years of presence in the US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fe18102ce6074e8a9ef7c05c72fd46a", "text": "One can expatriate and (depending on where you go) get some protections from the debt following you. Some DACA dreamers are finding this option a best choice given the current political environment. But, this is obviously an extreme measure :(", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c159c05d0ec801c60acb224e0deb4cd", "text": "Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47c9c8dbbbfb64b9537ec5a36e9cc724", "text": "\"What theyre fishing for is whether the money was earned in the U.S. It's essentially an interest shelter, and/or avoiding double taxation. They're saying if you keep income you make outside the US in a bank inside the US, the US thanks you for storing your foreign money here and doesn't tax the interest (but the nation where you earned that income might). There is no question that the AirBNB income is \"\"connected with a US trade or business\"\". So your next question is whether the fraction of interest earned from that income can be broken out, or whether IRS requires you to declare all the interest from that account. Honestly given the amount of tax at stake, it may not be worth your time researching. Now since you seem to be a resident nonresident alien, it seems apparent that whatever economic value you are creating to earn your salary, is being performed in the United States. If this is for an American company and wages paid in USD, no question, that's a US trade or business. But what if it's for a Swedish company running on Swedish servers, serving Swedes and paid in Kroner to a Swedish bank which you then transfer to your US bank? Does it matter if your boots are on sovereign US soil? This is a complex question, and some countries (UK) say \"\"if your boots are in our nation, it is trade/income in our nation\"\"... Others (CA) do not. This is probably a separate question to search or ask. To be clear, the fact that your days as a teacher or trainee do not count toward residency, is a separate question from whether your salary as same counts as US income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af46f9f222b03afc70c4c684572cf355", "text": "\"For Non-Resident filers, New York taxes New York-sourced income. That includes: real or tangible personal property located in New York State (including certain gains or losses from the sale or exchange of an interest in an entity that owns real property in New York State); services performed in New York State; a business, trade, profession, or occupation carried on in New York State; and a New York S corporation in which you are a shareholder (including installment income from an IRC 453 transaction). There are some exclusions as well. It is all covered in the instructions to form IT-203. However, keep in mind that \"\"filing\"\" as non-resident doesn't make you non-resident. If you spend 184 days or more in New York State, and you have a place to stay there - you are resident. See definitions here. Even if you don't actually live there and consider yourself a CT resident.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdaa9357ed56946285502c482afc57ff", "text": "\"You can renounce it whenever you like, however you can't be living within that country and under the umbrella that the country provides otherwise someone is going to say \"\"you might claim that you are not a citizen, but your actions and physical residence would claim otherwise\"\"...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5b36ee16e54742a4a8f7e8096c1ce38", "text": "Per the IRS instructions on filing as Head of Household as a Citizen Living Abroad, if you choose to file only your own taxes, and you qualify for Head of Household without them, the IRS does not consider you married: If you are a U.S. citizen married to a nonresident alien you may qualify to use the head of household tax rates. You are considered unmarried for head of household purposes if your spouse was a nonresident alien at any time during the year and you do not choose to treat your nonresident spouse as a resident alien. However, your spouse is not a qualifying person for head of household purposes. You must have another qualifying person and meet the other tests to be eligible to file as a head of household. As such, you could file as Married Filing Separately (if you have no children) or Head of Household (if you have one or more children, a parent, etc. for whom you paid more than half of their upkeep - see the document for more information). You also may choose to file as Married Filing Jointly, if it benefits you to do so (it may, if she earns much less than you). See the IRS document Nonresident Spouse Treated As Resident for more information. If you choose to treat her as a resident, then you must declare her worldwide income. In some circumstances this will be beneficial for you, if you earn substantially more than her and it lowers your tax rate overall to do so. Married Filing Separately severely limits your ability to take some deductions and credits, so it's well worth seeing which is better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ac1ef68844fd59f82aecc6714a8914b", "text": "As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "943bdfb9bd4b87b033901c6b9f9b209a", "text": "You can do that, you aren't missing anything. It is supposed to be punishment, but as you are moving to a European country your non-penalized income would likely be taxed higher as is. I don't have info on whether you will be taxed a second time by the European country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "607ac353971dc2f4e1bb2743d5e7be59", "text": "\"It depends on how long you stay and where you earn your income. You can be a US resident for tax purposes even if you are not for immigration purposes. The \"\"substantive presence test\"\" probably applies to you: You will be considered a United States resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States (U.S.) on at least: https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Substantial-Presence-Test There are some exceptions to this test, and tax treaties may also apply. See IRS Publication 519 for more information.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94c39b345a0eb3878d903cb081e28da2", "text": "Are you planning to not pay taxes? Any time someone has income in the U.S., it is subject to U.S. taxes. You must file tax returns (and pay taxes if necessary) if you have income above a certain threshold, regardless of whether you're not authorized to work or not. If you plan to intentionally not pay taxes, then that's a whole other matter from working without authorization. Working without authorization is an immigration issue. It probably violates the conditions of your status, which will make you to automatically lose your status. That may or may not affect when you want to want to visit, immigrate to, or get other immigration benefits in the U.S. in the future; and at worst you may be deported. It's a complicated topic, but not really relevant for this site.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "194322872a65caaa165d753c9086df52", "text": "\"You are considered a Canadian resident if you have \"\"significant residential ties to Canada\"\". Because your wife lives in Canada, you therefore are a resident. Even by working temporarily in the US, you are still considered a \"\"factual resident\"\" of Canada. Due to that, your second question is irrelevant.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d2de7f5015216cc451c67d2790bf0a9", "text": "No, there's nothing special in mutual funds or ETFs. Wash sale rules apply to any asset.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8f1eab144d8f21ac7fed7acffb691048	How does 1099 work with my own company	[ { "docid": "113ceb5d9dd121482e9d9a44002a48f2", "text": "Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "908841e826e30f96712c7bdec6a1b499", "text": "\"Being self-employed, your \"\"profit\"\" is calculated as all the bills you send out, minus all business-related cost that you have (you will need a receipt for everything, and there are different rules for things that last for long time, long tools, machinery). You can file your taxes yourself - the HRS website will tell you how to, and you can do it online. It's close to the same as your normal online tax return. Only thing is that you must keep receipts for all the cost that you claim. Your tax: Assuming your gross salary is £25,000 and your profits are about £10,000, you will be paying 8% for national insurance, and 20% income tax. If you go above £43,000 or thereabouts, you pay 40% income tax on any income above that threshold, instead of 20%, but your national insurance payments stop.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e732da138b264cabdd06ac9aed37229b", "text": "The answer seems to depend on where you live. Perhaps you already found this, but the summary from the IRS is: The insurance laws in some states do not allow a corporation to purchase group health insurance when the corporation only has one employee. Therefore, if the shareholder was the sole corporate employee, the shareholder had to purchase his health insurance in his own name. The IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which ruled that under certain situations the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction even if the health insurance policy was purchased in the name of the shareholder. Notice 2008-1 provided four examples, including three examples in which the shareholder purchased the health insurance and one in which the S corporation purchased the health insurance. Notice 2008-1 states that if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name and paid for it with his own funds, the shareholder would not be allowed an above-the-line deduction. On the other hand, if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name but the S corporation either directly paid for the health insurance or reimbursed the shareholder for the health insurance and also included the premium payment in the shareholder’s W-2, the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction. The bottom line is that in order for a shareholder to claim an above-the-line deduction, the health insurance premiums must ultimately be paid by the S corporation and must be reported as taxable compensation in the shareholder’s W-2. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/S-Corporation-Compensation-and-Medical-Insurance-Issues I understand this to mean that you can only get the deduction in your case (having purchased it in your own name) if your state does not allow your S-Corp to purchase a group health plan because you only have one employee. (I don't know specifically if Illinois fits that description or not.) In addition, there are rules about reporting health insurance premiums for taxes for S-Corp share members that you should also check. Personally, I think that it's complicated enough that advice from a CPA or other tax advisor specific to your situation would be worth the cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64ff7d85368c789defd8b35ea3d24c03", "text": "\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb4538721131cc3f19655a02ffa66286", "text": "\"If you start an LLC with you as the sole member it will be considered a disregarded entity. This basically means that you have the protection of being a company, but all your revenues will go on your personal tax return and be taxed at whatever rate your personal rate calculates to based on your situation. Now here is the good stuff. If you file Form 2553 you can change your sole member LLC to file as an S Corp. Once you have done this it changes the game on how you can pay out what your company makes. You will need to employ yourself and give a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary. This will be reported to the IRS and you will file your normal tax returns and they will be taxed based on your situation. Now as the sole member you can then pay yourself \"\"distribution to share holders\"\" from your account and this money is not subject to normal fica and social security tax (check with your tax guy) and MAKE SURE to document correctly. The other thing is that on that same form you can elect to have a different fiscal year than the standard calendar IRS tax year. This means that you could then take part of profits in one tax year and part in another so that you don't bump yourself into another tax bracket. Example: You cut a deal and the company makes 100,000 in profit that you want to take as a distribution. If you wrote yourself a check for all of it then it could put you into another tax bracket. If your fiscal year were to end say on sept 30 and you cut the deal before that date then you could write say 50,000 this year and then on jan 1 write the other check.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bacdfd536e8d1bafca2bc17e11a56bb0", "text": "I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d230b97c82f552fa6433e8f60ecfd99", "text": "You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you. If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer. As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you. How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference). You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83582d9e279622316731ac9011bd023d", "text": "The way deductions work normally does not take into account what account the transaction was made using. I.e. you report your gross income, your deductions and they subtract the deductions from the income. What's left is your taxable income. The tricky part comes with pre-tax contributions to tax advantaged accounts (like 401(k)). Those plans require the contributions to be made by your company. Since contributions to 529 plans are not deductible on your federal income taxes, the money is not going to be directly deposited. So it does not matter how the money goes into the plan. Just make sure you keep a record of your contributions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfbfc478fa486de7f3c15b3583b3666a", "text": "It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9e5ea4e617dfb57896f673e055ff335", "text": "Just earning the money would trigger a 1099 (assuming other requirements are met). It doesn't matter where the money is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a9011e433785e61732b017579a786a1", "text": "Yes, but make sure you issue a 1099 to these freelancers by 1/31/2016 or you may forfeit your ability to claim the expenses. You will probably need to collect a W-9 from each freelancer but also check with oDesk as they may have the necessary paperwork already in place for this exact reason. Most importantly, consult with a trusted CPA to ensure you are completing all necessary forms correctly and following current IRS rules and regulations. PS - I do this myself for my own business and it's quite simple and straight forward.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16cd7199c139d9f9e3025c20c4cacd73", "text": "You can ask the client to pay you through the LLC. In that case you should invoice them from the LLC and have them pay the invoice. If they pay you personally, you can always make a capital contribution to the LLC and use that money to buy equipment. The tax implications for a single person LLC providing professional services are the same for you either way: income is income whether it's from your LLC or an employer. It's different for the employer if they are giving you a W2 vs a 1099. So it doesn't matter much for you. If the LLC is buying equipment, make sure you get enough revenue through the LLC to at least offset those expenses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1406ad7d12bc3a17399d0be238045b5b", "text": "I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28a548b853776d6e465185cd77a0edb2", "text": "I'm not sure 1099-MISC is what you should expect. Equity means ownership, and in LLC context it means membership. As an LLC member, you'll get distributions and should receive a K-1 form for tax treatment, not 1099 or W2. If the CEO is talking about 1099 it means he's going to hire you as a contractor which contradicts the statement about equity allocation. That's an entirely different situation. 1) Specifically, would the 1099-MISC form be used in this case? 1099-MISC is used to describe various payments. Depending on which box is filled, the tax treatment may be as of employment income (subject to SE taxes) or passive income (royalties, rents, etc - subject to various limitations in the tax code). 3) If this is the only logical method of compensation (receiving a % of real estate sales), how would it be taxed? That would probably be a commission and taxed as employment income. I suggest to get a professional tax adviser consultation on this issue, with specific details, numbers, and kinds of deals involved. You can get gain or lose a lot of money just because you're characterized as a contractor and not LLC member or employee (each has its own benefits and disadvantages, and you have to consider them all). 4) Are there any advantages/disadvantages to acquiring and selling properties through the company as opposed to receiving a % of sales? Yes. There are advantages and there are disadvantages. For example, if you're using a corporation, you can get salary, if you're a contractor you cannot. There are a lot of issues hidden in this distinction (which I've just discussed with KeithS in this argument).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "521ca52299c5af07b7cf3157b6a45764", "text": "\"TL;DR: Get a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for tax issues, and a lawyer for the Operating Agreement, labor law and contract related issues. Some things are not suitable for DIY unless you know exactly what you're doing. We both do freelance work currently just through our personal names. What kind of taxes are we looking into paying into the business (besides setup of everything) compared to being a self proprietor? (I'm seeing that the general answer is no, as long as income is <200k, but not certain). Unless you decide to have your LLC taxed as a corporation, there's no change in taxes. LLC, by default, is a pass-through entity and all income will flow to your respective tax returns. From tax perspective, the LLC will be treated as a partnership. It will file form 1065 to report its income, and allocate the income to the members/partners on schedules K-1 which will be given to you. You'll use the numbers on the K-1 to transfer income allocated to you to your tax returns and pay taxes on that. Being out of state, will she incur more taxes from the money being now filtered through the business? Your employee couldn't care less about your tax problems. She will continue receiving the same salary whether you are a sole proprietor or a LLC, or Corporatoin. What kind of forms are we looking into needing/providing when switching to a LLC from freelance work? Normally we just get 1099's, what would that be now? Your contract counterparts couldn't care less about your tax problems. Unless you are a corporation, people who pay you more than $600 a year must file a 1099. Since you'll be a partnership, you'll need to provide the partnership EIN instead of your own SSN, but that's the only difference. Are LLC's required to pay taxes 4 times per year? We would definitely get an accountant for things, but being as this is side work, there will be times where we choose to not take on clients, which could cause multiple months of no income. Obviously we would save for when we need to pay taxes, but is there a magic number that says \"\"you must now pay four times per year\"\". Unless you choose to tax your LLC as a corporation, LLC will pay no taxes. You will need to make sure you have enough withholding to cover for the additional income, or pay the quarterly estimates. The magic number is $1000. If your withholding+estimates is $1000 less than what your tax liability is, you'll be penalized, unless the total withholding+estimates is more than 100% of your prior year tax liability (or 110%, depending on the amounts). The LLC would be 50% 50%, but that work would not always be that. We will be taking on smaller project through the company, so there will be times where one of us could potentially be making more money. Are we setting ourselves up for disaster if one is payed more than the other while still having equal ownership? Partnerships can be very flexible, and equity split doesn't have to be the same as income, loss or assets split. But, you'll need to have a lawyer draft your operational agreement which will define all these splits and who gets how much in what case. Make sure to cover as much as possible in that agreement in order to avoid problems later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bfc394f5b81ac7a46127529cd791709", "text": "From the 1099 instructions: File Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for each person to whom you have paid during the year Your accounting method doesn't matter. You file 1099 for the year you paid the money.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e7da2b96de09da3760a72df8e3b3e62b	What should I be aware of as a young investor?	[ { "docid": "74d7ad4cb9f02118401ae5f419d3de31", "text": "\"I'm 39 and have been investing since my very early 20's, and the advice I'd like to go back and give myself is the following: 1) Time is your friend. Compounding interest is a powerful force and is probably the most important factor to how much money you are going to wind up with in the end. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can. You have to run twice as hard to catch up if you start late, and you will still probably wind up with less in the end for the extra effort. 2) Don't invest 100% of your investment money It always bugged me to let my cash sit idle in an investment account because the niggling notion of inflation eating up my money and I felt I was wasting opportunity cost by not being fully invested in something. However, not having enough investable cash around to buy into the fire-sale dips in the market made me miss out on opportunities. 3) Diversify The dot.com bubble taught me this in a big, hairy painful way. I had this idea that as a technologist I really understood the tech bubble and fearlessly over-invested in Tech stocks. I just knew that I was on top of things as an \"\"industry insider\"\" and would know when to jump. Yeah. That didn't work out so well. I lost more than 6 figures, at least on paper. Diversification will attenuate the ups and downs somewhat and make the market a lot less scary in the long run. 4) Mind your expenses It took me years of paying huge full-service broker fees to realize that those clowns don't seem to do any better than anyone else at picking stocks. Even when they do, the transaction costs are a lead weight on your returns. The same holds true for mutual funds/ETFs. Shop for low expense ratios aggressively. It is really hard for a fund manager to consistently beat the indexes especially when you burden the returns with expense ratios that skim an extra 1% or so off the top. The expense ratio/broker fees are among the very few things that you can predict reliably when it comes to investments, take advantage of this knowledge. 5) Have an exit strategy for every investment People are emotional creatures. It is hard to be logical when you have skin in the game and most people aren't disciplined enough to just admit when they have a loser and bail out while they are in the red or conversely admit when they have a winner and take profits before the party is over. It helps to counteract this instinct to have an exit strategy for each investment you buy. That is, you will get out if it drops by x% or grows by y%. In fact, it is probably a good idea to just enter those sell limit orders right after you buy the investment so you don't have to convince yourself to press the eject button in the heat of a big move in the price of that investment. Don't try to predict tops or bottoms. They are extremely hard to guess and things often turn so fast that you can't act on them in time anyway. Get out of an investment when it has met your goal or is going to far in the wrong direction. If you find yourself saying \"\"It has to come back eventually\"\", slap yourself. When you are trying to decide whether to stay in the investment or bail, the most important question is \"\"If I had the current cash value of the stock instead of shares, would I buy it today?\"\" because essentially that is what you are doing when you stick with an investment. 6) Don't invest in fads When you are investing you become acutely sensitive to everyone's opinions on what investment is hot and what is not. If everyone is talking about a particular investment, avoid it. The more enthusiastic people are about it (even experts) the MORE you should avoid it. When everyone starts forming investment clubs at work and the stock market seems to be the preferred topic of conversation at every party you go to. Get out! I'm a big fan of contrarian investing. Take profits when it feels like all the momentum is going into the market, and buy in when everyone seems to be running for the doors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9f41d52e6980a7520c2282902d04056", "text": "Disclaimer - I am 51. Not sure how that happened, because I remember being in my late teens like it was yesterday. I've learned that picking individual stocks is tough. Very tough. For every Apple, there are dozens that go sideways for years or go under. You don't mention how much you have to invest, but I suggest (A) if you have any income at all, open a Roth IRA. You are probably in the zero or 10% bracket, and now is the time to do this. Then, invest in ETFs or Index Mutual Funds. If one can get S&P minus .05% over their investing life, they will beat most investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "167e7ba61ac8b036dc0a477a9e81d0df", "text": "Don't start by investing in a few individual companies. This is risky. Want an example? I'm thinking of a big company, say $120 billion or so, a household name, and good consistent dividends to boot. They were doing fairly well, and were generally busy trying to convince people that they were looking to the future with new environmentally friendly technologies. Then... they went and spilled a bunch of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, it wasn't a pretty picture if BP was one of five companies in your portfolio that day. Things would look a lot better if they were one of 500 or 5000 companies, though. So. First, aim for diversification via mutual funds or ETFs. (I personally think you should probably start with the mutual funds: you avoid trading fees, for one thing. It's also easier to fit medium-sized dollar amounts into funds than into ETFs, even if you do get fee-free ETF trading. ETFs can get you better expense ratios, but the less money you have invested the less important that is.) Once you have a decent-sized portfolio - tens of thousands of dollars or so - then you can begin to consider holding stocks of individual companies. Take note of fees, including trading fees / commissions. If you buy $2000 worth of stock and pay a $20 commission you're already down 1%. If you're holding a mutual fund or ETF, look at the expense ratio. The annualized real return on the stock market is about 4%. (A real return is after adjusting for inflation.) If your fee is 1%, that's about a quarter of your earnings, which is huge. And while it's easy for a mutual fund to outperform the market by 1% from time to time, it's really really hard to do it consistently. Once you're looking at individual companies, you should do a lot of obnoxious boring stupid research and don't just buy the stock on the strength of its brand name. You'll be interested in a couple of metrics. The main one is probably the P/E ratio (price/earnings). If you take the inverse of this, you'll get the rate at which your investment is making you money (e.g. a P/E of 20 is 5%, a P/E of 10 is 10%). All else being equal, a lower P/E is a good thing: it means that you're buying the company's income really cheap. However, all else is seldom equal: if a stock is going for really cheap, it's usually because investors don't think that it's got much of a future. Earnings are not always consistent. There are a lot of other measures, like beta (correlation to the market overall: riskier volatile stocks have higher numbers), gross margins, price to unleveraged free cash flow, and stuff like that. Again, do the boring research, otherwise you're just playing games with your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3baa242993cb5b6cc6ab13e6fa977495", "text": "Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03bd51af0037dd95496e5d212684437d", "text": "\"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation). That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing: a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the \"\"investment porn\"\" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries. Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6eab5dab50c4fbee754a48168b36c1c9", "text": "If you're tending toward stocks because you have a long time horizon, you're looking at them for the right reasons. I'm twice your age. I have a mortgage -- two of them, actually! -- a wife, and a six-year-old. I can't really justify being terribly risky with my money because I have others depending on my income. You're nineteen. Unless you've gotten a really early start on life and already have a family, you can take on a lot more risk than stocks. You have time to try things (income things) that I wish I would have tried at that age, like starting a business. The only thing that would push me to do that now would be losing my job, and that wouldn't be the rush I'd like. That's not to say that you can't make a lot of money with stocks, but if that's what you're looking to do, really dig in and research them. You have the time. Whether the tide makes all boats rise or sink is a matter of timing the economy, but some of the companies will ride the waves. It takes time to find those more often than not. Which blue chips are likely to ride the waves? I have no clue. But I'm not invested in them at the moment, so it doesn't matter. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cd26d742c20c768e4ca24448d556523", "text": "If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca345ea66f077eab164938dda4afdc2e", "text": "\"You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund.\"\" Or as he said at a different time, \"\"Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees\"\". You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund. Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad95ac2efa8c6f348e8f9de9c1bdc83f", "text": "Risk and return always go hand by hand.* Risk is a measure of expected return volatility. The best investment at this stage is a good, easy to understand but thorough book on finance. *Applies to efficient markets only.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c21384b5cd3743e8d722e643855aee6", "text": "Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6a9e919222d50155f265ee9a1dfe37c", "text": "As a young investor, you should know that the big secret is that profitable long term investing is boring. It is is not buying one day and selling the next and keeping very close tabs on your investments and jumping on the computer and going 'Buy!' , 'Sell'. That makes brokers rich, but not you. So look at investments but not everyday and find something else that's exciting, whether it's dirt biking or WOW or competitive python coding. As a 19 year old, you have a ton of time and you don't need to swing for the fences and make 50% or 30% or even 20% returns every year to do well. And you don't have to pick the best performing stocks, and if you do, you don;t have to buy them at their lowest or sell them at their highest. Go read A Random Walk's guide to Investing by Burton Malkiel and The only Investment Guide you'll ever need by Andrew Tobias. Buy them at used bookstores because it's cheaper that way. And if you want more excitement read You Can Be a Stock Market Genius by Joel GreenBlatt, One up On Wall Street By Peter Lynch, something by Warren Buffet and if you want to be really whacked, read Fooled By Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Talib, But never forget about Tobias and Malkiel, invest a regular amount of money every month from 19 to 65 according to what they write and you'll be a wealthy guy by 65.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5103c63d89644a428f070da7464eb105", "text": "\"Ah ok, I can appreciate that. I'm fluent in English and Mr. Graham's command of English can be intimidating (even for me). The edition I have has commentary by Mr. Jason Zweig who effectively rewrites the chapters into simpler English and updates the data (some of the firms listed by Mr. Graham don't exist either due to bankruptcy or due to consolidation). But I digress. Let's start with the topics you took; they're all very relevant, you'd be surprised, the firm I work for require marketing for certain functions. But not being good at Marketing doesn't block you from a career in Finance. Let's look at the other subjects. You took high level Maths, as such I think a read through Harry Markowitz's \"\"Portfolio Selection\"\" would be beneficial, here's a link to the paper: https://www.math.ust.hk/~maykwok/courses/ma362/07F/markowitz_JF.pdf Investopedia also has a good summary: http://www.investopedia.com/walkthrough/fund-guide/introduction/1/modern-portfolio-theory-mpt.aspx This is Mr. Markowitz's seminal work; while it's logical to diversify your portfolio (remember the saying \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\"), Mr. Markwotiz presented the relationship of return, risk and the effects of diversification via mathematical representation. The concepts presented in this paper are taught at every introductory Finance course at University. Again a run through the actual paper might be intimidating (Lord knows I never read the paper from start to finish, but rather read text books which explained the concepts instead), so if you can find another source which explains the concepts in a way you understand, go for it. I consider this paper to be a foundation for other papers. Business economics is very important and while it may seem like it has a weak link to Finance at this stage; you have to grasp the concepts. Mr. Michael Porter's \"\"Five Forces\"\" is an excellent link between industry structure (introduced in Microeconomics) and profit potential (I work in Private Equity, and you'd be surprised how much I use this framework): https://hbr.org/2008/01/the-five-competitive-forces-that-shape-strategy There's another text I used in University which links the economic concept of utility and investment decision making; unfortunately I can't seem to remember the title. I'm asking my ex-classmates so if they respond I'll directly send you the author/title. To finish I want to give you some advice; a lot of subjects are intimidating at first, and you might feel like you're not good enough but keep at it. You're not dumber than the next guy, but nothing will come for free. I wasn't good at accounting, I risked failing my first year of University because of it, I ended up passing that year with distinction because I focused (my second highest grade was Accounting). I wasn't good in economics in High School, but it was my best grades in University. I wasn't good in financial mathematics in University but I aced it in the CFA. English is your second language, but you have to remember a lot of your peers (regardless of their command of the language) are being introduced to the new concepts just as you are. Buckle down and you'll find that none of it is impossible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01635b6951f65cf58c7a8e5248d06fbc", "text": "Keep up with market news. Macroeconomics, policies, interest rates, major movements, etc. If there's anything you don't know you'll learn on the job, they wouldn't hire you if they expected you to know stuff you didn't. Not sure what you're worried about. If you're an analyst you'll have several months of training anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ca0852fdce161b965d5715975eb9a33", "text": "\"As foundational material, read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0a96be69a097f0ddb3916ff126d5baa", "text": "The reason that you are advised to take more risk while you are young is because the risk is often correlated to a short investment horizon. Young people have 40-50 years to let their savings grow if they get started early enough. If you need the money in 5-15 years (near the end of your earning years), there is much more risk of a dip that will not correct itself before you need the money than if you don't need the money for 25-40 years (someone whose career is on the rise). The main focus for the young should be growth. Hedging your investments with gold might be a good strategy for someone who is worried about the volatility of other investments, but I would imagine that gold will only reduce your returns compared to small-cap stocks, for example. If you are looking for more risk, you can leverage some of your money and buy call options to increase the gains with upward market moves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa0b060c38ae220ba77f07ca36750b24", "text": "I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83266596284f73cb8a10197cbc46f3f0", "text": "Fantastic question to be asking at the age of 22! A very wise man suggested to me the following with regard to your net income I've purposely not included saving a sum of money for a house deposit, as this is very much cultural and lots of EU countries have a low rate of home ownership. On the education versus entrepreneur question. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I am a big advocate of education (I have a B.Eng) but have following working in the real world for a number of years have started an IT business in data analytics. My business partner and I saw a gap in the market and have exploited it. I continue to educate myself now in short courses on running business, data analytics and investment. My business partner did things the otherway around, starting the company first, then getting an M.Sc. Other posters have suggested that investing your money personally is a bad idea. I think it is a very good idea to take control of your own destiny and choose how you will invest your money. I would say similarly that giving your money to someone else who will sometimes lose you money and will charge you for the privilege is a bad idea. Also putting your money in a box under your bed or in the bank and receive interest that is less than inflation are bad ideas. You need to choose where to invest your money otherwise you will gain no advantage from the savings and inflation will erode your buying power. I would suggest that you educate yourself in the investment options that are available to you and those that suit you personality and life circumstances. Here are some notes on learning about stock market trading/investing if you choose to take that direction along with some books for self learning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19a399279fa3d682c76b0f1cb8422a2e", "text": "IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e581c27f5031f5164a7926715fae4f3", "text": "Whey protein, coffee, skills, skills, skills did I mention skills? Learn useful things and no debt. As for actual investment vehicles.. I have bad views of what is going to happen of the next 10 years.. I doubt you'll be allowed to own anything you invested in....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab52113ec7e01f75d7dbf10acd3beb4c", "text": "\"I'm searching for a master's thesis topic in equity investment or portfolio management and I'd be grateful if someone could tell me what are the hot \"\"trends\"\" going on right now on the market? Any new phenomenons (like the rise of blockchain, etf... but more relate to the equity side) or debates ( the use of the traditional techniques such as Beta to calculate WACC for example ...) ?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e68081d995d6fa8dd10e008a6eb53ce", "text": "Some backstory before my questions. I am a First year student in the UK (course: Finance and Investment). In the future I would like to get into IB or PE. I already have CISI and CFA exams on my radar. My questions are: 1) With the recent boom in cryptocurrencies should I start researching how they work and what are the future prospects of investing in them? Do you think it will become mandatory by 2020? Are GS employees currently working their butts off to learn as much as possible about it and how to profit? 2) What is the best way to network? Should I focus only on insight days,applying for shadowing/internships etc. Is cold-calling worth it? 3) Do actual people work in Clearing Houses? If so, what are the career prospects there? 4) Can someone give me a real life example (in the form of eli5) about how financial institutions use swaps and futures? 5) I recently picked up “Lords of Finance” as a book for my spare time. I am genuinely intrigued but I was told that I am wasting my time and in the future it wont do me any good because no one will know I read it? I am well aware most of these questions are basic but It will be very helpful if I even get one question answered. If some of these questions have already been answered please give me a link. Thank you in advance", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48a6bf9cf171d813361886f74c92a6f9", "text": "I think you're on the right track. Keep it up. You are still relatively young, and it wont have an impact. You have experience and you have a lot of education, both will be assets. I can't comment on the region question because I have only ever worked in one region. Are you asking from a purely economics/getting paid perspective? One approach you can take is making a little spreadsheet with average trader salary divided by cost of living in that region. The issue is that trader salaries and bonuses vary SO MUCH in every region, that you can't make any generalizations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "319ecafcdb8a3aec5bded1d3b26698c9", "text": "First, welcome to Money.SE. If you are interested in saving and investing, this is a great site to visit. Please take the tour and just start to read the questions you find interesting. 1 - even though this is hypothetical, it scales down to an average investor. If I own 1000 shares of the 1 billion, am I liable if the company goes under? No. Stocks don't work that way. If all I have is shares, not a short position, not options, I can only see my investment go to zero. 2 - Here, I'd ask that you edit your country in the tags. I can tell you that my newborn (who is soon turning 17) had a stock account in her name when she was a few months old. It's still a custodian account, meaning an adult has to manage it, and depending on the state within the US, the age that it's hers with no adult, is either 18 or 21. Your country may have similar regional rules. Also - each country has accounts specifically geared toward retirement, with different favorable rules regarding taxation. In the US, we have accounts that can be funded at any age, so long as there's earned income. My daughter started one of these accounts when she started baby sitting at age 12. She will have more in her account by the time she graduates college than the average retiree does. It's good for her, and awful for the general population that this is the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72837c1163d48aa638ea1885c20b77ce", "text": "Reading this made me think of [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s1s5K52zEQ). I wish you luck if you consider yourself an authority on a subject you have practically no exposure to, but hey, what does a hiring manager know? I mean, you're about to start an internship, so obviously everyone should want to know your opinion on the future of the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1aa5f1b430093745597a20ae6f4fba86", "text": "Don't ever, ever, ever let someone else handle your money, unless you want somebody else have your money. Nobody can guarantee a return on stocks. That's utter bullshit. Stock go up and down according to market emotions. How can your guru predict the market's future emotions? Keep your head cool with stocks. Only buy when you are 'sure' you are not going to need the money in the next 10 years. Buy obligations before stocks, invest in 'defensive' stocks before investing in 'aggressive' stocks. Keep more money in obligations and defensive stock than in aggressive stocks. See how you can do by yourself. Before buying (or selling) anything, think about the risks, the market, the expert's opinion about this investment, etc. Set a target for selling (and adjust the target according to the performance of the stock). Before investing, try to learn about investing, really. I've made my mistakes, you'll make yours, let's hope they're not the same :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89d0451472da336c5b36dca90f59adb4", "text": "Many good sources on YouTube that you can find easily once you know what to look for. Start following the stock market, present value / future value, annuities & perpetuities, bonds, financial ratios, balance sheets and P&L statements, ROI, ROA, ROE, cash flows, net present value and IRR, forecasting, Monte Carlo simulation (heavy on stats but useful in finance), the list goes on. If you can find a cheap textbook, it'll help with the concepts. Investopedia is sometimes useful in learning concepts but not really on application. Khan Academy is a good YouTube channel. The Intelligent Investor is a good foundational book for investing. There are several good case studies on Harvard Business Review to practice with. I've found that case studies are most helpful in learning how to apply concept and think outside the box. Discover how you can apply it to aspects of your everyday life. Finance is a great profession to pursue. Good luck on your studies!", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
81af0116daa2c3c215589c1c26ad4a59	To rebalance or not to rebalance	[ { "docid": "1bea3acc878bbc52ef38fcc73324835a", "text": "\"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91ac0fed77d4e280fa2c49c0ad065fa6", "text": "\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4c28ac3383dd84dadb68bc2235db2d5", "text": "\"Rebalancing is, simply, a way of making sure your risk/reward level is where you want it to be. Let's say you've decided that your optimal mix is 50% stocks and 50% bonds (or 50% US stocks, 50% international, or 30/30/30 US large-cap/US small-cap/US midcap...). So you buy $100 of each, but over time, the prices will of course fluctuate. At the end of the year, the odds that the ratio of the value of your investments is equal to the starting ratio is nil. So you rebalance to get your target mix again. Rebalance too often and you end up paying a lot in transaction fees. Rebalance not often enough and you end up running outsize risk. People who tell you that you should rebalance to make money, or use \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or think there is any upside to rebalancing outside of risk management are making assumptions about the market (mean regressing or some such thing) that generally you should avoid.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d111d0a34e4c97ece2156e010e6b1b4e", "text": "\"In theory, investing is not gambling because the expected outcome is not random; people are expecting positive returns, on average, with some relationship to risk undertaken and economic reality. (More risk = more returns.) Historically this is true on average, that assets have positive returns, and riskier assets have higher returns. Also it's true that stock market gains roughly track economic growth. Valuation (current price level relative to \"\"fundamentals\"\") matters - reversion to the mean does exist over a long enough time. Given a 7-10 year horizon, a lot of the variance in ending price level can be explained by valuation at the start of the period. On average over time, business profits have to vary around a curve that's related to the overall economy, and equity prices should reflect business profits. The shorter the horizon, the more random noise. Even 1 year is pretty short in this respect. Bubbles do exist, as do irrational panics, and milder forms of each. Investing is not like a coin flip because the current total number of heads and tails (current valuation) does affect the probability of future outcomes. That said, it's pretty hard to predict the timing, or the specific stocks that will do well, etc. Rebalancing gives you an objective, automated, unemotional way to take advantage of all the noise around the long-term trend. Rather than trying to use judgment to identify when to get in and out, with rebalancing (and dollar cost averaging) you guarantee getting in a bit more when things are lower, and getting out a bit more when things are higher. You can make money from prices bouncing around even if they end up going nowhere and even if you can't predict the bouncing. Here are a couple old posts from my blog that talk about this a little more:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fff57d0c07b6259311cbbb60168e3037", "text": "This answer will assume you know more math than most. An ideal case: For the point of argument, first consider the following admittedly incorrect assumptions: 1) The prices of all assets in your investment universe are continuously differentiable functions of time. 2) Investor R (for rebalance) continuously buys and sells in order to maintain a constant proportion of each of several investments in his portfolio. 3) Investor P (for passive) starts with the same portfolio as R, but neither buys nor sells Then under the assumptions of no taxes or trading costs, it is a mathematical theorem that investor P's portfolio return fraction will be the weighted arithmetic mean of the return fractions of all the individual investments, whereas investor R will obtain the weighted geometric mean of the return fractions of the individual investments. It's also a theorem that the weighted arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the weighted geometric mean, so regardless of what happens in the market (given the above assumptions) the passive investor P does at least as well as the rebalancing investor R. P will do even better if taxes and trading costs are factored in. The real world: Of course prices aren't continuously differentiable or even continuous, nor can you continuously trade. (Indeed, under such assumptions the optimal investing strategy would be to sample the prices sufficiently rapidly to capture the derivatives and then to move all your assets to the stock increasing at the highest relative rate. This crazy momentum trading would explosively destabilize the market and cause the assumptions to break.) The point of this is not to argue for or against rebalancing, but to point out that any argument for rebalancing which continues to hold under the above ideal assumptions is bogus. (Many such arguments do.) If a stockbroker standing to profit from commission pushes rebalancing on you with an argument that still holds under the above assumptions then he is profiting off of BS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c97d81678b366cd5a96f1a805db91cee", "text": "Yes E[x] is expected value of x. E[x\|y] = expected value of x, given y. c, k are some constants Let E[s_{n+1}\|s_n=c] = c, but if E[s_{n+1}\|s_n,s_{n-1},...,s_{n-m}] ->some constant k as m->\\infty (call this equation 1) then rebalancing makes sense. Notes:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7658a2827e8c0dfc9718a89e0c64f7aa", "text": "\"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \"\"on sale\"\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "614f000308e628a7beaebe5b18c56020", "text": "Thanks for your reply! I presume then if I don't convert back (say I spend everything) then it's much the same. So my main consideration should be whether I think the currency will increase or decrease in my time away if I'm converting back", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e034c4331d15e3aef5d73451913e17b2", "text": "If you have significant assets, such as a large deposit, then diversification of risks such as currency risk is good practice - there are many good options, but keeping 100% of it in roubles is definitely not a good idea, nor is keeping 100% of it in a single foreign currency. Of course, it would be much more beneficial to have done it yesterday, and moments of extreme volatility generally are a bad time to make large uninformed trades, but if the deposit is sufficiently large (say, equal to annual expenses) then it would make sense to split it among different currencies and also different types of assets as well (deposit/stocks/precious metals/bonds). The rate of rouble may go up and down, but you also have to keep in mind that future events such as fluctuating oil price may risk a much deeper crisis than now, and you can look to experiences of the 1998 crisis as an example of what may happen if the situation continues to deteriorate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07a683e257b1d57524ea87fa056efd0f", "text": "Taking as given that your definition of VA involves selling at intermediate times, your question can be made more general. After all, value averaging is just one special case of a portfolio that rebalances to target weights periodically. Do back-end fees (and front-end fees) harm the value of portfolios that require rebalancing? The answer is yes, they do. Those fees are put in place in order to prevent investors from redeeming shares over any but the longest horizons. Any portfolio that rebalances periodically will involve some periodic selling. If you invest in a fund with front-end or back-end fees, it is optimal to leave your money in it for as long as possible and not do any rebalancing. If you want to run a portfolio that is at all active (involves rebalancing), then it is probably wise to use no-load funds. These are often some of the best and cheapest funds anyway, but even if front or back end load funds have a lower expense ratio, you will likely lose money on those loads as you rebalance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cca1f388f296720d6f055eea0c36174e", "text": "If your criteria has changed but some of your existing holdings don't meet your new criteria you should eventually liquidate them, because they are not part of your new strategy. However, you don't want to just liquidate them right now if they are currently performing quite well (share price currently uptrending). One way you could handle this is to place a trailing stop loss on the stocks that don't meet your current criteria and let the market take you out when the stocks have stopped up trending.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af7e4c925d7f01f3b0f1aae9348cac36", "text": "\"Well what he was trying to say is that support should be prioritized higher as an investment rather than cut to the bone as a necessary overhead evil. Yes, they all still need to be balanced, so technically it's a true statement, but the implication with which it was said was \"\"you shouldn't be pouring money into support. Ever.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbe9180f1cff5262fcf27862358c007a", "text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in, which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a \"\"blip\"\", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are \"\"wrong\"\" and that the \"\"true price\"\" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are \"\"sound\"\"). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a \"\"balanced\"\" portfolio -- without putting \"\"all your eggs in one basket\"\" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "000c45b503d857f5f81da23d773a0aae", "text": "(a) 5 funds for $15K is not too many or too few ? A bit high as I'd wonder if you've thought of how you'll rebalance the funds over time so you aren't investing too much in a particular market segment. I'd also question if you know what kinds of fees you may have with those funds as some of Vanguard's index funds had fees if the balance is under $10K that may change how much you'll be paying. From Vanguard's site: We charge a $20 annual account service fee for each Vanguard fund with a balance of less than $10,000 in an account. This fee doesn’t apply if you sign up for account access on Vanguard.com and choose electronic delivery of statements, confirmations, and Vanguard fund reports and prospectuses. This fee also doesn’t apply to members of Flagship®, Voyager Select®, and Voyager Services®. So, if you don't do the delivery this would be an extra $100/year that I wonder if you factored that into things here. (b) Have I diversified my portfolio too much or not enough ? Perhaps I am missing something that would be recommended for the portfolio of this kind with this goal. Both, in my opinion. Too much in the sense that you are looking at Morningstar's style box to pick a fund for this box and that which I'd consider consolidating on one hand yet at the same time I notice that you are sticking purely to US stocks and ignoring international funds. I do think taxes may be something you haven't considered too much as stocks will outgrow most of those funds and trigger capital gains that you don't mention at all. (c) If not my choice of my portfolio, where would you invest $15K under similar circumstances and similar goals. What is the goal here? You state that this is your first cash investment but don't state if this is for retirement, a vacation in 10 years, a house in 7 years or a bunch of other possibilities which is something to consider. If I consider this as retirement investments, I'd like pick 1 or 2 funds known for being tax-efficient that would be where I'd start. So, if a fund goes down 30%, that's OK? Do you have a rebalancing strategy of any kind? Do you realize what taxes you may have even if the fund doesn't necessarily have gains itself? In not stating a goal, I wonder how well do you have a strategy worked out for how you'll sell off these funds down the road at some point as something to ponder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4eda5d941ef9f38511d2d191b1803f8", "text": "Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75bcad1593ac0755ac3d8e9080e922d7", "text": "\"Doesn't \"\"no rebalancing\"\" mean \"\"start with a portfolio and let it fly?\"\" Seems like incorporation of rebalancing is more sophisticated than not. Just \"\"buy\"\" your portfolio at the start and see where it ends up with no buying/selling, as compared with where it ends up if you do rebalance. Or is it not that simple?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50662f953cc4b7404eaf863a01511a40", "text": "The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline). The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level. However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back. So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%. Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par. This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great. And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "586200e8f685acbfec8ff09bf4bec44f", "text": "If the portfolio itself is taxable, then yes; if you have two stocks and you're rebalancing them, without using new cash, you are forced to sell one stock to buy another. That sale is taxable, unless you're in some sort of tax deferred/deductible account, such as an IRA. If you're talking about you being in a mutual fund and the fund itself rebalances, the same rules apply as above, though indirectly; you'll have capital gains realized and distributed to you, those gains will be taxed unless, again, your account is a retirement account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7034b1830c9bba00e0fa8ff154ab84d5", "text": "\"Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. \"\"US-LC\"\" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. \"\"Intl-Dev\"\" is international stocks from developed economies, \"\"Emer\"\" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b21e111173e3ecdcd7780e47437aa2b", "text": "\"There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to \"\"win it back\"\" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "866e56378c12f624de147a562a7a2657", "text": "There is little difference. A paycheck is a type of check used to pay wages. These days many people opt for direct deposit. So, the term paycheck can also refer to the payment itself: 1: a check in payment of wages or salary 2: wages, salary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paycheck", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
25d24aa38f4212477c13d11e292296c9	Why do 1099 forms take so long for brokerages to prepare and send out?	[ { "docid": "b693d1e182c3ed28bb173f8f81004e15", "text": "\"There are probably many correct answers to this question, but for most people, the main reason is qualified dividends. To be a qualified dividend (and therefore eligible for lower tax rates), the dividend-paying stock or fund must be held for \"\"more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date\"\". Since many stocks and funds pay out dividends at the end of the year, that means it takes until mid- to late February to determine if you held them, and therefore made the dividend qualified. Brokerages don't want to send out 1099s in January and then possibly have to send out revised versions if you decide to sell something that paid a dividend in December that otherwise would have been qualified.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00fd19472be34909b70a36447dd0f38e", "text": "The simple answer is that brokerages have to close the books at the end of the year before they can send out the tax forms (what this entails is off topic for this site). I doubt that printing and mailing the forms takes very long. It is simply the process of reconciling the books so they don't have to send out corrected forms if errors are corrected during that reconciliation process.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c7205cbaecf85917426224c0955e77ce", "text": "\"For any large company, there's a lot of activity, and if you sell at \"\"market\"\" your buy or sell will execute in seconds within a penny or two of the real-time \"\"market\"\" price. I often sell at \"\"limit\"\" a few cents above market, and those sell within 20 minutes usually. For much smaller companies, obviously you are beholden to a buyer also wanting that stock, but those are not on major exchanges. You never see whose buy order you're selling into, that all happens behind the curtain so to speak.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4564883eefc225e8c2d7e3d01ae46a2f", "text": "It's a covered call. When I want to create a covered call position, I don't need to wait before the stock transaction settles. I enter it as one trade, and they settle at different times.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "614098cccc7c2833b8fc3c2452d2e12c", "text": "\"Ditto @GradeEhBacon, but let me add a couple of comments: But more relevantly: GradeEhBacon mentioned transaction costs. Yes. Many tax shelters require setting up accounts, doing paperwork, etc. Often you have to get a lawyer or accountant to do this right. If the tax shelter could save you $1 million a year in taxes, it makes sense to pay a lawyer $10,000 to set it up right. If it could save you $100 a year in taxes, paying $10,000 to set it up would be foolish. In some cases the tax savings would be so small that it wouldn't be worth the investment of spending $20 on a FedEx package to ship the paperwork. Inconvenience. Arguably this is a special case of transaction costs: the cost of your time. Suppose I knew that a certain tax shelter would save me $100 a year in taxes, but it would take me 20 hours a year to do the paperwork or whatever to manage it. I probably wouldn't bother, because my free time is worth more than $5 an hour to me. If the payoff was bigger or if I was poorer, I might be willing. Complexity. Perhaps a special case of 3. If the rules to manage the tax shelter are complicated, it may not be worth the trouble. You have to spend a bunch of time, and if you do it wrong, you may get audited and slapped with fines and penalties. Even if you do it right, a shelter might increase your chance of being audited, and thus create uncertainty and anxiety. I've never intentionally cheated on my taxes, but every year when I do my taxes I worry, What if I make an honest mistake but the government decides that it's attempted fraud and nails me to the wall? Qualification. Again, as others have noted, tax shelters aren't generally, \"\"if you fill out this form and check box (d) you get 50% off on your taxes\"\". The shelters exist because the government decided that it would be unfair to impose taxes in this particular situation, or that giving a tax break encourages investment, or some other worthy goal. (Sometimes that worthy goal is \"\"pay off my campaign contributors\"\", but that's another subject.) The rules may have unintended loopholes, but any truly gaping ones tend to get plugged. So if, say, they say that you get a special tax break for investing in medical research, you can't just declare that your cigarette and whiskey purchases are medical research and claim the tax break. Or you talked about off-shore tax havens. The idea here is that the US government cannot tax income earned in another country and that has never even entered the US. If you make $10 in France and deposit it in a French bank account and spend it in France, the US can't tax that. So American companies sometimes set up bank accounts outside the US to hold income earned outside the US, so they don't have to bring it into the US and pay the high US tax rate. (US corporate taxes are now the highest of any industrialized country.) You could, I suppose, open an account in the Caymans and deposit the income you earned from your US job there. But if the money was earned in the US, working at a factory or office in the US, by a person living in the US, the IRS is not going to accept that this is foreign income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5dca99a685e3a33d3939c04c8107c93", "text": "From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fde0a3995bf32d9d9647f1f627bac675", "text": "Am I required to send form 1099 to non-US citizens who are not even residing in the US? Since they're not required to file US taxes, do I still have to send the form to them? That's tricky. You need to get W8/W9 from them, and act accordingly. You may need to withhold 30% (or different percentage, depending on tax treaty they claim on W8). If you withhold taxes, you also need to file form 1042. I suggest you talk to a tax professional. Is it fine to expose my ITIN (taxpayer identification number) to individuals or companies who I send the form to them. Since the form requires me to write my TIN/EIN, what would be the risks of this and what precautions should be taken to avoid inappropriate/illegal use? No, it is not OK. But if you pay these people directly - you don't have much choice, so deal with it. Get a good insurance for identity theft, and don't transact with people you don't trust. One alternative would be to pay through a payment processor (Paypal or credit cards) - see your next question. I send payments via PayPal and wire transfer. Should I send form 1099-MISC or 1099-K? Paypal is a corporation, so you don't need to send 1099 to Paypal. Whatever Paypal sends to others - it will issue the appropriate forms. Similarly if you use a credit card for payment. When you send money through Paypal - you don't send money directly to your business counterparts. You send money to Paypal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b49360f5452c74aba4b3d5242a832bdf", "text": "You should not have to wait 3 days to sell the stock after purchase. If you are trading with a cash account you will have to wait for the sale to settle (3 business days) before you can use those funds to purchase other stock. If you meet the definition of a pattern day trader which is 4 or more day trades in 5 business days then your brokerage will require you to have a minimum of $25,000 in funds and a margin account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af53fe1b8df5ef47b581399e1b92a747", "text": "\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07442b678168e578b73bde5a1fd0fb25", "text": "My bank (USAA) moves money to and from a USAA brokerage account instantly. They also have instant transfers from their money market funds to checking, savings, and brokerage. It takes the 3 days to go to another institution, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c11adb5071b17afcac09a15263f2afe", "text": "I did this for the last tax year so hopefully I can help you. You should get a 1099-B (around the same time you're getting your W-2(s)) from the trustee (whichever company facilitates the ESPP) that has all the information you need to file. You'll fill out a Schedule D and (probably) a Form 8949 to describe the capital gains and/or losses from your sale(s). It's no different than if you had bought and sold stock with any brokerage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bf38299a224a2ca9d6a6c7ecb4498dd", "text": "\"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear \"\"instantly\"\" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called \"\"clearing & settling\"\". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term \"\"bankers hours\"\" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30d26506281284eab2c895db7afc9247", "text": "The IRA contribution for the year are allowed until the tax day of that year. I.e.: you can contribute for 2015 until April 15th, 2016 (or whatever the first business day is after that, if the 15th is a holiday). You'll have to explicitly designate your contribution for 2015, since some of the IRA providers may automatically designate the current year unless you explicitly say otherwise. If that happens - it will be very hard to fix later, so pay attention when you're making the contribution. You get a couple of things from your IRA provider: Form 5498 - details your contributions for the year, account FMV, and RMD details. You can see the actual form here. You don't always get this form, if you didn't contribute anything and no RMD is required for you. Since the last day to contribute is April 15th, these forms are usually being sent out around mid-May. But you should know how much you've contributed by the tax day without it, obviously, so this is only for the IRS matching and your record-tracking. Form 1099-R includes information about distributions (including withdrawals and roll-overs). You may not get this form if you didn't take any money out of your IRA. These come out around end of January.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e42eb3ea9a05e96191e2a1ab5b50adcb", "text": "My take on this is that this reduces your liquidity risk. Stocks, bonds and many other investment vehicles on secondary markets you may think of are highly liquid but they still require that markets are open and then an additional 3-5 business days to settle the transaction and for funds to make their way to your bank account. If you require funds immediately because of an emergency, this 3-5 business days (which gets longer as week-ends and holidays are in the way) can cause a lot of discomfort which may be worth a small loss in potential ROI. Think of your car breaking down or a water pipe exploding in your home and having to wait for the stock sale to process before you can make the payment. Admittedly, you have other options such as margin loans and credit cards that can help absorb the shock in such cases but they may not be sufficient or cause you to pay interest or fees if left unpaid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34c6ffd4f6937b9f699694625fb90cca", "text": "you either tell your financial department about them (e.g. I used to get a student's tax discount), or you file them separately. But you don't have to file anything by default. That is a comment connected to the question. In the united states you can almost achieve this. 90% of the numbers on my tax form are automated. The W-2s are sent to the IRS, the 1099-s for my non retirement accounts are also sent. The two biggest items that take time are charities, and the educational benefits. Nobody has to claim every deduction they are entitled to. They must claim all the income, and decide to take the standard deduction. It would probably take less than an hour to finish the families taxes: both federal and state.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "160028dad1a8e6ec1b09f8395175d164", "text": "In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "893682084a5cd9dc30d884eb4ca6a379", "text": "\"Usually the new broker will take care of this for you. It can take a couple of weeks. If you are planning to go with Vanguard, you probably want to actually get an account at Vanguard, as Vanguard funds usually aren't \"\"No Transaction Fee\"\" funds with many brokers. If you are planning to invest in ETFs, you'll get more flexibility with a broker.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b00d5dcf10f152d53d9c1cfa7843c559	Does exposure to financials in corporate bond funds make sense?	[ { "docid": "c89162b7fe8c56145e5885660c778ff7", "text": "One reason a lot of bond ETFs like Financials are because of how financial companies work. They usually have amazing cash flows due to deposits and fees and therefore have little risk associated with paying their debts in the short term. The rest of VCSH contains companies with low default risk and good cash flow generation as well: This is of course the objective of VCSH: Banks themselves issue a lot of bonds to raise cash to lend for other purposes. Banks are intermediary and help make funds liquid for investors and spenders. Hope that helped answer your question. If not comment below and I'll try to adjust the answer to be more complete.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ce9537c51f2349ef3b2921eeeec8a658", "text": "It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e52a20a503c5917948f5d9acba2fc78", "text": "Disclaimer: I don't work in the finance industry, and simply took a few classes in corporate finance and management during my undergrad. It depends on what type of investing you're talking about. If you're talking about building a portfolio of securities, then CAPM is the basis for most valuation models. Generally, CAPM will have you discount based on your best available risk-free rate (usually t-bills or some other fixed income source with a reliable backer). Even after your valuation, the basic theory of risk management for an investment portfolio is still to maintain a diverse basket of poorly correlated products. If you're talking about corporate finance where a firm is considering an investment such as a new project, then a determining a WACC and using it as a discount rate for your cash flow is a basic strategy. This is a basic strategy, but there are better ones depending on the specifics of the investment. This is where evaluating exposures is important. To hedge counterparty risk, you might discount by the estimated probability of non-payment or buy trade insurance. To hedge currency risk, you might buy forwards, options, or look into a money market hedge. To hedge political risks like repatriation or changes in tax laws or regulation you might buy political risk insurance. To hedge exposure to a particular commodity price, you can trade futures.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e732648b31005f1d4e21e034a068d67", "text": "There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c60786f10f4885a8bc26b9a2b5d3cf81", "text": "They made an analysis of my readiness to assume a risk and found out that I am willing to take only small risks. I would agree with this analysis. You really should rethink this part. At your age, you have no rational reason whatsoever to be risk-averse! Especially since any reasonably diversified fund already eliminates actual risk (of complete loss) almost completely. Going into bonds and real estate does not reduce risk at all; it reduces volatility - and you're giving up a lot of money merely to avoid seeing your investments go down temporarily(!)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af7535b950b00daa65f3e587fcb3e827", "text": "Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations. Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year): https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap. Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it. Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning. Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market. Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already. Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver. There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again. The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc. Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e06513ea6682d175b2be99e6ede27c69", "text": "The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe. However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way. Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves. Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets. There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns. Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d365b4480c725511653ad90c95226c7f", "text": "1-2 years is very short-term. If you know you will need the money in that timeframe and cannot risk losing money because of a stock market correction, you should stay away from equities (stocks). A short-term bond fund (like VBISX) will pay around 1%, maybe a bit more, and only has a small amount of risk. Money Market funds are practically risk-free (technically speaking they can lose money, but it's extremely rare) but rates of return are dismal. It's hard to get bigger returns without taking on more risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37b0fdd14f1ecb48f606ed0d33f56806", "text": "\"I'll tackle number 2. It's one which many academics dismissed as an impossibility; after all, how could that be rational? What could cause negative yields (ie effectively giving an entity cash and paying for the privilege of doing so!) is something we've experiencing currently: fear. Back in the financial crisis, investors were actually paying to store their cash in treasuries, because of the fear that if they left it with a bank they might not get it back. What about the FDIC Insurance you may ask quite logically. The problem is that we're talking about massive entities, like pension funds, asset managers, corporations, who normally would store some (think millions - billions) in cash and cash equivalents (bank accounts, money market funds, short-term paper), they really aren't protected. So, they do what turns out to be the rational thing, which is pay a premium on \"\"safe assets\"\" ie US Gov't bills to guarantee you get most of your money back. The same thing is currently happening with German front-end paper, as Europeans pull their money out of banks/periphery assets and search for safety. Hope that helped.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3bae8e3b801de953c6ba778740f8d5c", "text": "\"you want more information on what? The general bond market? This article is getting at something different, but the first several pages are general background info on the corporate bond market. http://home.business.utah.edu/hank.bessembinder/publications/transparencyandbondmarket.pdf If you are trying to relate somehow the issue of federal debt ( a la treasuries) to corporate debt you will find that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions. Debt is not exactly currency, only the promise of repayment at a certain date in the future. The only reason that U.S. treasuries ( and those of certain other highly rated countries ) is interchangeable is because they are both very liquid and have very low risk. There is very little similarity to this in the corporate bond market. Companies are no where near to the risk level of a government (for one they can't print their own money) and when a corporation goes bankrupt it's bondholder are usually s.o.l (recovery rates hover at around 50% of the notional debt amount). This is why investors demand a premium to hold corporate debt. Now consider even the best of companies, (take IBM ) the spread between the interest the government must pay on a treasury bond and that which IBM must pay on a similar bond is still relatively large. But beyond that you run into a liquidity issue. Currency only works because it is highly liquid. If you take the article about Greece you posted above, you can see the problem generated by lack of liquidity. People have to both have currency and be willing to accept currency for trade to occur. Corporate bond are notoriously illiquid because people are unwilling to take on the risk involved with holding the debt (there are other reasons, but I'm abstracting from them). This is the other reason treasuries can be used as \"\"currency\"\" there is always someone willing to take your treasury in trade (for the most part because there is almost zero risk involved). You would always be much more willing to hold a treasury than an equivalent IBM bond. Now take that idea down to a smaller level. Who would want to buy the bonds issued by the mom and pop down the street? Even if someone did buy them who would in turn take these bonds in trade? Practically speaking: no one would. They have no way to identify the riskiness of the bond and have no assurance that there would be anyone willing to trade for it in the future. If you read the whole post by the redditor from your first link this is precisely why government backed currency came about, and why the scenario that I think you are positing is very unlikely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b30bd7a9465bf07e15893e3617051654", "text": "\"I am doing an assignment for a finance class, and I am writing a recommendation for a specific capital structure. One of the concerns brought up by the \"\"board of directors\"\" was interest coverage, so in my addressing that topic in my report, I want to compare to competitors. The interest coverage ratio under this capital structure that I'm choosing is 11.8 and the two competitors we are given information on are Company A (who has an interest coverage ratio of 6.67) and Company B (who has an interest coverage ratio of 11.25). It seems good, but my concern is that I may be missing something, as Company A is similar in size (in terms of sales) to the company I am writing a report for while Company B has ~50 times more sales than the company I am writing a report for. Advice, things to consider as I move forward?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f2c218ee74e0d3479758e528248143a", "text": "\"Google Finance and Yahoo! Finance would be a couple of sites you could use to look at rather broad market information. This would include the major US stock markets like the Dow, Nasdaq, S & P 500 though also bond yields, gold and oil can also be useful as depending on which area one works the specifics of what are important could vary. If you were working at a well-known bond firm, I'd suspect that various bond benchmarks are likely to be known and watched rather than stock indices. Something else to consider here is what constitutes a \"\"finance practitioner\"\" as I'd imagine several accountants and actuaries may not watch the market yet there could be several software developers working at hedge funds that do so that it isn't just a case of what kind of work but also what does the company do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "145a5decacc13be14030121db03b4578", "text": "The (assets - liabilities)/#shares of a company is its book value, and that number is included in their reports. It's easy for a fund to release the net asset value on a daily basis because all of its assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) are given values every day by the market. It's also necessary to have a real time value for a fund as it will be bought and sold every day. A company can't really do the same thing as it will have much more diverse assets - real estate, cars, inventory, goodwill, etc. The real time value of those assets doesn't have the same meaning as a fund; those assets are used to earn cash, while a fund's business is only to maximize its net asset value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77f2fb35a2beff9e1f1c485393fb6fd7", "text": "\"Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an \"\"accounting\"\" problem but just a bond problem. Here it goes GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date. My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate? The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year. I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c93f7fb9d94277d6f31585b9f7c8b4e", "text": "\"You're missing the point here. The goal of ratings firms is not to accurately price debt. That's the market's job. The goal of ratings companies is to evaluate the ability of the company to service their debt instrument, much like how the goal of a public accounting firm is to assure that a company's financial statements follow GAAP. The article implicitly makes the assertion that Aaa rated securities have pretty low default rates; it's mainly only the area of CDO backed securities that there's a large disconnect between the rating and default risk. While this does raise questions about the worthiness of these ratings and the way they went about modeling and rationalizing them, it hardly suggests that they are \"\"wrong over 50% of the time.\"\" As a side note, why not make it against the law for mutual funds to have rules that allow them to only hold Aaa rated securities? These funds that demand high credit ratings are only contributing to the conflict of interest by essentially \"\"asking for it.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b817ec03dd15fd9541bdb6b536bf2bd", "text": "\"not sure if I will help or just spread more gibberish but maybe the first concept I'd look at is risk tolerance. Risk tolerance is discerning your ability to risk losing money to get better results. So you know the saying \"\"the higher the risk the higher the reward\"\"? The way most people are going to operate is somewhere on the midpoint of behavior - not doing the riskiest thing, but not doing the very most cautious thing either. So given that concept, some investments will be more appealing given different economic scenarios. Typically stocks are going to reward your investment a little more aggressively than a treasury bond if the economy is humming along. This drives prices of treasuries lower, stock yields higher. In a crappy economy, people want to move their money into conservative investments like a treasury bond. Bond prices rise while stock prices dip. If you google 'correlations between the market prices of stocks and the market prices of Treasury bonds' you will find plenty of helpful and hopefully not too convoluted articles a la http://finance.zacks.com/correlation-treasuries-stocks-10871.html Don't get freaked out by graphs, the graphs are just a way to put into a picture that correlation.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7b1f3330b2f6b44def03cc1f6b3422e8	Why do Americans have to file taxes, even if their only source of income is from a regular job?	[ { "docid": "2ebc51ea3ece02616b2a17de7995dd55", "text": "One of the reasons, apart from historical, is that different people have different tax liabilities which the employer may not be aware of. For example, in the US we don't pay taxes in source on investment income, and there are many credits and deductions that we can't take. So if I have a child and some interest income from my savings account - employer's withholding will not match my actual tax liability. There are credits for children, additional taxes for the interest, and the actual tax brackets vary based on my marital status and filing options I chose. So even the same family of two people married will pay different amounts in taxes if they chose to file separate tax returns for each, than if they chose to file jointly on one tax return. For anyone who've lived anywhere else, like you and me, this system is ridiculously complex and inefficient, but for Americans - that works. Mainly for the reason of not knowing anything better, and more importantly - not wanting to know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc721c0bcdd095c130ae3e926407beb0", "text": "Companies in the US will take care of paying a portion of your required income tax on your behalf based on some paperwork you fill out when starting work. However, it is up to you as an individual to submit an income tax return. This is used to ensure that you did not end up under or overpaying based on what your company did on your behalf and any other circumstances that may impact your actual tax owed. In my experience, the process is similar in Europe. I think anyone who has a family, a house or investments in Europe would need to file an income tax return as that is when things start to get complex.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc7e48a751c2595dbe3484d870dcd8f2", "text": "Politics is certainly part of the equation, in two ways that I can think of. These don't necessarily reflect my views; just trying to explain as I see it. First, there are a lot of interests in having the current, convoluted tax system entrenched. ProPublica did a piece talking about the question you're asking, and Intuit, makers of the popular tax software TurboTax, is mentioned as someone who lobbied heavily to keep the kind of system you describe out. It's spun as increasing the size and cost of government (which, I guess, is true - someone has to do the work if you aren't filing) while opening up possibilities for error, but the piece portrays the companies as being more interested in preserving the status quo. Second, plenty of people don't like the idea that taxation is done automatically, out of sight and out of mind. An issue that illustrates this is airline pricing. Consumers don't like seeing a $19 fare advertisement and then finding out that they'll actually have to pay $50 after the taxes are added. However, those in the airline industry and those who are generally against taxes don't like the idea that a tax can be added without the consumer really knowing that the government was responsible for the price increase. You sometimes see this with gasoline prices, where taxes are built into the price per gallon. My home state of Pennsylvania recently raised the gas tax without anyone really noticing since the overall price was dropping dramatically at the time. Contrast that to Pittsburgh-area bars who were able to very specifically pin an alcohol tax on its creator. Point being, direct deposits with automatic deductions already take most of the thinking out of taxation. Those in that situation really only think about their income in terms of the amount that shows in their bank account. For some, that time of filing taxes is the one time a year where you actually get to reflect on the amount of money you're paying the government for its services. The more automatic taxation is and the less that the public thinks about it, the easier it is for the government to raise it without people noticing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c3b32d642fa5b954e6042862d04208d", "text": "One significant reason it makes sense for filing to be the default is home ownership rates. I think far more so than investment income, Americans own homes: as there is a significant mortgage interest deduction, between that and investments a large number of Americans would have to file (about a third of Americans get the mortgage interest tax deduction, and a large chunk of the richest don't qualify but would have to file for investments anyway). We also have a very complicated tax code, with nearly everyone getting some kind of deduction. Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor (folks making, say, $30k for a family of 4 with a full-time job get several thousand dollars in refundable credits, for example), the Student Loan interest deduction, the above mortgage deduction, almost everyone gets something. Finally, your employer may not know about your family situation. As we have tax credits and deductions for families based on number of children, for example, it's possible your employer doesn't know about those (if you don't get health insurance on their behalf, they may well not know). Start reporting things like that separately... and you end up with about as much work as filing is now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34c6ffd4f6937b9f699694625fb90cca", "text": "you either tell your financial department about them (e.g. I used to get a student's tax discount), or you file them separately. But you don't have to file anything by default. That is a comment connected to the question. In the united states you can almost achieve this. 90% of the numbers on my tax form are automated. The W-2s are sent to the IRS, the 1099-s for my non retirement accounts are also sent. The two biggest items that take time are charities, and the educational benefits. Nobody has to claim every deduction they are entitled to. They must claim all the income, and decide to take the standard deduction. It would probably take less than an hour to finish the families taxes: both federal and state.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4050e7aa2a9879a939f6171b5d7f7540", "text": "For two reasons: 1- People are entitled to deductions and credits that your employer cannot possibly know. Only you as an individual know about your personal situation and can therefore claim these deductions and credits by filing income tax returns. 2- Me telling you that you made $100,000 last year is not the same as telling you that you made $125,000 last year, but someone took $25,000 out of your pocket. Tax season is the one time of the year when citizens know exactly what chunk of their hard earned money was taken by the government, creating more collective awareness about taxation and giving politicians a harder time when they propose raising taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fccf2c362ccdc6e673a1f0f6bb4650b", "text": "\"I think the key point that's making the other commenters misunderstand each other here is the concept of \"\"deductions\"\". I can only speak for the UK, but that's only a concept that business owners would understand in this country. For things like child credits or low income tax credits, we don't get paid them at the end of the tax year, but into our bank accounts every couple of weeks all year round. Therefore, we have nothing to \"\"deduct\"\". If we work for a company and have business expenses, then the company pays for them. If we make interest on our savings, the bank pays it for us. We make money at our jobs, and the employer works out what taxes and national insurance we owe, based on a tax code that the government works out for us annually (which we can challenge). To be fair, it's not like we're free from bureaucracy if we want to claim these benefits. There are often lots of forms if you want child benefit or disability allowances, for instance. We just apply as soon as we're eligible, rather than waiting to get a lump sum rebate. So it appears to be a very different system, and neither is inherently better than the other (though I'm personally glad I don't usually have to fill in a big tax return myself, which I only did one year when I was self employed). I'd be interested to know, since Google has let me down, which countries use the American system, and which the British or Czech.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf197d98fba216c137fb164954bbc72", "text": "There are a few reasons: 1) Deductions and credits. We have a lot of them. While I suppose we could pass this information on to our employers for them to file, why would we want to? That just unnecessarily adds a middle-man as well as sharing potentially private information more than it needs to be shared. This is the one that effects the most people. 2) Income sources. While normal employment, contract work, and normal investment income already gets reported to the IRS, this is not true for all sources of income. For one, the U.S. is almost completely by itself on actually taxing income that its citizens earn outside of the U.S. While this policy is completely absurd, the only way for the government to know about such income is for the person to report it, since the IRS can't require foreign employers to send information to them. Also, barter income as well as other income that doesn't meet the qualifications for the payer to be required to inform the government requires the employee to self-report. Similarly, capital gains on things outside of normal investments (real estate, for instance) require self-reporting. Having said all of this, U.S. reporting requirements are absurd and illogical. For instance, the IRS already knows about all of my stock trading activity. My broker is required to report it to them. Yet, I still have to list out every single trade on my own return, which is really tedious and completely redundant. For charitable contributions, on the other hand, I only have to give the IRS the final total without listing out all of the individual donations, despite the fact that they don't have that information made available to them by another source. It makes no sense at all, but such is the federal government.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e28c801f22c2f447afbb2c3129b03a8", "text": "One of the reasons is also general distrust to the government. Another one is that there exist special interest group which profits from the complicated scheme, keep adding special cases, and has stronger financial situation that the opponents of such complex scheme. People do not trust government, or companies, to act in their best interests. So they (we) waste huge amount of time and/or money to comply with byzantine income laws. In 2004 Democratic presidential primary, presidential candidate Wes Clark (who beyond being 4-star general has also master degree in economics from Oxford, and taught economics in West point) proposed similar scheme: for people with income under 50K, employer would do all the (simple) paperwork, if desired, and get return. In the noise of the campaign, idea how to simplify taxes for half of the population was lost. Funny how the only candidate in recent history who was both professor of economics (not MBA, which is about business and profits) and distinguished military hero, could not get any traction in Democratic party.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1318010b545beed42ab41bb2b647d1b5", "text": "A couple things. First of all, most people's MAIN source of income is from their job, but they have others, such as bank interest, stock dividends, etc. So that income has to be reported with their wage income. The second thing is that most people have deductions NOT connected with their job. These deductions reduce income (and generate refunds). So it's in their interest to file.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37d6d032b29df48450256623c47872d7", "text": "Why is the US still working with paper checks when Europe went digital about a decade ago? Tax filing is just another area in which the US is lagging. Modernizing it costs money, and the US is quite close to bankruptcy (as seen by the repeated government shutdowns). Also, the US tax code is quite complicated. For instance, I doubt there's anyone who has a full and complete list of all allowed deductions. Some comments wonder about multiple incomes. This doesn't require tax filing either. My local tax authority just sends me a combined statement with data from 2 employers and 2 banks, and asks me to confirm the resulting payment. This is possible because tax number usage is strictly regulated. SSN abuse in the US presumably makes this problematic.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2148f54cd790ae6431fc9768685838ae", "text": "This person must pay taxes in both the overseas country and in the U.S. This is unusual; generally, only the U.S. demands this. Depending on the specific country, he would likely not be taxed twice as the U.S. generally recognises tax paid in a different country. Note there are some gotchas, though. For example, although Canada has a generally higher tax scheme than the U.S., you may still end up owing tax if you use the Tax-Free Savings Account system in Canada, as that is not recognised in the U.S. As to whether or not this person should form a company, that is far too broad a question. It's going to depend in large part on the tax situations of the countries involved. This person needs to consult an accountant specialising in this situation. That is, on personal versus business tax and on tax involving U.S. citizens. Yes, this person can and indeed must file and pay taxes in the U.S., from outside the U.S.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28a893e25436b9cbfb0e1fb03cc15dea", "text": "\"The tax system in general, and income tax in particular, is used for several purposes at once. One of those purposes is to raise money to run the government. It isn't the only purpose of income tax, and income tax isn't the only source of money to run the government. Try a thought experiment: let's say it costs $10,000 per person per year to run the government. (It might actually cost far more or far less, that's not the point.) A super simple tax system would just ask each person for $10,000. But such a system isn't fair. Some people don't even earn $10,000 so they are literally not able to pay that. Some people, who earn a lot, can easily afford to pay more. So a still-pretty simple approach asks each person to pay a particular percentage of their income, and the hope is that this will add up to enough to run the government. This still doesn't feel fair to everyone - 10% of your income is hard to find when you're spending it all on rent and food, and easy to find when you have way more than you \"\"need\"\". So many countries have what's called a \"\"progressive\"\" system of income tax where you pay no tax on the first X of your income, then a small percentage on the next Y, a larger percentage on the next Z and so on. But you asked about business profit. Some places don't tax business profits at all - they just collect income taxes on people once the money reaches them as salary or dividends. Other places do. Just as a person who doesn't earn any income can't send the government money, a business that spent more on expenses than it brought in as revenue can't send the government money either. So the tax is on profit. That seems fairer to most people anyway. Things then get even more complicated for both business and personal income taxes because the government uses the system to encourage certain behaviours and to help people facing hard times. If you want to encourage people to get training and move into higher paying jobs, you might make tuition tax deductible. Most countries give a tax deduction for each small child you have. This isn't because people with children use less of the services government provides, is it? Instead it's an acknowledgement that people with children generally have less money to spend. Or an encouragement to have children, or something. Tax motivations are complicated. If you charged all businesses a flat tax regardless of whether they were making or losing money, people might be hesitant to start companies that lose money at first. There might be less entrepreneurship in that country. If instead you only tax profits, it feels fairer and more people are likely to join in. So that's what most governments do. Is the imaginary business owner who is not turning a profit somehow getting a free ride? They are still paying tax. If they took any salary for themselves, there was personal income tax on that. Everything the company bought, it paid sales tax on. There may have been excise taxes and such in other things they bought. The economic activity of the business has been driving the wheel of the local economy and spinning off some taxes at various levels that whole time. Whether the business itself is chipping in some corporate income tax too may not end up being particularly relevant. Example: a sole proprietor has revenue of $100,000 and spends $10,000 on supplies and such. If the salary to the owner is $89,000 the company has a $1000 profit which it pays tax on. If the salary to the owner is $91,000 the company has a $1000 loss and doesn't pay tax (and may be able to use the loss to reduce taxes in a future year.) So what? The owner is paying personal income tax on roughly $90,000. The government is getting the support it needs. Yes, some owners do all the \"\"encouraged\"\" things so that some income is not taxed either in the business or the personal sphere. That is presumably what the government wanted when it set those things up as deductions. Making charitable contributions, hiring new employees, building new facilities ... essentially the government is paying the business to do those things because they're good for the country. The overall government budget (funded by personal and corporate income tax along with sales tax, excises taxes etc) is supposed to achieve certain goals which include roads and schools but also job creation and the like. This is one of the ways they do that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5710a9517113ced432ead99b5b195a7", "text": "Corporations are taxed on their profits. Multinational corporations can report their profits in any country they have operations, regardless of where they made the sale. In other words, it's impossible to nail down exactly where a company 'made it's money'. So the US doesn't try, we just tax them on earnings everywhere, minus taxes paid elsewhere. edit for clarity", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d576f8479bbb1c76bf7bc1d479b5a3ed", "text": "In Sri Lanka, this is the normal practice. We, employees are free from the burden of paying tax for the income we get as a salary. Because that part is been taken care of by the company/employer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d945f60dc70338f915c42b0e43fabc1", "text": "\"If a person is not a U.S. citizen and they live and work outside the U.S., then any income they make from a U.S. company or person for services provided does not qualify as \"\"U.S. Source income\"\" according to the IRS. Therefore you wouldn't need to worry about withholding or providing tax forms for them for U.S. taxes. See the IRS Publication 519 U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2165327c3c3f3f94f8d28852faad5bfd", "text": "Driver's license isn't relevant. If NYS considers you a part-year resident, they assess income tax on a pro rata basis. NY is broke now, so expect them to be really obnoxious about it if you make a lot of money. California probably has a similar policy. If you really make a lot of money, the demands of the states in these matters are insane. I've read of cases where a state has actually demanded that an individual provide documentation of their in-/out-of-state status for every day of the year!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bcdface48a9f353cc85ba3f68300bc3", "text": "Because the question puts moral obligations aside, I'll answer from the practical point of view. There are two reasons for declaring side income, even cash income. If you buy a house in a year or two, the additional income will help qualify you for a mortgage. The IRS has ways to discover that you earned the money. a. A client might be audited. If the client deducts the cost of your services from their income, they could be asked for proof that they paid you. Suppose they saved ATM receipts that show the withdrawals of cash used to pay you, and kept records that document the dates they paid you. The IRS might want to ask you if you were paid by the client on those dates, and how much. The asking might be in the form of an audit, and you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. b. A client might develop a grudge against you and report you to the IRS. Someone could do this even if they don't know for sure that you don't declare the income. If you were interviewed or audited, you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. c. You could fall prey to an algorithm. There might be one that compares deductions and income. If you run a crazy-high ratio year after year, you could be flagged for audit. Once again, you'd have to lie to avoid penalty.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e11cdeaad788b7bd62e45704991b7ad2", "text": "Plenty of retired people do stay in the US for longer than 60 days and don't pay taxes. In this IRS document 60 days stay appears to be the test for having a 'substantial presence' in the US, which is part of the test for determining residency. However the following is also written: Even if you meet the substantial presence test, you can be treated as a nonresident alien if you are present in the United States for fewer than 183 days during the current calendar year, you maintain a tax home in a foreign country during the year, and you have a closer connection to that country than to the United States. In other words, if your property in the US is not your main one, you pay tax in another country, and you stay there less than half the year, you should be treated as a non-resident (I am not a lawyer and this is not advice). This IRS webpage describes the tax situation of nonresident aliens. As I understand it, if you are not engaged in any kind of business in the US and have no income from US sources then you do not have to file a tax return. You should also look into the subject of double tax agreements. If your home country has one, and you pay taxes there, you probably won't need to pay extra tax to the US. But again, don't take my word for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c68cedbd4aa170b06821aa99ccc65c1", "text": "\"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying \"\"Oops, we made a mistake last year\"\". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while \"\"I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do\"\" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway. Note to readers preparing to down-vote: this answer is prolix and says things that are far too \"\"well-known to everybody\"\" (and especially to you), but please remember that they might not be quite so well-known to the OP.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c96c65bcc9fe561701a6ab35ac8a025", "text": "What a coincidence! This was an exam question for my business law class. The main reason why individuals are not allowed to deduct expenses is because income tax revenue would be zero. The reason being, if an individual is allowed to deduct expenses he/she would spend 100% of their income and deduct it all on their tax returns, which would mean he/she would pay virtually no income tax. This is bad for the gov't and the economy. It's bad for the gov't because they loose tax revenue, and it's bad for the economy because people would not have any savings for tough times, which can send the economy into a negative spiral.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e54f8026b89f25711e7092dcbbaf3e1", "text": "From the Massachusetts Department of Revenue: 1st - Massachusetts Source Income That is Excluded Massachusetts gross income excludes certain items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts: non-business related interest, dividends and gains from the sale or exchange of intangibles, and qualified pension income. 2nd - Massachusetts Source Income That is Included: Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: 3rd - Trade or business, Including Employment Carried on in Massachusetts: A nonresident has a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if: A nonresident generally is not engaged in a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if the nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts is casual, isolated and inconsequential. A nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts will ordinarily be considered casual, isolated and inconsequential if it meets the requirements of the Ancillary Activity Test (AAT) and Examples. When nonresidents earn or derive income from sources both within Massachusetts and elsewhere, and no exact determination can be made of the amount of Massachusetts source income, an apportionment of income must be made to determine that amount considered Massachusetts gross income. 4th - Apportionment of Income: Apportionment Methods: The three most common apportionment methods used to determine Massachusetts source income are as follows: Gross income is multiplied by a: So if you go to Massachusetts to work, you have to pay the tax. If you collect a share of the profit or revenue from Massachusetts, you have to pay tax on that. If you work from Oregon and are paid for that work, then you don't pay Massachusetts tax on that. If anything, your company might have to pay Oregon taxes on revenue you generate (you are their agent or employee in Oregon). Does the answer change depending on whether the income is reported at 1099 or W-2? This shouldn't matter legally. It's possible that it would be easier to see that the work was done in Oregon in one or the other. I.e. it doesn't make any legal difference but may make a practical difference. All this assumes that you are purely an employee or contractor and not an owner. If you are an owner, you have to pay taxes on any income from your Massachusetts business. Note that this applies to things like copyrights and real estate as well as the business. This also assumes that you are doing your work in Oregon. If you live in Oregon and travel to Massachusetts to work, you pay taxes on your Massachusetts income in Massachusetts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28526f65abdc2985664cffeb477ba4eb", "text": "\"IRS Pub 554 states (click to read full IRS doc): \"\"Do not file a federal income tax return if you do not meet the filing requirements and are not due a refund. ... If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must file a return if your gross income for the year was at least the amount shown on the appropriate line in Table 1-1 below. \"\" You may not have wage income, but you will probably have interest, dividend, capital gains, or proceeds from sale of a house (and there is a special note that you must file in this case, even if you enjoy the exclusion for primary residence)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ff48ab59c694db453df646f2d03e011", "text": "\"If you're \"\"living off the land\"\" and make no money, then you don't have to file. Though you might be able to actually make money through credits and the like if you do file. If you've lost more than you've made, then you'll probably need to file since someone will have needed to report that they paid you (W-2 or 1099-MISC). If the IRS receives a form saying that you made X and you don't file, they aren't going to just take your word for it that you lost more than you made, right? That, and if you want a refund, you'll almost certainly need to file to get it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8364441010f6737d8fc4c32e0f598d57", "text": "The United States taxes nonresident aliens on two types of income: First, a nonresident alien who is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is taxed on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business. Second, certain types of U.S.-source payments are subject to income tax withholding. The determination of when a nonresident alien is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is highly fact-specific and complex. However, keeping assets in a U.S. bank account should not be treated as a U.S. trade or business. A nonresident alien's interest income is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30 percent under Section 1441 of the tax code. Interest on bank deposits, however, benefit from an exception under Section 1441(c)(10), so long as that interest is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Even though no tax needs to be withheld on interest on a bank deposit, the bank should still report that interest each year to the IRS on Form 1042-S. The IRS can then send that information to the tax authority in Brazil. Please keep in mind that state and local tax rules are all different, and whether interest on the bank deposits is subject to state or local tax will depend on which state the bank is in. Also, the United States does tax nonresident aliens on wages paid from a U.S. company, if those wages are treated as U.S.-source income. Generally, wages are U.S.-source income if the employee provides services while physically present in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they depend on the amount of wages and other factors that are specific to the employee's situation. This is an area where you should really consult with a U.S. tax advisor before the employment starts. Maybe your company will pay for it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7c2a78b891bb6313aa4aef5e470df86", "text": "\"Do not store credit cards on your servers! You will get into HUGE trouble if they get stolen. Instead, the whole credit card transaction should be done in a \"\"frame\"\" on a web that is handle by a credit card processor you chose. Once the transaction is finished, you get a code for the credit card number (masked credit card number) that no-one can convert back to a credit card number (except the processor). When you need to charge more or give refund, you use that code to tell the processor what credit card to make the charges/credits to.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5f1334385fc75e5e8f2eed244434bbdd	Does reading financial statements (quarterly or annual reports) really help investing?	[ { "docid": "707b61081a6c7cf8ec495fe81bd48389", "text": "Reading financial statements is important, in the sense that it gives you a picture of whether revenues and profits are growing or shrinking, and what management thinks the future will look like. The challenge is, there are firms that make computers read filings for them and inform their trading strategy. If the computer thinks the stock price is below the growth model, it's likely to bid the stock up. And since it's automated it's moving it faster than you can open your web browser. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? In a sense, no. The only sensible trading strategy is to assume you hold things for as long as their fundamentals exceed market value. Financial statements are where you find those fundamentals. So you should read them. But your question is, is it worth it for investors? My answer is no; the market generally factors information in quickly and efficiently. You're better off sticking to passive mutual funds than trying to trade. The better reason to learn to read these filings is to get a better sense of your employer, potential employers, competitors and even suppliers. Knowing what your margins are, what your suppliers margins and acquisitions are, and what they're planning can inform your own decision making.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa1a7d4b336581a906ccd15d29d2bb78", "text": "\"Financial statements provide a large amount of specialized, complex, information about the company. If you know how to process the statements, and can place the info they provide in context with other significant information you have about the market, then you will likely be able to make better decisions about the company. If you don't know how to process them, you're much more likely to obtain incomplete or misleading information, and end up making worse decisions than you would have before you started reading. You might, for example, figure out that the company is gaining significant debt, but might be missing significant information about new regulations which caused a one time larger than normal tax payment for all companies in the industry you're investing in, matching the debt increase. Or you might see a large litigation related spending, without knowing that it's lower than usual for the industry. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - if you know how to process them, and how to use the information, then you already have the answer to your question. I'd say, the more important question to ask is: \"\"Do I have the time and resources necessary to learn enough about how businesses run, and about the market I'm investing in, so that financial statements become useful to me?\"\" If you do have the time, and resources, do it, it's worth the trouble. I'd advise in starting at the industry/business end of things, though, and only switching to obtaining information from the financial statements once you already have a good idea what you'll be using it for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "808551695901e548c97822ec9534711a", "text": "\"Wow, I cannot believe this is a question. Of course reading the 10Ks and 10Qs from the SEC are incredibly beneficial. Especially if you are a follower of the investing gurus such as Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Shelby Davis. Personally I only read the 10K's I copy the pertinent numbers over to my spreadsheets so I can compare multiple companies that I am invested in. I'm sure there are easier ways to obtain the data. I'm a particular user of the discounted free cash flow methodology and buying/selling in thirds. I feel like management that says what they are going to do and does it (over a period of years) is something that cannot be underestimated in investing. yes, there are slipups, but those tend to be well documented in the 10Qs. I totally disagree in the efficient market stuff. I tend to love using methodologies like Hewitt Heisermans \"\" It's Earnings that Count\"\" you cannot do his power-staircase without digging into the 10Qs. by using his methodology I have several 5 baggers over the last 5 years and I'm confident that I'll have more. I think it is an interesting factoid as well that the books most recommended for investing in stocks on Amazon all advocate reading and getting information from 10Ks. The other book to read is Peter Lynch's one-up-wall-street. The fact is money manager's hands are tied when it comes to investing, especially in small companies and learning over the last 6 years how to invest on my own has given me that much more of my investing money back rather than paying it to some money manager doing more trades than they should to get commision fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fae6e10244ab2001ef24d545aa83d56c", "text": "I agree with @STATMATT. Financial statements are the only thing that Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger read. To answer your question though, really depends on what type of investor you are and what information are you trying to extract. It is essential for the Buffett style (buy & hold). But if you are a short term or technical investor then I don't see it being of much value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7121e311d13a3c87cf892058a9572ee", "text": "\"Yes, especially if you are a value investor. The importance and relevance of financial statements depends on the company. IMO, the statements of a troubled \"\"too big to fail\"\" bank like Citibank or Bank of America are meaningless. In other industries, the statements will help you distinguish the best performers -- if you understand the industry. A great retail example was Bed, Bath and Beyond vs. Linens and Things. Externally, the stores appeared identical -- they carried the same product and even offered the same discounts. Looking at the books would have revealed that Linens and Things carried an enormous amount of debt that fueled rapid growth... debt that killed the company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9db0b7887a063e58b947c0f70c752d4", "text": "Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24", "text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1596afff2f3ee3401968378a590116e6", "text": "Somewhat. The balance sheet will include liabilities which as Michael Kjörling points out would tell you the totals for the debt which would often be loans or bonds depending on one's preferred terminology. However, if the company's loan was shorter than the length of the quarter, then it may not necessarily be reported is something to point out as the data is accurate for a specific point in time only. My suggestion is that if you have a particular company that you want to review that you take a look at the SEC filing in full which would have a better breakdown of everything in terms of assets, liabilities, etc. than the a summary page. http://investor.apple.com/ would be where you could find a link to the 10-Q that has a better breakdown though it does appear that Apple doesn't have any bonds outstanding. There are some companies that may have little debt due to being so profitable in their areas of business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae5328d39b4595fdc2abf63ff7bdfb46", "text": "I wouldn't read into the title too much. We live in a world of click bait. I'd agree with your statement, that really the point is that reading fiction makes you better at understanding human emotion which makes you better at investing because the market is very emotional by nature. Of course I'd say if this is your position I'd be taking some long straddle positions on options leading up to conference meetings on big companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Tesla and calling it a day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "951b9b0fce84b385eb005e407056b51a", "text": "Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "679be605950dfa4c18994648a37208cd", "text": "So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebb20a00f7a59b2682b77987bd4151f6", "text": "The steps you outlined are fine by themselves. Step 5, seeking criticism can be less helpful than one may think. See stocktwits.com There are a lot of opposing opinions all of which can be correct over different time-frames. Try and quantify your confidence and develop different strategies for different confidence levels. I was never smart enough or patient with follow through to be a successful value investor. It was very frustrating to watch stocks trade sideways for years before the company's intrinsic value was better reflected in the market. Also, you could make an excellent pick, but a macro change and slump could set you back a year and raise doubts. In my experience portfolio management techniques like asset allocation and dollar-cost-averaging is what made my version of value investing work. Your interest in 10k/10q is something to applaud. Is there something specific about 10k/10q that you do not understand? Context is key, these types of reports are more relevant and understandable when compared to competitors in the same sector. It is good to assess over confidence! It is also good to diversify your knowledge and the effort put into Securities Analysis 6th edition will help with other books in the field. I see a bit of myself in your post, and if you are like me, than subsequent readings, and full mastery of the concepts in 'Securities & Analysis 6th ed.' will lead to over confidence, or a false understanding as there are many factors at play in the market. So many, that even the most scientific approaches to investing can just as equally be described as an 'art'. I'm not aware of the details of your situation, but in general, for you to fully realize the benefits from applying the principals of value investing shared by Graham and more recently Warren Buffett, you must invest on the level that requires use of the consolidation or equity method of accounting, e.g. > 20% ownership. Sure, the same principals used by Buffett can work on a smaller scale, but a small scale investor is best served by wealth accumulation, which can take many forms. Not the addition of instant equity via acquisitions to their consolidated financials. Lastly, to test what you have learned about value investing, and order execution, try the inverse. At least on paper. Short a stock with low value and a high P/E. TWTR may be a good example? Learn what it is like to have your resources at stake, and the anguish of market and security volatility. It would be a lot easier to wait it out as a long-term value investor from a beach house in Santa Barbara :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c1e38777f47d8af6a0319a751443f2a", "text": "If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging). The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly. The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what. If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect. It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now. But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows. (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5797d874e38e3192b00a936376f037f", "text": "There have been studies which show that Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) underperforms Lump Sum Investing (LSI). Vanguard, in particular, has published one such study. Of course, reading about advice in a study is one thing; acting on that advice can be something else entirely. We rolled over my wife's 401(k) to an IRA back in early 2007 and just did it as a lump sum. You know what happened after that. But our horizon was 25+ years at that time, so we didn't lose too much sleep over it (we haven't sold or gone to cash, either).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f06a650f6e12c270ce086e21c87761e3", "text": "\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "915e6ec3c328a2e4c2e8506fe7bc97cb", "text": "\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\"\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\"\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \"\"woulda-shoulda\"\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "318bf7c07d2181281ba642478fc8debb", "text": "I agree with the other answers, but I want to give a slightly different perspective. I believe that a lot of people are smart enough to beat the market, but that it takes a lot more dedication, patience, and self-control than they think. Before Warren Buffett buys a stock, he has read the quarterly reports for years, has personally met with management, has visited facilities, etc. If you aren't willing to do that kind of analysis for every stock you buy, then I think that you are doing little more than gambling. If you are just using the information that everyone else has, then you'll get the returns that everyone else gets (if you're lucky).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68ad2d6cc4afb29c1b2f1b4a8f0d38f1", "text": "All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d240360b1c1b4b83fe2006d90b610409", "text": "It would be very unusual (and very erroneous) to have a company's stock be included in the Long Term Investments on the balance sheet. It would cause divergent feedback loops which would create unrepresentative financial documents and stock prices. That's how your question would be interpreted if true. This is not the case. Stock prices are never mentioned on the financial documents. The stock price you hear being reported is information provided by parties who are not reporting as part of the company. The financial documents are provided by the company. They will be audited internally and externally to make sure that they can be presented to the market. Stock prices are quoted and arbitrated by brokers at the stock exchange or equivalent service. They are negotiated and the latest sale tells you what it has sold for. What price this has been reported never works its way onto the financial document. So what use are stock prices are for those within the company? The stock price is very useful for guessing how much money they can raise by issuing stock or buying back stock. Raising money is important for expansion of the company or to procure money for when avenues of debt are not optimal; buying back stock is important if major shareholders want more control of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc", "text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcd11b792061a47b8e47a4bb91c17281", "text": "You are always best off investing in things you understand. If you have a deep understanding of the aeronautical industry, say, you are a Vice President at Boeing and have been working at Boeing for 40 years, then that would be a reason for investing in that sector: because you may be able to better evaluate different companies in that sector. If you are a novice in the sector, or just have an amateur interest in it, then it may not be a good idea, because your knowledge may not be sufficient to give you much of an advantage. Before focusing on one investment of any type, industry sector based, or otherwise, you want to ask yourself: am I an expert in this subject? The answer to that question will have a big impact on your success.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6246955a5a79502ccc4078f3ea9a86d2	Should I sell my individual stocks and buy a mutual fund	[ { "docid": "cb02486f708ef67f0e8eb36f152e8792", "text": "\"I would normally take a cautious, \"\"it depends\"\" approach to answering a question like this, but instead I'm going to give you a blunt opinionated answer based solely on what I would do: Even the crap. Get rid of them and get into the boring low fee mutual funds. I was in a similar situation a few years ago, almost. My retirement accounts were already in funds but my brokerage account was all individual stocks. I decided I didn't really know what I was doing despite being up by 30+% (I recognize that it was mostly due to the market itself being up, I was lucky basically). The way I cashed out was not to sell all at once. I just set up trailing stops on all of them and waited until they hit the stops. The basic idea was that if the market kept going up, the point at which they got sold also went up (it was like a 10% trail I think), and once things started to turn for that stock, they would sell automatically. Sure I sold some at very temporary dips so I missed out on some gains but that's always a risk with a trailing stop and I really didn't care at that point. If I had to do it again, I might forget all that and just sell all at once. But I feel a lot better not being in individual stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c96059fc6a8e0e1ff98cb3eb7b26c0b", "text": "This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a4eda5d941ef9f38511d2d191b1803f8", "text": "Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96d0479db259b1d1bbc57b467acf8cf2", "text": "\"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\"\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \"\"as defined by theory.\"\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e487cb84b836a6cae29ce804ead9718c", "text": "The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "514cb66269b47140c703c2ab852a8381", "text": "You shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place. From New York Magazine, tweeted by Ezra Klein: New evidence for that reality comes from Goldman Sachs, via Bloomberg News. The investment bank analyzed the holdings of 854 funds with $2.1 trillion in equity positions. It found, first of all, that all those “sophisticated investors” would have been better off stashing their money in basic, hands-off index funds or mutual funds last year — both of them had higher average returns than hedge funds did. The average hedge fund returned 3 percent last year, versus 14 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500. Mutual funds do worse than index funds. Tangentially-related to the question of whether Wall Street types deserve their compensation packages is the yearly phenomenon in which actively managed mutual funds underperform the market. Between 2004 and 2008, 66.21% of domestic funds did worse than the S&P Composite 1500. In 2008, 64.23% underperformed. In other words, if you had a fund manager and his employees bringing their skill and knowledge to bear on your portfolio, you probably lost money as compared to the market as a whole. That's not to say you lost money in all cases. Just in most. The math is really simple on this one. Stock picking is fun, but undiversified and brings you competing with Wall Streeters with math Ph.Ds. and twenty-thousand-dollars-a-year Bloomberg terminals. What do you know about Apple's new iPhone that they don't? You should compare your emotional reaction to losing 40% in two days to your reaction to gaining 40% in two days... then compare both of those to losing 6% and gaining 6%, respectively. Picking stocks is not financially wise. Period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03d41dcf56859ae93fbc012bda231e5a", "text": "As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b255e47ebb7c1a770f6272185f798254", "text": "At a very high-level, the answer is yes, that's a good idea. For money that you want to invest on the scale of decades, putting money into a broad, market-based fund has historically given the best returns. Something like the Vanguard S&P 500 automatically gives you a diverse portfolio, with super low expenses. As it sounds like you understand, the near-term returns are volatile, and if you really think you might want this money in the next few years, then the stock market might not be the best choice. As a final note, as one of the comments mentioned, it makes sense to hold a broad, market-based fund for your IRA as well, if possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4235c550d5320e788346bb69d057967b", "text": "\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \"\"up\"\" day or selling on a \"\"down\"\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e5bb05701d5b40caffbc5d98be9d723", "text": "Domini offers such a fund. It might suit you, or it might include things you wish to avoid. I'm not judging your goals, but would suggest that it might be tough to find a fund that has the same values as you. If you choose individual stocks, you might have to do a lot of reading, and decide if it's all or none, i.e. if a company seems to do well, but somehow has an tiny portion in a sector you don't like, do you dismiss them? In the US, Costco, for example, is a warehouse club, and treats employees well. A fair wage, benefits, etc. But they have a liquor store at many locations. Absent the alcohol, would you research every one of their suppliers?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f010325a3fe156fe86ddd14c85278e5e", "text": "\"Of course. \"\"Best\"\" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63c887e3ce5fcbdc3b4a2d62eecfd837", "text": "Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebd2083d3c4dfd4d089cf638a06602e2", "text": "One thing I would add to @littleadv (buy an ETF instead of doing your own) answer would be ensure that the dividend yield matches. Expense ratios aren't the only thing that eat you with mutual funds: the managers can hold on to a large percentage of the dividends that the stocks normally pay (for instance, if by holding onto the same stocks, you would normally receive 3% a year in dividends, but by having a mutual fund, you only receive .75%, that's an additional cost to you). If you tried to match the DJIA on your own, you would have an advantage of receiving the dividend yields on the stocks paying dividends. The downsides: distributing your investments to match and the costs of actual purchases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa381432a94c74fa8cc9b5ffd9ec4751", "text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b6b44831c59cf35dcdf3a81a0cb0e62", "text": "Where are you planning on buying this ETF? I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard? If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds. Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order. This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds. It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation. This can happen for months. For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise. The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source: worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fbab26ea90ed96ee595869a4742a7f8", "text": "diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a41cff5f50a5273570348663170e5593	What's the minimum revenue an LLC must make in Florida or NY states?	[ { "docid": "d76bbc43cd3bf93b8b9e3ae212e99e7b", "text": "\"Depends on the State. In California, for example, you pay a franchise tax of $800 every year just for having LLC, and in addition to that - income tax on gross revenue. But in other States (like Wyoming, for example) there's no taxes at all, only registration fees (which may still amount to ~$100-300 a year). IRS doesn't care about LLC's at all (unless you chose to treat is as a corporation). You need to understand that in the US we have the \"\"Federal Government\"\" (IRS is part of that) and the \"\"State Government\"\" that deals with business entities, in each of the 50 States. Since you're talking about Italy, and not EU, you should similarly be talking about the relevant State, and not US.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3a867c6f052ff0ca6c6709e1a4dfacbe", "text": "The LLC portion is completely irrelevant. Don't know why you want it. You can create a joint/partnership trading account without the additional complexity of having LLC. What liability are you trying to limit here? Her sisters will file tax returns in the us using the form 1040NR, and only reporting the dividends they received, everything else will be taxed by Vietnam. You'll have to investigate how to file tax returns there as well. That said, you'll need about $500,000 each to invest in the regional centers. So you're talking about 1.5 million of US dollars at least. From a couple of $14K gifts to $1.5M just by trading? I don't see how this is feasible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b785bcf974c97d43b0f71c871e9a9f2a", "text": "No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56366def285b890e0e187764b2691abf", "text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acbac83c34259f4b1376602914b038fe", "text": "Maybe I can explain a little clearer: Your LLC is not a person, and cannot have taxes withheld on its behalf. Therefore, anyone paying your company should not withhold taxes. If they are paying you directly, and withholding taxes, they are treating you as an employee, and will probably issue a W2 instead of a 1099. Put it this way: Your LLC is a separate company providing services to that company. They shouldn't withhold taxes any more than they would when paying their ISP, or power company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90605b0a6f67febcdf781d210077a575", "text": "I'm not sure I am fully understanding the nuance of your question, but based on your answer in the comments you and your business are not separate legal entities. So your income is the full $70K, there is no distinct business to have income. If you clarify your question to include why you want to know this I might be able to give a more meaningful answer for your situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78afcaa1e3f306174cdd0ed42651cd2e", "text": "how does a single employee LLC bring in 500k? I mean if you want to have it in a low-tax environment, you can probably invest it in something and then pull them out? I don't think you can put away pre-tax earnings to then use on salary costs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac312006d6f1c199884fac1886a4e1fc", "text": "The LLC will not be liable for anything, it is disregarded for tax purposes. If you're doing any work while in the US, or you (or your spouse) are a green card holder or a US citizen - then you (not the LLC) may be liable, may be required to file, pay, etc. Unless you're employing someone, or have more than one member in your LLC, you do not need an EIN. Re the bank - whatever you want. If you want you can open an account in an American bank. If you don't - don't. Who cares?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eaf49cfcd2a5ddfdcc47d4ebf7667b29", "text": "I'm not confident that the requirements for 2017 are up yet, but assuming they don't change much from those of 2016, then probably not if you have no other earnings this year. If you make $500 a month, then you will make $6,000 this year. This is below the filing requirements for most taxpayers, unless you are married but filing separately. At the end of 2017 you should tally up your earnings (including earnings from other sources) find which category you find yourself in on the table, and make a final determination of whether you'll need to file.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2165327c3c3f3f94f8d28852faad5bfd", "text": "Driver's license isn't relevant. If NYS considers you a part-year resident, they assess income tax on a pro rata basis. NY is broke now, so expect them to be really obnoxious about it if you make a lot of money. California probably has a similar policy. If you really make a lot of money, the demands of the states in these matters are insane. I've read of cases where a state has actually demanded that an individual provide documentation of their in-/out-of-state status for every day of the year!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3ec07a7084d37b0262ffb6813149b45", "text": "Residents pay tax on all of the income they receive during the calendar year from all sources, so you'll at least need to file and pay New York state income taxes on this money regardless. I can't answer whether you'll need to file and pay Colorado state income tax on this money as well. Generally speaking, you need to file a return for each state in which you live, receive income, or have business interests. If you are required to file a Colorado state income tax return, however, you can claim a credit for taxes paid to another state on your New York state income tax return using form IT-112-R (see the form and instructions).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fd6d379a23acdd8369d63e87fb51d0e", "text": "You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction. Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50d712e4318ff47ff4c92c5ddf4fa22d", "text": "I'm not certain I understand what you're trying to do, but it sounds like you're trying to create a business expense for paying off your personal debt. If so - you cannot do that. It will constitute a tax fraud, and if you have additional partners in the LLC other than you and your spouse - it may also become an embezzlement issue. Re your edits: Or for example, can you create a tuition assistance program within your company and pay yourself out of that for the purposes of student loan money. Explicitly forbidden. Tuition assistance program cannot pay more than 5% of its benefits to owners. See IRS pub 15-B. You would think that if there was a way to just incorporate and make your debts pre-tax - everyone would be doing it, wouldn't you?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af46f9f222b03afc70c4c684572cf355", "text": "\"For Non-Resident filers, New York taxes New York-sourced income. That includes: real or tangible personal property located in New York State (including certain gains or losses from the sale or exchange of an interest in an entity that owns real property in New York State); services performed in New York State; a business, trade, profession, or occupation carried on in New York State; and a New York S corporation in which you are a shareholder (including installment income from an IRC 453 transaction). There are some exclusions as well. It is all covered in the instructions to form IT-203. However, keep in mind that \"\"filing\"\" as non-resident doesn't make you non-resident. If you spend 184 days or more in New York State, and you have a place to stay there - you are resident. See definitions here. Even if you don't actually live there and consider yourself a CT resident.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "616eeb050776c24607530a993d6be9d5", "text": "\"New York will want to you to pay taxes on income from \"\"New York sources\"\". I'm not sure what this means to a freelance web developer. If your wife is doing freelance web development under the same business entity as she did in New York (ie. a New York sole proprietor, corporation, etc), you probably do need to file. From nonresident tax form manual: http://tax.ny.gov/pdf/2011/inc/it203i_2011.pdf If you were a nonresident of New York State, you are subject to New York State tax on income you received from New York State sources in 2011. If you were a resident of New York State for only part of 2011, you are subject to New York State tax on all income you received while you were a resident of the state and on income you received from New York State sources while you were a nonresident. To compute the amount of tax due, use Form IT-203, Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return. You will compute a base tax as if you were a full-year resident, then determine the percentage of your income that is subject to New York State tax and the amount of tax apportioned to New York State.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f32db279288b5726c22159492891b6d4", "text": "\"Since as you say, an LLC is a pass-through entity, you will be making income in the U.S. when you sell to U.S. customers. And so you will need to file the appropriate personal tax forms in the US. As well as potentially in one or more States. The US government does not register LLCs. The various States do. So you'll be dealing with Oregon, Wisconsin, Wyoming, one of those for the LLC registration. You will also need to have a registered agent in the State. That is a big deal since the entire point of forming an LLC is to add a liability shield. You would lose the liability shield by not maintaining the business formalities. Generally nations aim to tax income made in their nation, and many decline to tax income that you've already paid taxes on in another nation. A key exception: If money is taxed by the U.S. it may also be taxed by one of the States. Two States won't tax the same dollar. Registering an LLC in one State does not mean you'll pay state taxes there. Generally States tax income made in their State. It's common to have a Wyoming LLC that never pays a penny of tax in Wyoming. Officially, an LLC doing business in a State it did not form in, must register in that State as a \"\"foreign LLC\"\" even though it's still in the USA. The fee is usually the same as for a domestic LLC. \"\"Doing business\"\" means something more than incidental sales, it means having a presence specifically in the State somehow. It gets complicated quick. If you are thinking of working in someone's app ecosystem like the Apple Store, Google Play, Steam etc. Obviously they want their developers coding, not wrestling with legalities, so some of them make a priority out of clearing and simplifying legal nuisances for you. Find out what they do for you.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
de5c2a4365e13256dcbde8517fbff0b8	Which Benjamin Graham book should I read first: Security Analysis or Intelligent Investor?	[ { "docid": "008d38f36cb1fbdd6598ba45df4674a4", "text": "I would recommend reading Intelligent Investor first. It was written slightly more recently (1949) than Security Analysis (1934). More important is that a recently revised edition* of Intelligent Investor was published. The preface and appendix were written by Warren Buffett. Intelligent Investor is more practical as an introduction for a novice. You may decide not to read Security Analysis at all, as it seems more like an academic text or professional's guide i.e. for accounting. Benjamin Graham's Intelligent Investor remains relevant. It is used, successfully, as a guide for value investing, despite the hysteria of market sentiment and day-to-day variations, even extreme volatility. For example, I just read a nice article about applying the value investing principles extolled in Intelligent Investor a few weeks ago. It was written in the context of current markets, which is amazing, to be so applicable, despite the passage of decades. For reference, you might want to glance at this book review (published in March 2010!) of the original 1934 edition of Security Analysis. * The URL links to a one-paragraph summary by U.S. News & World Report. It does not link to a book sales website!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "996266f97b78e4f6e3f69efe23457325", "text": "\"I would start with The Intelligent Investor. It's more approachable than Security Analysis. I read the revised edition which includes post-chapter commentary and footnotes from Jason Zweig. I found the added perspective helpful since the original book is quite old. Warren Buffet has called Intelligent Investor \"\"the best book about investing ever written.\"\" (Source) I would suggest that endorsement ranks it before the other. :) Security Analysis is more detailed and, perhaps, oriented at a more professional audience – though individual investors would certainly benefit from reading it. Security Analysis is used as a textbook on value investing in some university-level business & finance courses. (p.s. If you haven't yet heard about William Bernstein's The Intelligent Asset Allocator, I also recommend adding it to your reading list.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66b416b5a7b2262ada678903c3bbc1af", "text": "First The Intelligent Investor and then the 1962 edition Security Analysis - which is out of print, you can get it on Amazon.com used or ebay. Then you can read the edition backward but the 1962 edition is the best - IMHO. And don't forget The Rediscovered Benjamin Graham and Benjamin Graham on Value Investing by Jane Lowe", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae77f1bb13aa29e899d114ce16792159", "text": "If you're looking to learn more about investing for personal use (as opposed to academic interest), I'd recommend something like The Ages of the Investor instead.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "875b9d99fa89cb20d2db3c95e89221f1", "text": "\"Having thought about it, I decided to start with another book by the same author : \"\"The Interpretation of Financial Statements\"\". I do not have a sufficiently strong basis to know what either \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" or \"\"Security Analysis\"\" are even about. Yeah, I might understand things, but I wouldn't grasp the essence, as I would be too busy figuring out what I didn't understand and miss the forest for the trees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cce48ba0b70d943ddbae37ddfaaee0e", "text": "Read the Security Analysis. I believe if you read it completely, you will have a real good chance of succeeding at making good money. If you find the book hard to read just go through it and underline under the text as you read it.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0ecb2a725e650028ba832f98801a01b8", "text": "I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a43fa9b65ec8de1dcc44ad2e934b5d6b", "text": "I would always recommend the intelligent investor by Benjamin Graham the mentor of warren buffet once you have a basic knowledge ie what is a share bond guilt etc In terms of pure investment the UK is fairly similar the major difference is the simpler tax structure, ISA allowance and the more generous CGT regime.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99a35d8a21693b605106176989414fed", "text": "This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today. The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob", "title": "" }, { "docid": "091d0a87dbb77d1969526ce177b4030a", "text": "\"Read \"\"The intelligent Investor\"\" book before you do anything. I started when I really didn't understand anything about stocks. I bought an internet stock for $150 per share which sold at 75cents a year later. I sold it for a profit but would've been a disaster.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c81a552c36f71fd5895519436975081", "text": "Barton Biggs's book Wealth, War and Wisdom aims to answer the question of what investments are best-suited to preserving value despite large-scale catastrophes by looking at how various investments and assets performed in countries affected by WWII. In Japan, stocks and urban land turned out to be good investments; in France, farm land and gold did better. Stocks outperformed bonds in nearly every country. Phil Greenspun recently wrote a review of the book.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bac26e6289d4d3b07230a31701149d43", "text": "I think that MFin is best suited for more technical roles in banks (I assume when you say IB you mean sell/buy side M&A), HF, AM, and PM roles. I don't view PE, CF, or IB as technically challenging as most of the analysis is done on the areas outside of finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7008b550403bc155de22a04bc7a30bb3", "text": "\"There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said \"\"Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10\"\". A few days later he comes back to me and says \"\"There are none\"\". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef08f8282500399d92fa6386732c2dcf", "text": "as someone who made a fair attempt at understanding money subjects, I'd like some more writing from you. I took high school level Marketing; Business economics; commercial law. it took six months on top of my previous High school ( with high level maths). during those months I got medium grades, and failed in- can you believe it - marketing. I had a go at The intelligent investor. I made it to page 96. But honestly I felt like I needed a lot of background in order for me to understand it. English is my second language. Sure I can understand words like liability vs assets. but to this day i still can't remember the difference between a bull and bearish market. I know its about risk assesment on a national/ global level. So who honestly gave finance a go but got their ass kicked. What would you say? any books?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80d022fd1fffce9b8a0474924205f9a7", "text": "\"Thanks! I came across many books on credit risk in my google searches - what I'm really looking for is which one is the \"\"industry standard\"\" reading (does that make sense?). For example, in derivatives, everybody recommends John C. Hull's Options... book. Why of all the CRM books, do you recommend those three in particular?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c007d2f764ed54de2b635b1ceb950c4", "text": "\"(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing \"\"tl;dr\"\" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish. They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify. The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market. Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab5c1671ac2ffb380ff40d351a547036", "text": "Now it's been a while since I read these, and I'm not complete sure if these are the kinds of books that you're looking for, but I found them quite good: Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives by Hull: http://amzn.com/0133456315 Investments and Portfolio Management by Bodie, Kane & Marcus: http://amzn.com/0071289143 I hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "790e196c00a5bf538829bf296cb12f57", "text": "\"Benninga's book(s) are pretty much the best crash course to financial modelling with Excel - be aware though, he has two distinct types of book. One is more of a walk-through of financial principles in Excel('Principles of Finance with Excel, 2nd Ed.'), and the other could better be described as a 'glossary' of financial applications in Excel(the oft-recommended 'Financial Modeling') . As far as I'm aware, both contain roughly the same volume of information about the same topics (could be some minor differences, as the walk-through-style book is newer), but are taught in somewhat different ways. It might be useful to obtain a copy of one or the other from a library and see if you enjoy the style of the book before purchasing it. I was fortunate enough to have a roommate where between us, we have both, but doing this individually is a 200+ dollar endeavor, and you will only be duplicating identical information. ;) If you're interested in reading other interesting material, that may help you develop different perspectives/insight into investing, I would suggest, aside from reading the usual stuff (Intelligent Investor, Random Walk, etc), also obtaining a copy of Seth Klarman's \"\"Margin of Safety\"\". You'll have to do so in .pdf form, as the book is entirely out of print (and from what I've heard, Klarman himself bought out many retailers of all of their copies and had them destroyed), but it's an interesting read, that has a lot of modern relevance - perhaps best evidenced by the fact that it's author, president of one of the largest hedge funds in the world, no longer wants it in print.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "397220883f559435621d173d3f45c35c", "text": "You're asking for a LOT. I mean, entire lives and volumes upon volumes of information is out there. I'd recommend Benjamin Graham for finance concepts (might be a little bit dry...), A Random Walk Down Wall Street, by Burton Malkiel and A Concise Guide to Macro Economics by David Moss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "faa8b56eb94acc86948a4221b8a79aa5", "text": "Assuming you were immersed in math with your CS degree, the book 'A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street' by Andrew Lo is a very interesting book about the random walk hypothesis and it's application to financial markets and how efficient markets might not necessarily imply complete randomness. Lots of higher level concepts in the book but it's an interesting topic if you are trying to branch out into the quant world. The book isn't very specific towards algorithmic trading but it's good for concept and ideas. Especially for general finance, that will give you a good run down about markets and the way we tackle modern finance. A Random Walk Down Wall Street (which the book above is named after) by Burton Malkiel is also supposed to be a good read and many have suggested reading it before the one I listed above, but there really isn't a need to do so. For investing specifically, many mention 'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham who is the role model for the infamous Warren Buffet. It's an older book and really dry and I think kind of out dated but mostly still relevant. It's more specifically about individual trading rather than markets as a whole or general markets. It sounds like you want to learn more about markets and finance rather than simply trading or buying stocks. So I'd stick to the Andrew Lo book first. --- Also, since you might not know, it would be a good idea to understand the capital asset pricing model, free cash flow models, and maybe some dividend discount models, the last of which isn't so much relevant but good foundations for your finance knowledge. They are models using various financial concepts (TVM is almost used in every case) and utilizing them in various ways to model certain concepts. You'd most likely be immersed in many of these topics by reading a math-oriented Finance book. Try to stay away from those penny stock trading books, I don't think I need to tell a math major (who is probably much smarter than I am) that you don't need to be engaging in penny stocks, but do your DD and come to a conclusion yourself if you'd like. I'm not sure what career path you're trying to go down (personal trading, quant firm analyst, regular analyst, etc etc) but it sounds like you have the credentials to be doing quant trading. --- Check out www.quantopian.com. It's a website with a python engine that has all the necessary libraries installed into the website which means you don't have to go through the trouble yourself (and yes, it is fucking trouble--you need a very outdated OS to run one of the libraries). It has a lot of resources to get into algorithmic trading and you can begin coding immediately. You'd need to learn a little bit of python to get into this but most of it will be using matplotlib, pandas, or some other library and its own personal syntax. Learning about alpha factors and the Pipeline API is also moderately difficult to get down but entirely possible within a short amount of dedicated time. Also, if you want to get into algorithmic trading, check out Sentdex on youtube. He's a python programmer who does a lot of videos on this very topic and has his own tool on quantopian called 'Sentiment Analyzer' (or something like that) which basically quantifies sentiment around any given security using web scrapers to scrape various news and media outlets. Crazy cool stuff being developed over there and if you're good, you can even be partnered with investors at quantopian and share in profits. You can also deploy your algorithms through the website onto various trading platforms such as Robinhood and another broker and run your algorithms yourself. Lots of cool stuff being developed in the finance sector right now. Modern corporate finance and investment knowledge is built on quite old theorems and insights so expect a lot of things to change in today's world. --- With a math degree, finance should be like algebra I back in the day. You just gotta get familiar with all of the different rules and ideas and concepts. There isn't that much difficult math until you begin getting into higher level finance and theory, which mostly deals with statistics anyways like covariance and regression and other statistic-related concepts. Any other math is simple arithmetic.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bf32a9fd5e534e38192d3081982fe16", "text": "\"They aren't necessarily trustworthy. Many institutions claim to have a \"\"Chinese Wall\"\" between their investment banking arms and analysis arms. In practice, these walls have sometimes turned out to be entirely imaginary. That is, analysis is published with an eye to what is good for their investment banking business. One of the most notorious cases of this was Henry Blodget, an analyst with Merrill Lynch during the dot-com bubble. Blodget became a star analyst after he correctly predicted Amazon would hit $400/share within a year. However some of his later public analysis dramatically conflicted with his private comments. Famously when he started covering GoTo.com, rating it as \"\"neutral to buy\"\", he was asked \"\"What's so interesting about Goto except banking fees????\"\" Blodget replied, \"\"nothin\"\". Eventually he was permanently banned from the securities industry.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
92deae6e188182ea2aa3bae12d25e155	What exactly is a wealth management platform?	[ { "docid": "f2f2b0c9cd33740896b9f7479d98eaa3", "text": "It's a tech buzzword. OK I'm being a bit glib. A Wealth Management Platform is a software system designed to help people track their investment portfolios and research new investments. Sometimes, trusts and small investment firms will use these platforms as well but they will often have more specialized separate systems for portfolio tracking and research. There is a large variety of platforms out there all trying to be the best platform for you... or someone else. Some will have websites and be open to all with money and some will be applications and only target some types of investors. Some will have robo-advising (Wealthfront), a human adviser (Merrill) or have none at all. Some will have nice graphical tools to track your portfolio or great research tools or both (I try not to recommend products on this site). Some can be designed to nudge you into their ideology (Vanguard). All, though, have a technology team behind them to make investing easier for you (or their investment advisers) or to sell you their products. You get the picture.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e54f391924671d1e00e469749b7206a", "text": "Most businesses have some sort of software to manage their client data. Most of these various software and/or services are industry specific. Black Diamond seems to be a client management tool targeting investment advisers. From the black diamond site Reach an unparalleled level of productivity and transform your client conversations. You don't need one of these unless you're a professional investment adviser with so many clients you can't track them yourself or need more robust reporting or statement generation tools. For your purposes most regular brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, TD, etc, have more than enough tools for the retail level investor. They have news feeds, security analysis papers, historical data, stock screeners, etc. You, a regular retail investor doesn't need to buy special software, your broker will generally provide these things as part of the service.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2cef3bd918fe90b660ef7b73873a40c6", "text": "A few months ago, I met with the founder of Wealthsimple. As someone with higher than average about both trading and investing, I asked him whether his funds would be able to add more value to my Couch Potato portfolio not in terms of returns but rather in terms of management fees. I also asked him this: if I wish to have a portfolio that has a specific % allocation towards emerging markets, would I be able to do so with Wealthsimple. The answer to both of the above questions was that I'd be better off investing by myself. I'd venture a guess and say that most people on SE Money wouldn't require a service such as Wealthsimple.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d7ee3420c962c48e9922a2fe399011b", "text": "The simple answer is: YES, the JP Morgan emerging markets equity fund is a mutual fund. A mutual fund is a pooling of money from investors to invest in stocks and bonds. Investors in mutual funds arrive there in different ways. Some get there via their company 401K, others by an IRA, still others as a taxable account. The fund can be sold by the company directly or through a broker. You can also have a fund of funds. So the investors are other funds. Some investors are only indirect investors. They are owed a pension by a past or current employer, and the pension fund has invested in a mutual fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87fd0ffbacf2f9c408959b74bf24807b", "text": "I interned at a wealth management firm that used very active momentum trading, 99% technicals. Strictly ETFs (indexes, currencies, commodities, etc), no individual equities. They'd hold anywhere from 1-4 weeks, then dump it as soon as the chart starts turning over. As soon as I get enough capital I'm adopting their same exact strategy, it's painfully easy", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7efc2dd021ddf9a2a03b9622a11cf2a", "text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b027f0a256497e1482eeda873c4335b", "text": "Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate help shareholders (employees, ex-employees, etc.) in private companies get liquidity for shares they already own. ESOFund and 137 Ventures help with option financing, and provide loans (and exotic structures on loans) to cover costs of exercising options and any associated tax hit. EquityZen is a private company marketplace that led the second wave of VC-backed secondary markets starting early 2013. The mission is to help achieve liquidity for employees and other private company shareholder, but in a company-approved way. EquityZen transacts with share transfers and also a proprietary derivative structure which transfers economics of a company's shares without changing voting and information rights. This structure typically makes the transfer process cheaper and faster as less paperwork is involved. Accredited investors find the process appealing because they get access to companies they usually cannot with small check sizes. To address the questions in Dzt's post: 1). EquityZen doesn't take a 'loan shark' approach meaning they don't front shareholders money so that they can purchase their stock. With EquityZen, you’re either selling your shares or selling all the economic risk—upside and downside—in exchange for today’s value. 2). EquityZen only allows company approved deals on the platform. As a result, companies are more friendly towards the process and they tend to allow these deals to take place. Non-company approved deals pose risks for buyers and sellers and are ultimately unsustainable. As a buyer, without company blessing, you’re taking on significant counterparty risk from the seller (will they make good on their promise to deliver shares in the future?) or the risk that the transfer is impermissible under relevant restrictions and your purchase is invalid. As a seller, you’re running the risk of violating your equity agreements, which can have severe penalties, like forfeiture of your stock. Your shares are also much less marketable when you’re looking to transact without the company’s knowledge or approval. 3). Terms don't change depending an a shareholder's situation. EquityZen is a professional company and values all of the shareholders that use the platform. It’s a marketplace so the market sets the price. In other situations, you may be at the mercy of just one large buyer. This can happen when you’re facing a big tax bill on exercise but don’t have the cash (because you have the stock). 4). EquityZen doesn't offer loans so this is a non issue. 5). Not EquityZen! EquityZen creates a clean break from the economics. It’s not uncommon for the loan structures to use an interest component as well as some other complications, like upside participation and and also a liquidation preference. EquityZen strives for a simple structure where you’re not on the hook for the downside and you’ve transferred all the upside as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b225057ac5a2daf8508875ece3977755", "text": "\"For a job doing that kind of stuff, what is PREFERRED is 4 year undergrad at ivy league school + 2 year MBA at ivy league school, and then several more years of experience, which you can sort of get by interning while in school this will of course saddle you with debt, which is counterintuitive to your plans basically, the easy way up is percentage based compensation. without knowing the right people, you will get a piss poor salary regardless of what you do, in the beginning. so portfolio managers earn money by percentage based fees, and can manage millions and billions. real estate agents can earn money by percentage based commissions if they close a property and other business venture/owners can do the same thing. the problem with \"\"how to trade\"\" books is that they are outdated by the time they are published. so you should just stick with literature that teaches a fundamental knowledge of the products you want to trade/make money from. ultimately regardless of how you get/earn your initial capital, you will still need to be an individual investor to grow your own capital. this has nothing to do with being a portfolio manager, even highly paid individuals on wall street are in debt to lavish expenditures and have zero capital for their own investments. hope this helps, you really need to be thinking in a certain way to just quickly deduce good ideas from bad ideas\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b163e05a8bc82fc2d2c28d0c5c8e1f6", "text": "\"You need to hope that a fund exists targeting the particular market segment you are interested in. For example, searching for \"\"cloud computing ETF\"\" throws up one result. You'd then need to read all the details of how it invests to figure out if that really matches up with what you want - there'll always be various trade-offs the fund manager has to make. For example, with this fund, one warning is that this ETF makes allocations to larger firms that are involved in the cloud computing space but derive the majority of their revenues from other operations Bear in mind that today's stock prices might have already priced in a lot of future growth in the sector. So you might only make money if the sector exceeds that predicted growth level (and vice versa, if it grows, but not that fast, you could lose money). If the sector grows exactly as predicted, stock prices might stay flat, though you'd still make a bit of money if they pay dividends. Also, note that the expense ratios for specialist funds like this are often quite a bit higher than for \"\"general market\"\" funds. They are also likely to be traded less frequently, which will increase the \"\"bid-ask\"\" spread - i.e. the cost of buying into and getting out of these funds will be higher.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ac2bcd3dbc3e67598efa988acae9373", "text": "Why would you bet it’s Sun Capital Partners? OP said it’s a firm that specializes in buying software companies. Sun is a generalist investor. Tech-specific funds include, but are not limited to: Vista, Thoma Bravo, Insight Venture Partners, JMI Equity, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "796b43b97f737d12f389d6b75da86f48", "text": "\"According to what little information is available currently, this fund is most akin to an actively managed exchange traded fund rather than an investment trust. An investment trust is an actively managed, closed-end fund that is tradeable on the stock market. \"\"Closed-end\"\" means that there are a fixed number of shares available for trading, so if you wish to buy or sell shares in a closed-end fund you need to find someone willing to sell or buy shares. \"\"Actively managed\"\" means that the assets are selected by the fund managers in the belief that they will perform well. This is in contrast to a \"\"passively managed\"\" fund which simply tracks an underlying index. The closed-end nature of investment trusts means that the share price is not well correlated to the value of the underlying assets. Indeed, almost all UK investment trusts trade at a significant discount to their net asset value. This reflects their historic poor performance and relatively weak liquidity. Of course there are some exceptions to this. Examples of open-end funds are unit trust (US = mutual funds) and ETFs (exchange traded funds). They are \"\"open-end\"\" funds in the sense that the number of shares/units available will change according to demand. Most importantly, the price of a share/unit will be strongly correlated to the net asset value of the underlying portfolio. In general, for an open-end fund, if the net asset value of the fund is X and there are Y shares/units outstanding, then the price of a share/unit will be X/Y. Historic data shows that passively managed funds (index trackers) \"\"always\"\" outperform actively managed funds in the long term. One of the big issues with actively managed funds is they have relatively high management fees. The Peoples Trust will be charging about 1% with a promise that this should come down over time. Compare this to a fee of 0.05% on a large, major market index tracking ETF. Further, the 1% headline fee being touted by Peoples Trust is a somewhat misleading, since they are paying their employees bonuses with shares in the fund. This will cause dilution of the net asset value per share and can be read as addition management fees by proxy. Since competent fund managers will demand high incomes, bonus shares could easily double the management fees, depending on the size of the fund. In summary, history has shown that the promises of active fund managers rarely (if ever) come to fruition. Personally, I would not consider this to be an attractive investment and would look more towards a passively managed major market index ETF with low management fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eec00fac4023bd89d4a52ab034993c41", "text": "If you want to go far upstream, you can get mutual fund NAV and dividend data from the Nasdaq Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). This isn't for end-users but rather is offered as a part of the regulatory framework. Not surprisingly, there is a fee for data access. From Nasdaq's MFQS specifications page: To promote market transparency, Nasdaq operates the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). MFQS is designed to facilitate the collection and dissemination of daily price, dividends and capital distributions data for mutual funds, money market funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), annuities and structured products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7accc45fe4cc1332be12c3be038ef716", "text": "\"I assume it's some kind of service that will help me make more money somehow No, wealth management is helping you keep the wealth you have, not to become more wealthy. Insurance sales, portfolio management, estate planning, and trust formation (to avoid estate taxes) are common services associated with \"\"wealth management\"\". Wikipedia already has a pretty good definition.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2751206de3d1f06240c973f6fadffc14", "text": "My go-to response whenever anyone asks me this is the Monevator table of platform fees. It looks a little complicated at first, but scroll past the table for a couple of paragraphs of useful info to help narrow down your search. The general tone of the page is geared more towards investors in index funds, but the fees on share-dealing are right there in the table too. There are also special notes if there are discounts for frequent traders and that sort of thing, so not too much passive-investor elitism on show!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b611488d1d23e35fd8b1e3ed248e14f", "text": "\"Asset management typically refers to the \"\"product\"\" group e.g. Mutual fund, etf, etc., like invesco offering qqq or some emerging market mutual fund. Capital management is more vague and can refer to a wide range of financial products and services including asset management and stuff like ptfl planning, wealth advisory etc. That said they are both used interchangeably and not like anyone would correct you if you used one vs the other...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b69da8ccb25538fbfd19ff9b2a4dfad9", "text": "\"I just found out my financial advisors are not fiduciaries. they manage a very large fund and have a board of trustees. they have a 30-year track record of great results. I asked why would the wealth managers not be fiduciaries if they will only ever act in the best interest of the clients and was told \"\"I would assume because they don't have to be, the assets aren't theirs, they belong to the fund\"\" Should I run?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8", "text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cb3f24852c5c7dc5c83ae3cfa2822b14	Is there any instrument with real-estate-like returns?	[ { "docid": "bbb9c1dab71e1a4e1576c568d093714b", "text": "Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8e0cd198acc054563b2aec379fdbc074", "text": "If you are tired of acting as the bank after selling your Real Estate and owner-financing the loan with a promissory note, we can offer a sound and painless exit strategy today. We can fund the purchase in as little as 15 business days. We at Cash Note USA buy Real Estate Promissory Notes Nationwide. We Purchase Owner Financed Mortgage, Land Contract, Contract For Deed, Deed Of Trust, Private Mortgages, Secured Notes, Business Notes, Commercial Notes and Partial Notes and many kinds of seller carry back mortgage notes. Convert Real Estate Note To Cash Now.Sell Your Mortgage Note Fast & get More Cash For Your Note. You will get a Fair Offer Within 24 Hours.Get your Note cashed today! Cash Note USA is a note buyer all over the nation. Convert your mortgage payments into cash. Simple closing process. We buy Promissory Notes, Real Estate Trust Deeds, Seller Carry Back Notes, Land Contract, Contract for Deed, Privately Help Notes, Commercial Mortgage Notes & Business Promissory Notes. Contact Us: Cash Note USA 1307 W.6th St.Suite 219N, Corona, CA 92882 888-297-4099 [email protected] http://cashnoteusa.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2957071718c3125aae989498d051224", "text": "I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31c5ac8c41c0019f73a79c19208dd61e", "text": "Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle. Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a121c4f397ec5791d0fcf6b3cbdeb2e", "text": "\"One way to \"\"get into the real estate market\"\" is to invest your money in a fund which has its value tied to real estate. For example, a Real Estate Investment Trust. This fund would fluctuate largely inline with the property values in the area(s) where the fund puts its money. This would have a few (significant) changes from 'traditional' real estate investing, including:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bd43884a9d185524af6a2230f569e8c", "text": "Your question may have another clue. You are bullish regarding the real estate market. Is that for your city, your state, your nation or for the whole world? Unless you can identify particular properties or neighborhoods that are expected to be better than the average return for your expected bull market in real estate, you will be taking a huge risk. It would be the same as believing that stocks are about to enter a bull market, but then wanting to put 50% of your wealth on one stock. The YTD for the DOW is ~+7%, yet 13 of the 30 have not reached the average increase including 4 that are down more than 7%. Being bullish about the real estate segment still gives you plenty of opportunities to invest. You can invest directly in the REIT or you can invest in the companies that will grow because of the bullish conditions. If your opinion changes in a few years it is hard to short a single property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fac469245c0605d033cba9fca4684cc3", "text": "Reasons for no: In your first sentence you say something interesting: rates low - prices high. Actually those 2 are reversely correlated, imagine if rates would be 5% higher-very few people could buy at current prices so prices would drop. Also you need to keep in mind the rate of inflation that was much higher during some periods in the US history(for example over 10% in the 1980) so you can not make comparisons just based on the nominal interest rate. Putting all your eggs in one basket. If you think real estate is a good investment buy some REITs for 10k, do not spend 20% of your future income for 20 years. Maintenance - people who rent usually underestimate this or do not even count it when making rent vs mortgage comparisons. Reasons for yes: Lifestyle decision - you don't want to be kicked out of your house, you want to remodel... Speculation - I would recommend against this strongly, but housing prices go up and down, if they will go up you can make a lot of money. To answer one of questions directly: 1. My guess is that FED will try to keep rates well bellow 10% (even much lower, since government can not service debts if interest rates go much higher), but nobody can say if they will succeed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74b1000ebe616ec1d7efb65f43d157f6", "text": "Apples and oranges. The stock market requires a tiny bit of your time. Perhaps a lot if you are interested in individual stocks, and pouring through company annual reports, but close to none if you have a mix of super low cost ETFs or index fund. The real estate investing you propose is, at some point, a serious time commitment. Unless you use a management company to handle incoming calls and to dispatch repair people. But that's a cost that will eat into your potential profits. If you plan to do this 'for real,' I suggest using the 401(k), but then having the option to take loans from it. The ability to write a check for $50K is pretty valuable when buying real estate. When you run the numbers, this will benefit you long term. Edit - on re-reading your question Rental Property: What is considered decent cash flow? (with example), I withdraw my answer above. You overestimated the return you will get, the actual return will likely be negative. It doesn't take too many years of your one per year strategy to wipe you out. Per your comment below, if bought right, rentals can be a great long term investment. Glad you didn't buy the loser.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0ed194077d49ea34d04257f3a56dc3d", "text": "Realistically, it is CDs with longer terms or are callable. You pretty much have to accept more risk if you want higher returns. If you are willing to accept that risk by losing the FDIC protections the next level up is probably high rated Government bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef20c2eeb309e86103342ac03ce8e921", "text": "You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d16189759e51343e7ecb4ac89cf8ce81", "text": "would buying the stock of a REIT qualify as a 'Like-Kind' exchange? Short answer, no. Long answer, a 1031 (Starker) exchange only applies to real estate. From the Wikipedia page on the topic: To qualify for Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the properties exchanged must be held for productive use in a trade or business, or for investment. Stocks, bonds, and other properties are listed as expressly excluded by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, although securitized properties are not excluded. A REIT, being stock in a real estate company, is excluded from Section 1031.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8920dfc811304724fd604a06d0c91b13", "text": "Ok, have your father 'sell' you the house with a RECORDED land contract for x dollars and a gift of equity(GOE) of y. He writes of the max he can each year for the GOE (ask a tax attorney on this one), and your cousin lends him the money for his FL prop. Consult a tax attorney on the capital gains, but you can write off the actualized gains at sale if you LIVED in the prop for 2 of the last 5 or 7 years (I can't remember) and were on title. Years later, you use the recorded land contract, with the verifiable on time payments you've been making, to a conforming lender and do a R&T refi.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98863528ca9a2014fa3bc34c6c060f5a", "text": "yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate. yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees. the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates. in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e2514f7b41ead8b0f37d702fcf7fbd2", "text": "well yes but you should also begin to understand the sectoral component of real estate as a market too in that there can be commercial property; industrial property and retail property; each of which is capable of having slightly (tho usually similar of course) different returns, yields, and risks. Whereas you are saving to buy and enter into the residential property market which is different again and valuation principles are often out of kilter here because Buying a home although exposing your asset base to real estate risk isnt usually considered an investment as it is often made on emotional grounds not strict investment criteria.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89cc2b6694f315a40c76c1cee002a052", "text": "\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0fd5f580d29bb7dc0d3a235d31ffdf2", "text": "\"All of these frameworks, Markowitz, Mean/CVaR, CARA, etc sit inside a more general framework which is that \"\"returns are good\"\" and \"\"risk/lack of certainty in the returns is bad\"\", and there's a tradeoff between the two encoded as some kind of risk aversion number. You can measure \"\"lack of certainty in returns\"\" by vol, CVaR, weighted sum of higher moments, but even sector/region concentration. Similarly do I want more \"\"returns\"\" or \"\"log returns\"\" or \"\"sqrt returns\"\" in the context of this tradeoff? You don't need any formal notion of utility at that point - and I don't know what formal ideas of utility beyond \"\"I want more returns and less risk\"\" really buys you. The Sharpe ratio only really gets its meaning because you've got some formal asset-pricing notion of utility. In my view the moment that you're putting constraints on the portfolio (e.g. long only, max weights, don't deviate too much from the benchmark ...) - really you're operating in this more general framework anyway and you're not in \"\"utility-land\"\" anymore.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c499fb8b0df6562bea921ff0f5555fc4	Why should we expect stocks to go up in the long term?	[ { "docid": "02498fdcc586a581a7ed57d87363fa78", "text": "Does it make sense for stocks to earn a premium indefinitely? Yes. There is good reason to think that the stock market will make money indefinitely: the stock market is the primary mechanism through which investors bear market risk, which requires compensation. If you think of all the owners of firms (stockholders and bondholders, generally) the risk premium that stocks earn stocks is the way bondholders pay equityholders to bear the risk that they do not wish to. Will stock prices always go up in the long run? As long as companies pay out less in dividends than their profit, prices will go up. That could change if we were to change our corporate culture and/or tax practices so that firms paid out more in dividends. However, for the purposes of your question, I think it doesn't matter much whether the investor makes money as dividends or capital gains. Does the 5-7% guess apply only to the US market? I didn't write (nor read) the books in question, but most likely that is a global number. The US dominates the global equity market, so it's often a good proxy. However, international returns taken together have no less risk and earn no less over long horizons in general. The particular examples you have pointed out are special cases that only apply to a part of the global economy and a particular time period. There are plenty of examples of stock markets and time periods that did much better than the US market to offset your examples. Is 5-7% a reasonable long-term estimate of equity returns? Equity will always earn more in expectation than risk-free securities will. How much more depends on major economic factors. 5-7% has been a good estimate for the market risk premium for many, many decades (stocks should earn this plus whatever the risk-free rate is). However, that is just an empirical observation, not a rule. It can change. Some day technological progress could slow down or stop, we could run out of important resources in a way that we can't compensate for, our population permanently could stop growing, aliens could invade, etc. Down the road it is certainly possible for expected equity returns to go down and never go back up again. This would result from a permanent, global, economic shift that I think would be pretty obvious. That is, you wouldn't have to look at stock prices to know it was happening.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19b77118c82ee59413679b2e08b53b94", "text": "I have read in many personal finance books that stocks are a great investment for the long term, because on average they go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index, but is there reason to believe this trend will continue indefinitely into the future? It has also been wrong for 20+ year time periods during those last 100 years. It's an average, and you can live your whole career at a loss. There are many things to support the retention of the average, over the next 100 years. I think the quip is out of scope of your actual investment philosophy. But basically there are many ways to lower your cost basis, by reinvesting dividends, selling options, or contributing to your position at any price from a portion of your income, and by inflation, and by the growth of the world economy. With a low enough cost basis then a smaller percentage gain in the index gives you a magnified profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a39e508126cf4dbdb4d2f1ff5c3bfeb", "text": "I feel something needs to be addressed The last 100 years have been a period of economic prosperity for the US, so it's no surprise that stocks have done so well, but is economic prosperity required for such stock growth? Two world wars. The Great Depression. The dotcom bust. The telecom bust. The cold war. Vietnam, Korea. OPEC's oil cartel. The Savings and Loans crisis. Stagflation. The Great Recession. I could go on. While I don't fully endorse this view, I find it convincing: If the USA has managed 7% growth through all those disasters, is it really preposterous to think it may continue?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4048f622462175257b20a025cffe2227", "text": "The total value of the stock market more or less tracks the total value of the companies listed in the stock market, which is more or less the total value of the US economy (since very few industries are nationalized or dominated by privately held companies). The US economy has consistently grown over time, thanks to the wonders of industrialization, the discovery of new markets, new natural resources, etc. Thus, the stock market has continued to grow as well. Will it forever? No. The United States will not exist for ever. But there's no obvious reason it won't continue to grow, at least for a while, though of course if I could accurately predict that I would be far richer than I am. Why do other countries not have the same result? China is its own ball of wax since it's a sort-of-market-sort-of-command economy. Japan has major issues economically right now and doesn't really have the natural or people resources; it also had a huge market bubble a while back that it's never recovered from. And many European countries are doing fine. German's DAX30 index was at around 2500 in 2004 and is now at nearly 13000. That's pretty fast growth. If you go back further (there was a crash ending in around 2004), you can see around the fall of the Berlin wall it was still around 2000; even going that far back, that's about an 8% annual bump. The FTSE was also around 2000 back then, around 8000 now, which is around 5% annual growth. Many of these indexes were more seriously hurt than the US markets in the two major crashes of this millenium; while the US markets fell a lot in 2008, they didn't fall nearly as much as many smaller markets in 2002, so had less to recover from. Both DAX and FTSE suffered similar falls in 2002 to 2008, and so even though during good periods they've grown quite quickly, they haven't overall done as well as they could have given the crashes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5357ae76bad6f93e3cf49890edff622b", "text": "\"Stocks \"\"go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index....\"\" This was true in the 20th century in America. It was not true (over the whole century) for other major countries like Germany, Russia, Japan, or China. (It was more or less true for Britain and certain Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada.) A lot of this had to do with which countries were occupied (or not) during the two world wars. In one of his company's annual reports, Warren Buffett pointed out that the U.S. standard of living went up 6-7 times in the 20th century, that this was unprecedented (and might not be repeatable in the 21st century). The performance of the U.S. stock market in the past century is representative of those (and other) past facts. If a different set of facts prevails going forward, the U.S. stock market would be reflective of those \"\"different\"\" facts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cd4ebc007e5e4e0e0ffeb192ed4576b", "text": "Companies are expected to make a profit, otherwise there is no point to their existence and no motivation for investment. That profit comes back to shareholders as growth and/or dividend. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to turn back into investment to facilitate increased future earnings, it increases shareholder equity and share price. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to pay out in dividend, it makes the shares more attractive to investors which pushes the price up. Either way, shares go up. Share prices drop when companies lose money, or there are market disturbances affecting all companies (recessions), or when individual companies fail. Averaged over all companies over the long term (decades), stocks can be reasonably expected to go up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09fa54925fc02fb49d240221891260b0", "text": "\"The last 300 years of civilization have been amazingly atypical. We have experienced industrial revolution after industrial revolution. Economic revolutions that would have changed the world in 1000 AD show up as noise. Coal, Canal, Rail, Trade, Electricity, Refrigeration, Oil, Gas, Nuclear, Assembly Line, Vacuum Tube, Mass Education, Transistor, Integrated Circuit, Nano-tech, Antibiotics, Slaying of absolute Poverty, Democratic, Feminism, Superhighway, Automobile, Airplane, and on and on and on. A cascade of miracles and world-shaking events that have intertwined and together generated a many century long economic singularity that has upended the entire world and generated today's world. The question you should ask, is tomorrow going to be like today? And the answer is yes; in weather, and in economics, the most likely bet bet is always \"\"things keep on going like they have in the short term\"\". But next week? Next month? That is often not much like today. There is reason to believe that the yield on the above revolutions will continue to propel the economy forward, and that there are multiple promising new revolutions on the horizon. But barring that kind of world-shaking revolution, you are not going to maintain a 5% real return on investment over another centuries for the stock market. The value of investments has to go up by a factor of over 100 in order for that to happen, and the US stock market is already close to 20 trillion dollars. For it to have a market cap of 2 quadrillion dollars the world economy will have to be much larger than it is today. And to be that much larger, the world would have to be a much stranger place that values very different things. We are currently roughly a K-type 0.72 civilization. A simple linear expansion of our power of 100x brings us up to K-type 0.92, which is going to cook the planet from waste heat (not from CO2, but just from the waste heat of the energy it uses!) Efficiency can mitigate this, but only to a degree. 100x more efficient technology is going to less believable than a beanstalk and space colonies. If you believe that the stock market is going to continue to grow at 5%/year for the next century, start investing in really out-there technologies. Gene editing, virtual and augmented reality, space beanstalks and private lift, miraculously cheap energy storage, etc. Because simply refining the technology of today won't get us there. Modern industrial civilization has been a miracle factory. That is what pulled off that growth rate. If the miracles stop coming, so does the growth. There is a road to it. It would involve clean energy, mass personal automation and friendly (not smarter than human) AI, and the entire world lifted up to the standard of living of the top 3% of the USA on average. But it is far from guaranteed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b162c03324b8020cb7acdc8e7c8b3d0f", "text": "\"Stock returns cannot be evaluated on its own. You need to take into account inflation and the return of other investment vehicles. Over the long run, you want to earn more than your peers (ie inflation), or lose less than them. Stock lets you buy into the profits of a company managed by others. So the fundamental question is \"\"do those company managers make better decision than average person?\"\" Of course there are times when they make awful decisions (eg just before dotcom bubble), and sometimes the best decision is to close the business. But overall those people are much better educated, have higher IQ, more resourceful, etc, and so over long time and across all the companies, this is correct and hence the stock market premium.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac087fe705c43712747a7c55daaad272", "text": "A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely. Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6d841e056b929642b5c6a6ecd27239fd", "text": "Should go up because of a company is doing better than the market previously expected it to do, the implication is that it's undervalued at the current price and you buy now you're getting it for less than what it's worth. If Trump was wrong, then the stock would trade up for a bit before ultimately finishing up where it started when the market realises there's nothing in what he said.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca40f9b445156190dec0799d8d34b5f7", "text": "\"I always liked the answer that in the short term, the market is a voting machine and in the long term the market is a weighing machine. People can \"\"vote\"\" a stock up or down in the short term. In the long term, typically, the intrinsic value of a company will be reflected in the price. It's a rule of thumb, not perfect, but it is generally true. I think it's from an old investing book that talks about \"\"Mr. Market\"\". Maybe it's from one of Warren Buffet's annual letters. Anyone know? :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2ce46da861ff836bfd445c2b476746a", "text": "It is in the interest of private owners, stockholders and boards to ensure long-term viability of companies as well. In the case of stockholders and boards, the current price of the stock has its future earning potential priced into the value of the stock. For example, if Microsoft or Google declared that they were shutting down their big research projects, their stock would tumble. Pharmaceutical and chemical companies also have interest in long term viability. They understand that the projects that they start today will not hit the market for another 10 years. If they go bust, all of that money is wasted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6006d5d44a26b2d1418cbde824c60d6", "text": "Ok, see that was my thinking too. Historically, stocks and land values have always gone up, even after the depression. So, it seems to me, that if you have a buy and hold strategy with a horizon of 10-20 years, then you should be fine. Is my thinking realistic along those lines?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47693cc23fde88c8eed203721d2aebe5", "text": "\"I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that \"\"momentum\"\" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is \"\"Cut your losses, and let your winners ride.\"\" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7e580929c80c1a59673b0da603501aa", "text": "In the short term the market is a popularity contest In the short run which in value investing time can extend even to many years, an equity is subject to the vicissitudes of the whims by every scale of panic and elation. This can be seen by examining the daily chart of any large cap equity in the US. Even such large holdings can be affected by any set of fear and greed in the market and in the subset of traders trading the equity. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience high variance in the short rurn. in the long term [the stock market] is a weighing machine In the long run which in value investing time can extend to even multiple decades, an equity is more or less subject only to the variance of the underlying value. This can be seen by examining the annual chart of even the smallest cap equities over decades. An equity over such time periods is almost exclusively affected by its changes in value. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience low variance in the long run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f750e98ac42cb2c1e3eca83071e59030", "text": "\"Past results are not a predictor of future results. There is no explicit upper bound on a market, and even if individual companies' values were remaining unchanged one would expect the market to drift upward in the long term. Plus, there's been some shift from managing companies for dividends to managing stocks for growth, which will tend to increase the upward push. Trying to time the market -- to guess when it's going to move in any particular direction -- is usually closer to gambling than investing. The simplest answer remains a combination of buy-and-hold and dollar-cost averaging. Buy at a constant number of dollars per month (or whatever frequency you prefer), and you will automatically buy more when the stock/fund is lower, less when it is higher. That takes advantage of downturns as buying opportunities without missing out on possible gains at the other end. Personally, I add a bit of contrarian buying to that -- I increased my buying another notch or two while the market was depressed, since I had money I wouldn't need any time soon (buy and hold) and I was reasonably confident that enough of the market would come back strongly enough that I wasn't at significant risk of losing the investment. That's one of the things which causes me to be categorized as an \"\"aggressive investor\"\" even though I'm operating with a very vanilla mix of mutual funds and not attempting to micromanage my money. My goal is to have the money work for me, not vice versa.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41226f31165489d28c4c87a28c1c9d2d", "text": "\"One key to trading is recognizing expectations. What you see in the market is not always a reflection of fundamentals; sometimes, it's a reflection of what people expect to occur, whether that actually happens or not, is debatable. When a currency experiences inflation, such as the CPI being higher today for the USD, it may see an increase because people expect that the central bank will raise rates. Again, this may not be the case, and the traders with this expectation could be wrong. If you're seeing a currency rise after reported inflation, more than likely, traders expect the inflation to benefit the currency in the longer run. Finally on the economics' side, and economists here can debate this, at least in the past the view was that there was a relationship between inflation and unemployment (see the Phillip's Curve). This idea, depending on who you ask, was refuted in the 70s when we had both high inflation and high unemployment (stagflation). Supposedly, if we have high unemployment, we should have low inflation, so we can always raise inflation to have low unemployment. Note that you will still find some economists who think the Phillip's Curve is true, so \"\"refuted\"\" depends on who you ask. From what I've read, Austrian economists are the only economists who see inflation as always bad (long story short, I think it's Paul Cwik who argues that deflation is actually good); like you're seeing, other economists might see it as a good sign and it's only a concern when it's very high (hyperinflation).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bcb59a669749520116928bbb4a071bc", "text": "Because growth and earnings are going down exponentially for this company? It will eventually go up (like 3 years+), but if you want to feel more pain first, go ahead. Look at the macroeconomic picture before you praise all mighty of an individual company", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf6022bc93687e36f52a30b212aea8d4", "text": "I think it's safe to say that Apple cannot grow in value in the next 20 years as fast as it did in the prior 20. It rose 100 fold to a current 730B valuation. 73 trillion dollars is nearly half the value of all wealth in the world. Unfortunately, for every Apple, there are dozens of small companies that don't survive. Long term it appears the smaller cap stocks should beat large ones over the very long term if only for the fact that large companies can't maintain that level of growth indefinitely. A non-tech example - Coke has a 174B market cap with 46B in annual sales. A small beverage company can have $10M in sales, and grow those sales 20-25%/year for 2 decades before hitting even $1B in sales. When you have zero percent of the pie, it's possible to grow your business at a fast pace those first years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6380de041b63f6e0f06ab562a47f233", "text": "Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06dc44ec6dd66aab8e5af5fb3f406ed7", "text": "There's a case to be made that companies below a certain market cap have more potential than the higher ones. Consider, Apple cannot grow 100 fold from its current value. At $700B or so in value, that would be a $70T goal, just about the value of all the combined wealth in the entire US. At some point, the laws of large numbers take over, and exponential growth starts to flatten out. On the flip side, Apple may have as good or better chance to rise 10% over the next 6-12 months as a random small cap stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "556804e8b9ad652c9c7f033736e30826", "text": "\"Um no. Easy google. \"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\" >This is how it works with stocks; supply is the amount of shares that people want to sell, and demand is the amount of shares that people want to purchase. If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. So sure, if a company is performing well, people will want to buy the stock. Causing it to go up. But even if a company was performing well and no one wanted to buy the stock. There would be only sellers and the price would go down.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67723070523d2d8a176e4ac196dd689f", "text": "Yes for sure. It would be redundant. I have three of them, so what. Its just more money in retirement. I would prefer a ROTH IRA in your tax bracket and you next employer may not offer that. And yes there are tax breaks either putting money in to a IRA or if you go the Roth route, on the way out. So if you put money in a Roth now you will have some money at your tax rate in 40 years from now. And if you put money in a traditional IRA when you are an employee you will save on the tax rate you are at then. So you are hedging you bets on tax rates by paying them in two different decade. Personally we are probably all on a tax holiday right now and I would be that taxes will be higher in the future as they are historically pretty low right now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fca73e29b05038112a00f43c8a4f49ef", "text": "You are right: if the combined value of all outstanding GOOG shares was $495B, and the combined value of all GOOGL shares was $495B, then yes, Alphabet would have a market cap of at least $990B (where I say at least only because I myself don't know that there aren't other issues that should be in the count as well). The respective values of the total outstanding GOOG and GOOGL shares are significantly less than that at present though. Using numbers I just grabbed for those tickers from Google Finance (of course), they currently stand thus:", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
adb879646dd277ce34bdcdd72b3e0efd	In India, what is the difference between Dividend and Growth mutual fund types?	[ { "docid": "ef5f93bc5a831258afd86f1561b402ba", "text": "\"The difference between dividend and growth in mutual funds has to do with the types of stocks the mutual fund invests in. Typically a company in the early stages are considered growth investments. In this phase the company needs to keep most of its profits to reinvest in the business. Typically once a company gets a significant size the company's growth prospects are not as good so the company pays some of its profits in the form of a dividend to the shareholders. As far as which is the best buy is totally a personal choice. There will be times when one is better then the other. Most likely you will want to \"\"diversify\"\" and invest in both types.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e8af2153d47ac0e34eafd553a1d3ccd", "text": "After searching a bit and talking to some investment advisors in India I got below information. So thought of posting it so that others can get benefited. This is specific to indian mutual funds, not sure whether this is same for other markets. Even currency used for examples is also indian rupee. A mutual fund generally offers two schemes: dividend and growth. The dividend option does not re-invest the profits made by the fund though its investments. Instead, it is given to the investor from time to time. In the growth scheme, all profits made by the fund are ploughed back into the scheme. This causes the NAV to rise over time. The impact on the NAV The NAV of the growth option will always be higher than that of the dividend option because money is going back into the scheme and not given to investors. How does this impact us? We don't gain or lose per se by selecting any one scheme. Either we make the choice to get the money regularly (dividend) or at one go (growth). If we choose the growth option, we can make money by selling the units at a high NAV at a later date. If we choose the dividend option, we will get the money time and again as well as avail of a higher NAV (though the NAV here is not as high as that of a growth option). Say there is a fund with an NAV of Rs 18. It declares a dividend of 20%. This means it will pay 20% of the face value. The face value of a mutual fund unit is 10 (its NAV in this case is 18). So it will give us Rs 2 per unit. If we own 1,000 units of the fund, we will get Rs 2,000. Since it has paid Rs 2 per unit, the NAV will fall from Rs 18 to Rs 16. If we invest in the growth option, we can sell the units for Rs 18. If we invest in the dividend option, we can sell the units for Rs 16, since we already made a profit of Rs 2 per unit earlier. What we must know about dividends The dividend is not guaranteed. If a fund declared dividends twice last year, it does not mean it will do so again this year. We could get a dividend just once or we might not even get it this year. Remember, though, declaring a dividend is solely at the fund's discretion; the periodicity is not certain nor is the amount fixed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c163002346e1c9b0d7922bbf4de10d4", "text": "I wrote about this a while back: http://blog.investraction.com/2006/10/mutual-funds-dividend-option-or-growth.html In short: Growth options of a mutual fund scheme don't pay out any money, they reinvest the dividend they receive. Dividend options pay out some money, at different intervals, based on the surplus they accumulate. In India, the options have very similar underlying portfolios, so HDFC Equity Fund (Growth) and HDFC Equity Fund (dividend) will have the same percentage allocation to each stock. Update: I also have a video you might want to see on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8QtnccfZk", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fdf8698afbbce4fdfcff1a82a3e7435", "text": "\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \"\"income\"\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b3a1c1a22b4ef798a3315cc961bded21", "text": "In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07bfc4bf7cdff666fb929873475d0159", "text": "Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question. Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21b0a09f26272db9528e08a4a7e3437a", "text": "\"This has been answered countless times before: One example you may want to look at is DGRO. It is an iShares ETF that many discount brokers trade for free. This ETF: offers \"\"exposure to U.S. stocks focused on dividend growth\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62339a39aa3dddc11a5e804af61e19a0", "text": "\"Another factor to consider, beyond the fact that growth and volatility go together, is that the times when many people will need to liquidate their investments will correlate with the times that many other people need to liquidate their investments, and such correlation will push down the immediate value of those investments. While certificates of deposit have penalties for early withdrawal, one can establish up front what the worst-case penalty would be for cashing it in at the most inopportune time. By contrast, stocks offer no such assurance. Stocks sometimes have weird downward spikes that may be short-lived, but if life circumstances force one to liquidate stocks during such a downward spike the \"\"penalty\"\" can be much larger than on a CD.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d77b9e13a8ba838c7e191090d02de39", "text": "\"There's another line of business based on the theory of perpetual incremental growth. It's called a \"\"pyramid scheme\"\" In the longlongago, there were two general types of stock: growth stocks and income stocks. Growth stocks were generally smaller businesses that were still, well, growing. You didn't expect much of a dividend from them because they were reinvesting profits into growing into new markets. The focus was on capital growth. Once a company got fairly large and mature, then the expectation of capital growth tapered off because back then reasonable investors recognized it's insane to expect that a company can grow forever. Then, while there may be some ongoing capital growth, the major focus was on dividend income - getting a piece of the profits a large, established company could pull in. The dotcom (among other things) broke that. People got obsessed with capital growth and instant returns. The idea of a decent yield over time became laughable. Instead a company had to show a percentage year over year growth or they got filleted by Wall Street. If you put one penny on the first square of a checkerboard, then two pennies on the next, then four pennies on the square after that... once you fill the entire checkerboard how much money do you have?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d24cb9f4769b32ce990e3c75882230d5", "text": "The highest growth for an investment has historically been in stocks. Investing in mature companies that offer dividends is great for you since it is compound growth. Many oil and gas companies provide dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46b129bf40544b2543dc880dfa3a75c0", "text": "A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e487cb84b836a6cae29ce804ead9718c", "text": "The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24edd62c7ed2bda08884eda0e9dcf42b", "text": "\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \"\"recognition\"\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92388431b9fc8ad3f676a1f056912571", "text": "Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated). You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A. However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ed058f7de8d238c01c3ce90f9ae86b7", "text": "\"Someone (I forget who) did a study on classifying total return by the dividend profiles. In descending order by category, the results were as follows: 1) Growing dividends. These tend to be moderate yielders, say 2%-3% a year in today's markets. Because their dividends are starting from a low level, the growth of dividends is much higher than stocks in the next category. 2) \"\"Flat\"\" dividends. These tend to be higher yielders, 5% and up, but growing not at all, like interest on bonds, or very slowly (less than 2%-3% a year). 3) No dividends. A \"\"neutral\"\" posture. 4) Dividend cutters. Just \"\"bad news.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dc47174d1d0b1723aae383b9a0d8096", "text": "\"I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need. People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend. You are correct though Pfizer might be considered \"\"more growth.\"\" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon. Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products. Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend. Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible. The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company. Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income. You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48616931c6365a9c59fde937b47b4dca", "text": "At 19 years old you can and should be investing to see your money grow over the years. Reinvesting the dividends does get to be pretty significant because they compound over many years. Historically this dividend compounding accounts for about half of the total gains from stocks. At 70 years old I am not investing to see my money grow, although that's nice. I am investing to eat. I live on the dividends, and they tend to come in fairly reliably even as the market bounces up and down. For stocks selected with this in mind I get about 4% per year from the dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74f5180f25f128a9c22aaf7654f0730f", "text": "Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e34ce0a7a0edc4d625f0313f6e93ed7", "text": "The rental industry is seasonal. They purchase additional inventory (vehicles) for their busy seasons and sell the extra inventory afterwards.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
70390f48d81bf9e032fe7d4dfb834e11	Where can I find historical ratios of international stock indexes?	[ { "docid": "2229df26d0604672093af0428f8b7c9a", "text": "I found a possible data source. It offers fundamentals i.e. the accounting ratios you listed (P/E, dividend yield, price/book) for international stock indexes. International equity indices based on EAFE definitions are maintained by Professor French of French-Fama fame, at Dartmouth's Tuck Business School website. Specifics of methodology, and countries covered is available here. MSCI is the data source. Historical time interval for most countries is from 1975 onward. (Singapore was one of the countries included). Obtaining historical ratios for international stock indices is not easily found for free. Your question didn't specify free though. If that is not a constraint, you may wish to check the MSCI Barra international stock indices also.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "477ff98da46062514eaec62de026fd63", "text": "Center for Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for where to go for US stock price history. Major Asset Classes 1926 - 2011 - JVL Associates, LLC has a PDF with some of the classes you list from the data dating back as far as 1926. There is also the averages stated on a Bogleheads article that has some reference links that may also be useful. Four Pillars of Investing's Chapter 1 also has some historical return information in it that may be of help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd0cdb33bb16c2cd9885660a2f39574d", "text": "The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6db30f454c040ad0bfefaf7151447a71", "text": "Good day! Did a little research by using oldest public company (Dutch East India Company, VOC, traded in Amsterdam Stock Exchange) as search criteria and found this lovely graph from http://www.businessinsider.com/rise-and-fall-of-united-east-india-2013-11?IR=T : Why it is relevant? Below the image I found the source of data - Global Financial Data. I guess the answer to your question would be to go there: https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/index.html Hope this helps and good luck in your search!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc", "text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39e680ba097f0ffc975fb39a29e5dcd0", "text": "Check the answers to this Stackoverflow question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/754593/source-of-historical-stock-data a number of potential sources are listed", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66c2e069c3503182b76c10aac73e22e5", "text": "Thanks to the other answers, I now know what to google for. Frankfurt Stock Exchange: http://en.boerse-frankfurt.de/equities/newissues London Stock Exchange: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/statistics/new-issues-further-issues/new-issues-further-issues.htm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19626720f85dcf1e74d4b90ea17a917e", "text": "Another possibly more flexible option is Yahoo finance here is an example for the dow.. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=9&b=1&c=1928&d=3&e=10&f=2012&g=d&z=66&y=0 Some of the individual stocks you can dl directly to a spreadsheet (not sure why this isn't offer for indexs but copy and paste should work). http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=ACTC.OB+Historical+Prices", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb67ec3740545851f323621075d7a83c", "text": "There are about 250 trading days in a year. There are also about 1,900 stocks listed on the NYSE. What you're asking for would require about 6.2M rows of data. Depending on the number of attributes you're likely looking at a couple GB of data. You're only getting that much information through an API or an FTP.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc", "text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff7f871a450e24d96f85664029365357", "text": "Investopedia has one and so does marketwatch I've always used marketwatch, and I have a few current competitions going on if you want me to send the link They recently remodeled the website so it works on mobile and not as well on desktop Don't know anything about the investopedia one though", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7eb31c0f654543057ea12f777a712330", "text": "At indexmundi, they have some historical data which you can grab from their charts: It only has a price on a monthly basis (at least for the 25 year chart). It has a number of things, like barley, oranges, crude oil, aluminum, beef, etc. I grabbed the data for 25 years of banana prices and here's an excerpt (in dollars per metric ton): That page did not appear to have historical prices for gold, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "427040f8683b2a11bdd39178e27642de", "text": "My level of analysis is not quite that advanced. Can you share what that would show and why that particular measure is the one to use? I've run regression on prices between the two. VIX prices have no correlation to the s&p500 prices. Shouldn't true volatility result in the prices (more people putting options on the VIX during the bad times and driving that price up) correlate to the selloff that occurs within the S&P500 during recessions and other events that would cause significant or minor volatility? My r2 showed no significance within a measurement of regression within Excel. But, gasp I could be wrong, but would love to learn more about better ways of measurement :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2591ce2451f7d5ac4b526b0f345156c6", "text": "I use Yahoo Finance to plot my portfolio value over time. Yahoo Finance uses SigFig to link accounts (I've linked to Fidelity), which then allows you to see you exact portfolio and see a plot of its historical value. I'm not sure what other websites SigFig will allow you to sync with, but it is worth a try. Here is what the plot I have looks like, although this is slightly out of date, but still gives you an idea of what to expect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c043eae8ce68058c54aca7a490fff9c7", "text": "I assume you're after a price time series and not a list of S&P 500 constituents? Yahoo Finance is always a reasonable starting point. Code you're after is ^GSPC: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history?p=^GSPC There's a download data button on the right side.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82c2ef3a0f37dfd65929f13ca4d90f18", "text": "I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories. It has more info available for free than some may realize. Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats. (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number. That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC. (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here. You can do a search to find the Zacks website. I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice. It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer. I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist. It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it. littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free. Maybe this is a project that needs to happen. With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API. But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter. So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF! A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings? Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent. I know that SE prides itself on focused answers. A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4027794e749ada94e7018cb689a3fed6	Is there a NY tax form to use when one is missing a K-1 (or 1065) from an LLC?	[ { "docid": "54f174f29e2d2d7d644ab1b8ced2a5f7", "text": "Form 10-K is filed by corporations to SEC. You must be thinking of form 1065 (its schedule K) that a partnership (and multi-member LLC) must file with the IRS. Unless the multi-member LLC is legally dissolved, it must file this form. You're a member, so it is your responsibility, with all the other members, to make sure that the manager files all the forms, and if the manager doesn't - fire the manager and appoint another one (or, if its member managed - chose a different member to manage). If you're a sole member of the LLC - then you don't need to file any forms with the IRS, all the business expenses and credits are done on your Schedule C, as if you were a sole propriator.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0f02d14b3b88c6a19f10f13209e2455d", "text": "I've talked to several very experienced accountants that deal with startup shares, stock 83(b)'s, etc. weekly (based in SF, CA) as this issue would have had a massive impact on me. The most important part of filing an 83(b) is notifying the IRS within 30 days. The law requires the written notification within the 30 day window. Adding it to that years tax return is an IRS procedure. Forgetting to include a copy of that years tax return is apparently a common occurrence when no tax was owed (0 spread, you actually paid the FMV). And the accepted method to resolve this is to simply file a blank amendment for that years return and include the copy of the 83(b) election.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b3d85e0259ff79c5fcce5e2a24ff6c", "text": "I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income tax was not withheld. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns. My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash) would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?) and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your 2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the value of the rental during those years as additional income, and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture, but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather than in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b56407de7aa2faa059ec71a962d86140", "text": "You should look into an LLC. Its a fairly simple process, and the income simply flows through to your individual return. It will allow you to deduct supplies and other expenses from that income. It should also protect you if someone sues you for doing shoddy work (even if the work was fine), although you would need to consult a lawyer to be sure. For last year, it sounds like your taxes were done wrong. There are very, very few ways that you can end up adding more income and earning less after taxes. I'm tempted to say none, but our tax laws are so complex that I'm sure you can do it somehow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4904649b8fe3229290fb00274a4a457", "text": "\"Square use SSN to verify identity, and they only ask for the last 4 digits for that purpose. If she entered the full SSN - then she entered it into the tax id field, which was a wrong thing to do. It is also worth mentioning that since you mentioned a \"\"business partner\"\" that \"\"should have taken care of taxes\"\" that you should have a tax adviser whose job would be to take care of taxes and ensure that your interests are well-represented. I would suggest not to try interacting with the IRS on your own. Hire a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to do that. That tax adviser will be able to fix the problem (there are different ways of doing it, depending on the circumstances) and also verify that the business taxes were properly taken care of. When dealing with business partners - assume that what they've \"\"supposedly\"\" did was not done, until you see it with your own eyes. Saying that \"\"Supposedly, her business partner took care of all tax issues\"\" means, in this case, that you've been caught with unreported income that you tried to conceal. It is your (your sister's...) responsibility to prove otherwise. It is a very weak defense when the IRS comes knocking on the door for their money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "698111cd921bcfd014d15bcf5d87ae5c", "text": "Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents. If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A. In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount. If you are a resident of State B, then State B will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is. As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return. As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get to be deducted. At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec2567a386bbe5ab4518b9e07ed63f0d", "text": "\"I'm assuming that when you say \"\"convert to S-Corp tax treatment\"\" you're not talking about actually changing your LLC to a Corporation. There are two distinct pieces of the puzzle here. First, there's your organizational form. Your state, which is where the business is legally formed and recognized, creates the LLC or Corporation. \"\"S-Corp\"\" doesn't come into play here: your company is either an LLC or a Corporation. (There are a handful of other organizational types your state might have, e.g. PLLC, Limited Partnership, etc.; none of these are immediately relevant to this discussion). Second, there's the tax treatment you receive by the IRS. If your company was created by the state as an LLC, note that the IRS doesn't recognize LLCs as a distinct organizational type: you elect to be taxed as an individual (for single member LLCs), a partnership (for multiple member LLCs), or as a corporation. The former two elections are \"\"pass through\"\" -- there's no additional level of taxation on corporate profits, everything just passes through to the owners. The latter election introduces a tax on corporate profits. When you elect pass-through treatment, a single-member LLC files on Schedule C; a multiple-member LLC will prepare a form K-1 which you will include on your 1040. If your company was created by the state as a Corporation (not an LLC), you could still elect pass-through taxation if your company qualifies under the rules in Subchapter S (i.e. \"\"an S-Corp\"\"). States do not recognize \"\"S-Corp\"\" as part of the organizational process -- that's just a tax distinction used by the IRS (and possibly your state's tax authorities). In your case, if you are a single-member LLC (and assuming there are no other reasons to organize as a corporation), talking about \"\"S-Corp tax treatment\"\" doesn't make any sense. You'll just file your schedule C; in my experience it's fairly simple. (Note that this is based on my experience of single- and multiple-member LLCs in just two states. Your state may have different rules that affect state-level taxation; and the rules may change from year to year. I've found that hiring a good CPA to prepare the forms saves a good bit of stress and time that can be better applied to the business.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae579dcb50cc14bc3da84900f50b83ed", "text": "I'm no tax expert by any means. I do know that a disreagarded entity is considered a sole proprietor for federal tax purposes. My understanding is that this means your personal tax year and your business tax year must be one and the same. Nevertheless, it is technically possible to have a non-calendar fiscal year as an individual. This is so rare that I'm unable to find a an IRS reference to this. The best reference I could find was this article written by two CPAs. If you really want to persue this, you basically need to talk with an accountant, since this is complicated, and required keeping propper accounting records for your personal life, in addition to your business. A ledger creqated after-the-fact by an accountant has been ruled insufficent. You really need to live by the fiscal year you choose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57cb61fd296cae857e0413a84e463426", "text": "is it possible to file that single form aside from the rest of my return? Turbotax will generate all the forms necessary to file your return. I recommend you access these forms and file them manually. According to the IRS in order to report capital gains and losses you need to fill out Form 8949 and summarize them on Form 1040 D. Add these two forms to the stack that turbotax generates. Add the total capital gains to line 13 of the Form 1040 which turbotax generated, and adjust the totals on the form accordingly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "747434105a81d44117295b394b27c1ba", "text": "Just type in the forms as they are, separately. That would be the easiest way both to enter the data without any mistakes, and ensure that everything matches properly with the IRS reports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "473b89d88dbe46c26fc30c3a059e5370", "text": "In no ways. Both will be reported to the members on their K1 in the respective categories (or if it is a single member LLC - directly to the individual tax return). The capital gains will flow to your personal Schedule D, and the business loss to your personal Schedule C. On your individual tax return you can deduct up to 3K of capital losses from any other income. Business loss is included in the income if it is active business, for passive businesses (like rental) there are limitations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bee88c03ff8c758403ac1e82e9afc43", "text": "The cost will be around $300-$500 if you do it correctly it in Florida and can be over a $1,000 if you do it in New York (New York is more expensive due to a publication requirement that New York has for LLC’s). The price ranges I’ve given include filing, state fees, getting a tax ID number (EIN), operating agreement, membership certificates, registered agent fees and publication fees if done in New York. Each state also have licensing boards and city fees that are applicable, so you would want to also make sure that you are keeping compliant there. Yearly paperwork to keep the LLC running won’t be so expensive, expect the state to charge a yearly fee and require some basic information to be submitted. I had a quick look at Florida, and with someone filing it for you, expect around $200 to $250 a year, plus registered agent fees. If you are late in Florida the penalty is $400 so you definitely would want a service that provides compliance calendar notifications to make sure you are on time with fees. In regards to bookkeeping and taxes, yearly tax filing will start at $250 to $500 for an LLC and move up from there depending on the services being offered and the amount of time of work. I recently referred someone to an accountant that will charge $250 to file an almost zero tax return on an LLC. I think $40 an hour is a little low for a bookkeeper but it all depends on where you are. I know in some major cities bookkeepers expect $75 an hour or higher. So the expectation in Miami and Manhattan will probably be more expensive than Jacksonville and Albany. If you doing a little business don’t expect the cost to be too much on the bookkeeping. So, breakdown: $300-$500 (FL) - $1,000 (NY) Registration of LLC + any business license, city or other registrations $250 Yearly Fee + Yearly Registered Agent + any business licenses, city or other fee $500 Tax Return + Bookkeeping Fee Banks will charge more than a personal account so expect $120 a year plus. In regards to service I would look at companies that specialize in foreigners setting up businesses in the US, because they will have services designed to help you more than services that primarily specialize with US clients. You are going to have some different needs, based on not having a Social Security Number or establishing from overseas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a551643527dfc193e515fb6ecd6a9be", "text": "If you've already used TurboTax on your 2015 taxes, you can use the numbers TurboTax gave you as your reasonable estimate. Line 4 is your estimate of total tax liability for 2015. This would be line 63 of form 1040. This is Federal income tax only, not Social Security tax. Line 5 is the total of tax payments you made last year. You should be able to read this off your W-2 forms, Box 2. It corresponds to line 74 on the 1040. Line 6 is the difference between lines 4 and 5. You can't claim a refund on the extension, so if line 5 is more than line 4, enter 0. Otherwise, subtract line 5 from line 4, and enter it in line 6. This is the amount you should send in with the form to minimize any penalty due with your taxes later. The TurboTax software can generate this extension form automatically, I believe. Also, don't forget to give a copy of this extension form to your tax preparer. He will need to know the amount you sent in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "192f12f3a621c20f99e0adf31f0e9f16", "text": "\"Is it possible if (After getting EIN) I change my LLC type (disregarded entity or C type or S type or corporation or change in number of members) for tax saving ? You marked your question as \"\"real-estate\"\", so I'm guessing you're holding rental properties in your LLC. That means that you will not be able to qualify for S-Corp, only C-Corp treatment. That in turn means that you'll be subject to double taxation and corporate tax rate. I fail to see what tax savings you're expecting in this situation. But yes, you can do it, if you so wish. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) before you make any changes, because it will be nearly impossible to reverse the check-the-box election once made (for at least 5 years).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fbb461a732f8f6e6ee02c594129eed4", "text": "Yes, of course. Your business is active since it was established, it just didn't do anything. This is of course re the State taxes, the IRS considers LLC as a disregarded entity and it flows directly to your Schedule C if you're a single member, or your 1065 if you're multiple members. State of Texas never considers LLC as a disregarded (See here questions 13 and 14). You may not pay any taxes, but you have to file.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4384bb6fc4e625759bd324cede2ceccf", "text": "I think you're making a mistake. If you still want to make this mistake (I'll explain later why I think its a mistake), the resources for you are: IRS.GOV - The IRS official web site, that has all the up-to-date forms and instructions for them, guiding publications and the relevant rules. You might get a bit overwhelmed through. Software programs - TurboTax (Home & Business for a sole propriator or single member LLC, Business for more complicated business), or H&R Block Business (only one version that should cover all) are for your guidance. They provide tips and interactive guidance in filling in all the raw data, and produce all the forms filled for you according to the raw data you entered. I personally prefer TurboTax, I think its interface is nicer and the workflow is more intuitive, but that's my personal preference. I wrote about it in my blog last year. Both also include plug-ins for the state taxes (If I remember correctly, for both the first state is included in the price, if you need more than 1 state - there's extra $30-$40 per state). Your state tax authority web site (Minnesota Department of Revenue in your case). Both Intuit and H&R Block have on-line forums where people answer each others questions while using the software to prepare the taxes, you might find useful information there. As always, Google is your friend. Now, why I think this is a mistake. Mistakes that you make - will be your responsibility. If you use the software - they'll cover the calculation mistakes. But if you write income in a wrong specification or take a wrong deduction that you shouldn't have taken - it will be on your head and you're the one to pay the fines and penalties for that. Missed deductions and credits - CPA's (should) know about all the latest deductions and credits that you or your business might be entitled to. They also (should) know which one got canceled and you shouldn't be continuing taking them if you had before. Expenses - there are plenty of rules of what can be written off as an expense and how. Some things should be written off this year, others over several years, for some depreciation formula should be used, etc etc. Tax programs might help you with that, but again - mistakes are your responsibility. Especially for the first time and for the newly formed business, I think you should use a (good!) CPA. The CPA should take responsibility over your filing. The CPA should provide guarantee that based on the documents you provided, he filled all the necessary forms correctly, and will absorb all the fees and penalties if there's an audit and mistakes were found not because you withheld information from your CPA, but because the CPA made a mistake. That costs money, and that's why the CPA's are more expensive than using a program or preparing yourself. But, the risk is much higher, especially for a new business. And after all - its a business expense.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cc352c85f76a0a840ee61b164a8ddc8c	question regarding W4	[ { "docid": "43f87fe215d44ba35eaef3fddfb5d50a", "text": "Yes. W4 determines how much your employer will withhold from your wages. Leaving everything at default would mean that your salary is your only taxable income, and you only take default deductions. Your employee will calculate your tax withholding based on that. But, if your salary is >200k, I assume that you have other income (investment/capital gains, interest on your bank account), which you will have to pay taxes on. You're probably going to have some deductible expenses (business/partnership expenses, mortgage interest, donations, college funds etc) as well. So it is very likely, unless you're really not smart about money, that you have more to do with your taxes than just the employers' withholding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d36d0c9bf5b74b3b2aba95a3a46d601", "text": "There are still ways that the default values on the W4 can lead you to get a refund or owe the IRS. If there was a big delta in your paychecks, it can lead to problems. If you make 260,000 and get 26 paychecks that means each check had a gross of 10,000. Your company will withhold the same amount from each check. But If you earned a big bonus then the smaller regular paychecks may not have been withholding enough. When bonus checks are involved the payroll office has to treat them as irregular pay to be able to make it work out. Some companies don't do this, so you may under or over pay during the year. If you changed companies during the year, this can lead to under or over payment. The lower paying company would not know about the higher rate of pay at the other company. so at one you would under pay, and the other you would over pay. There are also social security issues with more than one employer.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "49fcb429b4cc17c2db360a6d3770a84a", "text": "Real world case: IRS: You owe us $x. You didn't report your income from job y. My mother: I didn't work for y. I don't even know who y is. IRS: If the W-2 is wrong, talk to them to get it fixed. My mother: I can't find y. Please give me an address or phone. IRS: We can't. You talk to them and get it fixed. I know this dragged on for more than a year, they never mentioned the final outcome and they're gone now so I can't ask.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59693220508820f78ed4c64e2a59f23a", "text": "First, we need to be clear about what the allowances on your W-4 mean. The more allowances you claim, the lower tax liability it is assumed that you have, and they will take less tax out of your check. So claiming 2 allowances will result in a bigger paycheck and less tax withholding than claiming 0 allowances would. If you claim 0 allowances, you are in no danger of having too little tax withheld; instead, that would result in the maximum tax withheld. So 0 allowances is certainly an option, if you want to play it safe. This being your first year with these jobs, it's hard to know what to claim on your W-4. When you do your taxes next year, you can see if the withholding was too much or just right; if your refund is too big, you can increase your allowances for next year. That having been said, I don't like getting big refunds; I'd rather have a bigger paycheck all year. If I were you, I'd probably claim 1 or 2 allowances at the new job, and adjust it next year if needed. At your income level, you aren't really in any danger of getting in trouble for having too little withheld. Good luck with the new job. Game testing has always seemed like a dream job to me. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19c1bed44c0810777064c3f77e592123", "text": "I edited my W4 over several years, trying to get rid of my refund. It's a balancing act, just be careful to not owe more than about $1000 each year. They can hit you with a small penalty. It's never been enough to concern me, but it's there. It's also a balancing act if you get a raise, a bonus, any kind of differences in pay...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d443860bd1eb09e19af7b8465b17d1a", "text": "The IRS offers an online calculator to help you select the correct number of deductions on your W-4. The tricky part is that we're nearly half-way through the year, so if you add more deductions to offset the lower withholding during the first half of the year, you'll have to update the W-4 at the beginning of next year to correct that next year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dc1692967e15601951b68dfe4ad8c44", "text": "\"So after a great deal of clarification, it appears that your question is how to adjust your withholding such that you'll have neither a refund, or a balance due, when you do your 2016 taxes next year. First, a little terminology. The more you have withheld, the more money will be taken out of your check to cover your estimated tax liability. Confusingly, the more allowances you select on your W-4, the less money you will have withheld (more allowances means more dependents/deductions/other reasons why you will owe less tax). When you go to file your 2015 tax return next year, you'll figure out exactly how much you owe. If you had too little tax withheld, you'll have to pay the difference. If you had too much tax withheld, you'll get a refund back. Given your situation, simply following the instructions on the W-4 should work pretty well. If you want to be more precise, you can use the IRS Withholding Calculator to figure the number of allowances and submit a new W-4 to your employer. It's a little hard to tell whether \"\"paying this much/year in taxes seem steep?\"\" because you've lumped all the taxes together in one big bucket. Does the $543.61 in taxes per paycheck include Social Security (OASDI) and Medicare taxes? Whatever you do, it's not going to be an exact science. Come tax time, you'll figure out exactly what you owe and either pay the balance or get a refund back. As long as you're relatively close, that's fine. You can always adjust your withholding again next year after you've done your taxes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bae6e8d76b98b2ba96a5520be36c2c8f", "text": "I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56f67bbeaa7ca7107ea754648e799f3b", "text": "The reciprocity agreement in the Washington DC area means that you only pay income taxes where you live, not where you work. Because you live in Maryland you only need to pay income taxes to Maryland. You need to do the following things. Line 3. If you are not subject to Virginia withholding, check the box on this line. You are not subject to withholding if you meet any one of the conditions listed below. Form VA-4 must be filed with your employer for each calendar year for which you claim exemption from Virginia withholding. (a) You had no liability for Virginia income tax last year and you do not expect to have any liability for this year. ... (d) You are a domiciliary or legal resident of Maryland, Pennsylvania or West Virginia whose only Virginia source income is from salaries and wages and such salaries and wages are subject to income taxation by your state of domicile. My company has its only office in Maryland, and conducts all of its business there. Several of our employees are Virginia residents who commute to work on a daily basis. Are we required to withhold Virginia income tax from their wages? No. Because your company is not paying wages to employees for services performed in Virginia, you are not required to withhold Virginia tax. If you would like to withhold the tax as a courtesy to your employees, you may register for a Virginia withholding tax account online or by submitting a Registration Application. Additional withholding per pay period under agreement with employer. If you are not having enough tax withheld, you may ask your employer to withhold more by entering an additional amount on line 2.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c8b81f8345d86c56215b7b3dd6e4a8c", "text": "Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acc343e3f8b327a4ea13ba9a21c8bb90", "text": "Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a403d7de68675f08817c02e9104ea567", "text": "If you're correct that it's not taxable because it's non-taxable reimbursement (which is supported by your W-2), then it should not go on your 1040 at all. If it is taxable, then it really should have appeared on your W-2 and would probably end up on Line 7 of your Form 1040.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45f7684814dbac7f3eed5ce793c0413b", "text": "The purpose of making sure you met the safe harbor was to avoid the penalty. Having achieved that goal the tax law allows you to wait until April 15th to pay the balance. So do so. Put enough money aside to make sure you can easily make that payment. I was in this exact situation a few years ago. I planned my w4 to make the safe harbor, and then slept easy even though the house settlement was in May and I didn't have to make the IRS payment unti 11 months later in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98e4a30799ac22fdf632c7ade120ac85", "text": "\"The decision whether this test is or is not met seems to be highly dependent on the specific situation of the employer and the employee. I think that you won't find a lot of general references meeting your needs. There is such a thing as a \"\"private ruling letter,\"\" where individuals provide specific information about their situation and request the IRS to rule in advance on how the situation falls with respect to the tax law. I don't know a lot about that process or what you need to do to qualify to get a private ruling. I do know that anonymized versions of at least some of the rulings are published. You might look for such rulings that are close to your situation. I did a quick search and found two that are somewhat related: As regards your situation, my (non-expert) understanding is that you will not pass in this case unless either (a) the employer specifies that you must live on the West Coast or you'll be fired, (b) the employer would refuse to provide space for you if you moved to Boston (or another company location), or (c) you can show that you could not possibly do your job out of Boston. For (c), that might mean, for example, you need to make visits to client locations in SF on short-notice to meet business requirements. If you are only physically needed in SF occasionally and with \"\"reasonable\"\" notice, I don't think you could make it under (c), although if the employer doesn't want to pay travel costs, then you might still make it under (a) in this case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bff7b1e71eaf0a950081fd846171fb7", "text": "You are correct that W-4s are very confusing for multiple income homes, and even more so if you change salary significantly during the year. There are just too many variables in those situations to provide an effective, simple form. Unfortunately, the best way to get accurate withholdings is trial-and-error. Try and estimate how much tax you'll have to pay for the year. There are several calculators out there, but essentially you can take your gross income, subtract the standard exemptions for you and all dependents, subtract the standard deductions (or estimate your itemized deductions), and compute your tax based on the federal tax tables. Then subtract any tax credits you may be eligible for. Then estimate your withholdings for the year by multiplying your current withholdings by the number of pay periods left, and adding your YTD withholdings. If your total withholdings are higher than your estimated tax, add one or two exemptions to reduce your withholdings (and vice versa). If all that sounds like a lot of work (which it is), at a minimum make sure you withhold as much tax as you paid last year. That way you avoid any tax penalties, but might have a tax bill when you file. If you want to be conservative and withhold a little extra that's fine - you might even end up with a refund when you file. The good news is it doesn't have to be exact; any difference will determine what you pay (or what refund you get) when you file.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07746509e7f31a246a4e6f0403c33e55", "text": "An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50fe9ddf775a60078442663c5e992797", "text": "Follow the instructions on the W-4. It says exactly how you are supposed to calculate the number of allowances. You shouldn't have to figure out how to get the right number. Just follow the instructions. The only part at all complex is if you have large deductions. In that case you're supposed to subtract a standard amount from your actual deductions -- for 2017, $12,700 if married filing jointly -- divide by $4,050, and then add the result to the number of allowances. In general, following the instructions on the W-4 should result in slightly more tax being withheld from your paycheck than you actually owe, so that you get a modest refund next April 15. In the long run it doesn't matter if you have too much withheld, as you'll get it all back eventually anyway. I suppose the withholding could be so high that it doesn't leave you enough to live on while waiting for your refund, but that shouldn't normally be the case. If you pay too little, you could be subject to penalties and interest, so you really want to avoid that.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
60d9ce2bf7b458503323f4c3ba6a6491	1000 pound to invest	[ { "docid": "f4bd63cfd882adcf0dc880fd46b13a69", "text": "Depending what your timeframe preferences are, here are a couple of options: Stock indexes: as per Fool's investing guide, historically this had the highest return / risk ratio. On a 5-year horizont, with no extra work, this seems the best option. Premium bonds, similar to most cash ISAs currently available, have a rather rubbish ROI ATM (~3-5% AER at max) Invest it into yourself, in the form of personal development, classes & courses, or starting a business. Disadvantage: this also will carry an opportunity cost in the form of your time. On a longer timeline, however, if this improves your market value only by 1%, that pays extreme dividends over the rest of your carrier. With a single grand at hand, I'd definitely recommend going for option 3 -considering yourself as an investing vehicle, and ask yourself: how can you best improve stakeholder value? You'd be surprised at the kind of results a single grand can make.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc13b77121e726d4bd44e842f8bf0db8", "text": "ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f03ab3bf6064ae72ee8f79afd2225323", "text": "\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \"\"invest in knowledge\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "721e2da6d1dd2e44f93811e7378c9a42", "text": "Basically the first thing you should do before you invest your money is to learn about investing and learn about what you want to invest in. Another thing to think about is that usually low risk can also mean low returns. As you are quite young and have some savings put aside you should generally aim for higher risk higher return investments and then when you start to reach retirement age aim for less risky lower return investments. In saying that, just because an investment is considered high risk does not mean you have to be exposed to the full risk of that investment. You do this by managing your risk to an acceptable level which will allow you to sleep at night. To do this you need to learn about what you are investing in. As an example about managing your risk in an investment, say you want to invest $50,000 in shares. If you put the full $50,000 into one share and that share price drops dramatically you will lose a large portion of your money straight away. If instead you spent a maximum of $10,000 on 5 different shares, even if one of them falls dramatically, you still have another 4 which may be doing a lot better thus minimising your losses. To take it one step further you might say if anyone of the shares you bought falls by 20% then you will sell those shares and limit your losses to $2000 per share. If the worst case scenario occurred and all 5 of your shares fell during a stock market crash you would limit your total losses to $10,000 instead of $50,000. Most successful investors put just as much if not more emphasis on managing the risk on their investments and limiting their losses as they do in selecting the investments. As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfc2aa4d3688ac396c2defe618e2c11a", "text": "Your main choices are ISAs and property. You can put over £15,000 per year into an ISA, which means over £450,000 by the time you retire, not allowing for growth in your ISA investments. But if you're paying rent, and worried about being able to pay rent when you retire, the obvious choice is to buy a flat now on a thirty-year mortgage so that you can stop paying rent and the mortgage will be paid off by the time you retire.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b53f7aa9e406ea773a4b45621660c971", "text": "Your first home can be up to £450,000 today. But that figure is unlikely to stay the same over 40 years. The government would need to raise it in line with inflation otherwise in 40 years you won't be able to buy quite so much with it. If inflation averages 2% over your 40 year investment period say, £450,000 would buy you roughly what £200,000 would today. Higher rates of inflation will reduce your purchasing power even faster. You pay stamp duty on a house. For a house worth £450,000 that would be around £12,500. There are also estate agent's fees (typically 1-2% of the purchase price, although you might be able to do better) and legal fees. If you sell quickly you'd only be able to access the balance of the money less all those taxes and fees. That's quite a bit of your bonus lost so why did you tie your money up in a LISA for all those years instead of investing in the stock market directly? One other thing to note is that you buy a LISA from your post tax income. You pay into a pension using your pre-tax income so if you're investing for your retirement then a pension will start with a 20% bonus if you're a lower rate taxpayer and a whopping 40% bonus if you're a higher rate taxpayer. If you're a higher rate taxpayer a pension is much better value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bef842658c344351cd69313550198b3", "text": "\"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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afb4e4a37f3f6133905d174f36e03ee3", "text": "Well, the potential problem is that the FTSE 100 could go down, or just not up. Really, it's as simple as that. After all, why diversify if the FTSE 100 will only go up? So, the question is, why wait to diversify? Why not add in the Gilt ETF for a little government bond exposure? Why not a Corp. bond ETF? Maybe a little of that Global ex-UK for a little foreign stock exposure? That said, saving is better than not saving, so if starting it off with just the FTSE 100 gets you saving, go for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bf6f4f6b37e19854675b9535de8de01", "text": "\"Historically that 'divide by 1000' rule of thumb is what many people in Australia have thought of as normal, and yes, it's about a 5.2% gross yield. Net of expenses, perhaps 3-4%, without allowing for interest. If you're comparing this to shares, I think the right comparison is to the dividend yield, not to the overall PE. A dividend yield of about 3-5% is also about typical: if you look at the Vanguard Index Australian Shares Fund as a proxy for the ASX the yield last year was about 4%. Obviously a 4% return is not very competitive with a term deposit. But with both shares and housing you can hope for some capital growth in addition to the income yield. If you get 4% rental yield plus 5% growth it is more attractive. Is it \"\"good\"\" to buy at what people have historically thought was \"\"normal\"\"? Perhaps you are better off looking around, or sitting out, until you find a much better price than normal. \"\"Is 5% actually historically normal?\"\" deserves a longer answer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71edadf0bf5e87a03ff97820bd72cee1", "text": "50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3dc2476ab41b785e705976afa3e7f65", "text": "The 1.09% is per year, not per month, so you will be getting about 1K per year just for sitting around on your backside. Some important things. It is almost certain that you can earn a better interest rate elsewhere, if you are prepared to leave your 100K untouched. For example, even in Natwest you can earn 3.2% over the next year if you buy a fixed rate bond. For 100K that is certainly worth looking at. Or maybe put 90K in a fixed rate bond and leave 10K in an instant access account. Taxes should not be a problem since you can earn around 7K before you start paying taxes. However be aware that in the UK most bank accounts deduct tax at source. That means they send the tax they think you should have paid to the government, and you then have to claim it back from them. Accounts for young people may work differently. Ask your bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61d870d17ab65aec49138b9d09a8f1b3", "text": "Only 20, and going through university This is an important question to ask yourself. Your earnings are 0 and will remain so, unless you start working. Are you willing to halve your money, if the markets tank after you put in your money ? Mostly good investors will buy some more, if they know the stocks they have picked are good. Considering that you have no income you will loose out on it. If you are graduating soon, it might make sense to start investing but it should be reliant on the fact on how quickly you will land a job. I would suggest stay put in the ISA for the time being. Check out if you might get a higher rate of interest if possible and transfer there. Check out Moneysupermarket . Don't blindly put money in a ISA, see if you are getting the best deal in the market. And one thing, interest on ISA is calculated daily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01bfef7eb36808691beb9f1d8e5b1480", "text": "\"In the UK there are Premium Bonds, http://www.nsandi.com/. In simple terms these get you a \"\"raffle ticket\"\" for each £1 you invest. Each month multiple tickets are drawn and they each win between £25 and £1m. Your capital does not go down but you aren't guaranteed to win. So you can't lose your money but there's potential to not make any either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd10a69b01f073d534e36116efede61d", "text": "\"I haven't used transfer wise, so can't speak to their price. Regardless of what service you use, what you should look for is whether the conversion price is greater than how much you think the currency's price will move. Example: if your bank charges ~8% on any currency exchange, you should ask yourself whether you think the pound (or whatever currency) will drop by >8% within whatever time frame you've set for yourself. If not, you're better off keeping your money in that currency. I checked out their site and it does look like transferwise is pretty inexpensive, around .9% in transaction costs. So again, ask yourself whether you think the pound will drop by 1% in your time frame. Doesn't seem like a lot, but also consider that currencies typically fluctuate by just a few tenths of a percentage per day. I know you're probably looking for an answer like \"\"pound will drop, sell it all,\"\" but I don't know enough about currencies to be giving advice there. I would definitely pay attention to Brexit negotiations though, as that will be one of the biggest influences on both currencies for quite some time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "470fb0038dad4dcaeae56f7574442cb8", "text": "This is not an answer to all of your questions but merely an eleaboration on one of your comments: Are there any other areas in the UK that would return rental yields much above 10% net? Shares. I could withdraw the money and buy shares for the dividend income, but it is hard to choose shares that yield more than about 6% and they are volatile. I wrote a post about using shares to invest a pension pot. http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/016/ You may find it of some interest. Of course, the investing would take place within the pension 'wrapper' so you'd only be paying tax on the income taken out each year. The other alternatives you mention suggest paying for the expertise and time of an IFA would be a very economical decision. £1,000 to best use £150,000 seems a bargain to me. Some of the avenues you mention seem very risky from my understanding so someone to determine your tolerances and propose a holistic solution is a good path forward. Best wishes!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a12fe6fd848eb301007de2c233b13e27", "text": "There are hundreds if not thousands of index funds and ETFs in the EU, far too many to enumerate here. It's worth pointing out that Vanguard themselves operate in the UK. The minimum investment if you go direct to Vanguard is £100,000, but you can make smaller investments through a number of fund platforms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb87f734f496f7e34c6823d06400e3c0", "text": "If I were you, I would save 200 euros for retirement each month and another 800 I would stash away with the hope to start investing soon. I think you have to invest a bigger lump sum, then 1000 euros. It makes sense to invest at least 30K to see any tangible results. My acquaintances started from 50K and now see pretty handsome returns. Investing is profitable, as long as you approach it smartly. Also, do not ever hire an overly expensive financial consultant - this expenses will never pay off. Of course, check their credentials and reputation... But never pay much to these guys. Not worth it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "168c75be45ba473b7391fb8a0554acb8", "text": "Not if the bonuses are also on a grid. At my work it's the same way -- you get paid a certain amount for every year of tenure you have at the company (outside experience generally doesn't count) and then the bonus varies depending on how your performance rating goes. Everybody knows what the bonus levels are.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
161ac74dea913aaacf75b168cb5e1c83	Is the address on 1040 and MD resident 502 my previous address in 2013 or my current address?	[ { "docid": "3570202a951e258e2aedec8c92052c66", "text": "No, always give the most current address information to the IRS, not least because they will use this address to send you important communications, such as refund checks or notices of deficiency. Per the 1040 Instructions, you should put in your address, with no mention of past addresses. Moreover, if you will change addresses after filing, the IRS has provided Form 8822 to notify them of the new address. There is a similar Form 8822-B for business addresses. They will use your Social Security Number (SSN), Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), or Employer Identification Number (EIN) to track who you are. There's no point to purposely giving an invalid address, and in fact it's technically illegal since you will sign and certify the return as true and accurate to the best of your knowledge.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4d8e6721496b0d8ad288f2a00eb81a13", "text": "It matters because that is the requirement for the 83(b) selection to be valid. Since the context is 83(b) election, I assume you got stocks/options as compensation and didn't pay for them the FMV, thus it should have been included in your income for that year. If you didn't include the election letter - I can only guess that you also didn't include the income. Hence - you lost your election. If you did include the income and paid the tax accordingly, or if no tax was due (you actually paid the FMV), you may try amending the return and attaching the letter, but I'd suggest talking to a professional before doing it on your own. Make sure to keep a proof (USPS certified mailing receipt) of mailing the letter within the 30 days window.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71895907b50a404d9be614264fbc3feb", "text": "I did the reverse several years ago, moving from NH to MA. You will need to file Form 1-NR/PY for 2017, reporting MA income as a part-year residence. I assume you will need to report the April capital gain on your MA tax return, as you incurred the gain while a MA resident. (I am not a lawyer or tax professional, so I don't want to state anything about this as a fact, but I would be very surprised if moving after you incurred the gain would have any affect on where you report it.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07b529c7d2395c26971e103a1982d34f", "text": "While I agree with keshlam@ that the gym had no reason (or right) to ask for your SSN, giving false SSN to obtain credit or services (including gym membership) may be considered a crime. While courts disagree on whether you can be charged with identity theft in this scenario, you may very well be charged with fraud, and if State lines are crossed (which in case of store cards is likely the case) - it would be a Federal felony charge. Other than criminal persecution, obviously not paying your debt will affect your credit report. Since you provided false identity information, the negative report may not be matched to you right away, but it may eventually. In the case the lender discovers later that you materially misrepresented information on your mortgage application - they may call on your loan and either demand repayment in full at once or foreclose on you. Also, material misrepresentation of facts on loan application is also a criminal fraud. Again, if State lines are crossed (which in most cases, with mortgages they are), it becomes a Federal wire fraud case. On mortgage application you're required to disclose your debts, and that includes lines of credits (store cards and credit cards are the same thing) and unpaid debts (like your gym membership, if its in collection).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeebc508bfefe111c46e84ce20a5dafe", "text": "I heard from someone that since my friends are moving money to my account, I'm liable to be taxed by the IRS Not completely true. If there are large deposits in your account, you may be asked for clarification from IRS. If there is a reasonable justification; in your case the agreement that you are sharing the apartment, the lease deed has all the 3 names, there is explicit mention in lease about how funds are transferred. Note at times the audit maybe in future for quite a bit of past. Hence you would need to keep the record for quite some time. Alternative arrangements like opening a joint account and making payments from that account may make it easier from record keeping point of view.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe7d85584eb8be5e581108158378f96d", "text": "If it is your primary residence and you lived there continuously and for more than 2 years out of the last 5 - then you can exclude the gain under the IRC Sec. 121. In this case, you'll pay no taxes on your gain. If the property has been a rental or you haven't lived there long enough, the rules become more complicated but you may still be able to exclude some portion of the gain, even all of it, depends on the situation. So it doesn't look like 1031 exchange is good for you here, you don't want to carry excluded gain - you want to recognize it and get the tax benefit. However, refinancing after purchase with cash-out money affects the deductability of the loan interest. You can only deduct interest on money used to buy, not cash-out portion. I believe there's a period (60 days IIRC) during which you can do the cash-out refinance and still count it as purchase money, but check with a licensed tax advier (EA/CPA licensed in your State).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "feef8b5a56c1bdc4e84ebce030281578", "text": "It is also possible that the settlement company didn't tell the local government where to send the new tax bill. This would worry me because what else was missed regarding filing the proper documents with the lenders and the local government. It could also be a problem with the local government. Contact the settlement company or your attorney to get the issue resolved. If you owe the money you want to know; if the new owner owes the money they don't want to face a tax lien because the settlement company made a mistake. Generally this is split between the parties based on the number of days each will own the home. At settlement the money should move from one party to the other based on what has been deposited into escrow and when the actual bills are due. For example the payment for the first half of the year due July 1st may be sent in June. If the settlement was in June The new owner would give money to the old owner. But if settlement was in early July Money would move the other way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0882286a3e1d74b65a3bac64fc370be1", "text": "I think you should consult a professional with experience in 83(b) election and dealing with the problems associated with that. The cost of the mistake can be huge, and you better make sure everything is done properly. For starters, I would look at the copy of the letter you sent to verify that you didn't write the year wrong. I know you checked it twice, but check again. Tax advisers can call a dedicated IRS help line for practitioners where someone may be able to provide more information (with your power of attorney on file), and they can also request the copy of the original letter you've sent to verify it is correct. In any case, you must attach the copy of the letter you sent to your 2014 tax return (as this is a requirement for the election to be valid).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e274ec175a07406b483bff494df6ebd", "text": "\"This may be relevant: it suggests that IRS is lenient with the attachment of the form with 1040. To paraphrase: \"\"The ruling involved a taxpayer who timely filed the election with the IRS within 30 days of the property transfer but who did not attach a copy of the election to his or her Form 1040 for the year of the transfer. Fortunately for the taxpayer in question, the ruling indicated that the submission of the election to the IRS within 30 days of the property transfer fulfilled the requirements for a valid election, and the failure to attach the copy to the tax return did not affect the validity of the election. The IRS requested that the taxpayer forward a copy of the election to the IRS to be associated with the processing of the tax return. - See more at: http://www.bnncpa.com/services/employee_benefit_plans/blog/irs_rules_that_failure_to_attach_83b_election_to_form_1040_did_not_invalida#sthash.0c3h2nJY.dpuf\"\" If someone wants to grok the IRS ruling: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1405008.pdf And this is the article where I saw the above referenced. www.bnncpa.com/services/employee_benefit_plans/blog/irs_rules_that_failure_to_attach_83b_election_to_form_1040_did_not_invalida\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "856cabe1bfe439b5cf2a54cd3bd6375d", "text": "\"I have no personal knowledge of this company; I've only looked over what I found on the web. Overall, my judgement is that Pension Benefit Information, Inc. of San Rafael, CA is likely legitimate and aboutmyletter.com is one of two sites run by them (the other being pbinfo.com). These two sites are registered to Pension Benefit Information, Inc. (aboutmyletter uses Network Solutions privacy service but gives the company name; pbinfo uses their name and San Rafael address.) They are in the BBB. The president (of the 8 employee Co.), Susan McDonald, has testified (PDF on .gov site) before Congress about business uses of SSNs. They made a (very schlocky) video, which has an interview with McDonald after several canned, generic, \"\"impressive\"\" introductions. I found the interview convincing of a person actually running a small, real business of this type. A short version is on their site, long version here. There are some queries about their legitimacy online (like this one), but I found nothing negative on them, and one somewhat positive. One article talks about the suspicions they run into when contacting participants, and has some advice. Also, scammers are unlikely to pay the U.S. Postal Service money to send paper letters. So what are the dangers? Money or identity. So don't pay them any fees (now or later), especially since it looks like their clients (retirement funds) pay on the other side. As for identity information: What's in the letter? Don't they show that they already know a bunch about you? Old employer? Maybe the last four digits of your SSN? Your address (if this is not the forwarded-by-IRS type of contact letter). Other things, maybe? What information would you be giving up if you did respond to them fully? You could try contacting your old company directly (mentioning PBI, Inc,), although on their website PBI says you'll have to go through them. (They probably get paid for each successful contact, and deserve it.) Still, responding through mail or telephone to PBI seems like the reasonable thing to do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b6a35f1951cf41e56a1603955d3ac58", "text": "As I have worked for H&R Block I know for a fact that they record all your activity with them for future reference. If it is their opinion that you are obligated to use their service if you use some other service then this, most likely, will affect your future dealings with them. So, ask yourself this question: is reducing their income from you this year worth never being able to deal with them again in future years? The answer to that will give you the answer to your question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fabde7d45795614312a71467bc92b461", "text": "\"It is legal. They're probably going to give you a 1099-MISC, which is required of businesses for many cash payments over $600 in value to all sorts of counterparties. (Probably box 3 of 1099-MISC as is typical in \"\"cash for keys\"\" situations where one is paid to vacate early) A 1099-MISC is not necessarily pure income, but in this case, you do have money coming in. This money isn't a return of your security deposit or a gift. The payment could possibly be construed by you as a payment to make you whole, but the accounting for this would be on you. This is not a typical situation for IRS reporting. However, if you are uncomfortable with potentially explaining to the IRS how you implemented advice from strangers over the internet, the safest course is to report it all as income. Look at it this way: you did enter into a mutual contract, where you were paid consideration to release your leasehold interests in the property.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e315fc91c8c4152825de79bf564a253f", "text": "I will preface saying that I only have personal experience to go on (purchased home in KS earlier this year, and have purchased/sold a home in AR). You do not give the seller the document stating the amount you have been approved for. Your real estate agent (I recommend having one if you don't) will want to see it to make sure you will actually be able to purchase a house though. But the contract that is sent to the Seller states the total purchase price you are willing to pay and how much of that will be financed. Link to blank KS real estate contract shows what would be listed. Looks like it is from 2012 - it is similar to the one I had back in March, but not exactly the same format.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f468352bff9034dc8d747feea06a9d3c", "text": "\"I know nothing about this stuff. Am I in trouble? You might be. If you don't file your return the IRS may \"\"make up\"\" one for you based on the (partial) information they have. Then they'll assess taxes and penalties and will go after you to pay those. Will I be hit with interest/penalties? You may if any money is owed. You may also lose the refund if you wait for too long (3 years after the due date). You may also be hit with the penalties for non-filing/late filing by your State. Not owing to IRS doesn't mean you also don't owe to the State - you can get hit with interest and late payment penalties there too. He has all my paperwork (I probably have copies... somewhere...) Should I go somewhere else and start fresh? He must return all the original paperwork you gave him. He can be disbarred if he doesn't. If you did 2013 yourself - what was significantly different in 2012 that you couldn't do yourself? If nothing - then just do it yourself and be done with it. You can buy 2012 preparation software at very deep discounts now. Otherwise - yes, go somewhere else. Busy season is over and it shouldn't be difficult to find another preparer/EA/CPA to do the work for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac1b913c39ab30f29679bf9167b2f2b5", "text": "Hope you figure it out. There wouldn't be a different RFR / discount rate because you're assuming a return on parked cash - that's what it's for. Since both situations would theoretically happen simultaneously you use the same rate unless you would do something different with cash in each instance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6cdc4bc1296bfa5ec4aed75305e96a2", "text": "It looks like what you're calling a name change was registered as a merger that resulted in an exchange of stock. If that's the case, then what you've been told is correct. You've got one long-term sale and one short-term sale. Based a quick read of the Form 8937 that was filed, it looks like there were multiple entities involved in this event, more than one of which existed prior to it. https://www.mylan.com/-/media/mylancom/files/form%208937%20for%20mylan%20n%20v.pdf", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b4edf4f1ef798ebd525a68201cb1b358	Should I file a change of address with the IRS?	[ { "docid": "6a52d1b7bf78322f735fdfe93ad1477d", "text": "The most important thing to do when moving is to change your address with the post office. This will forward most mail for a year, and even automatically send change of address notices to many businesses that send mail to you. If you do this, and the IRS needs to send you something over the next year, you'll get it. The IRS does have a procedure for changing your address, and you would want to do this if you are expecting something from the IRS and are unable to do a change of address with the post office for some reason. But if you do forward your mail and you aren't expecting a refund check, I don't think it is necessary. The IRS will get your new address when you file your return next year.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "eccc86c65137baf66ef701e51c2ed47f", "text": "You put your Michigan address. The incorporation address is of no concern for the IRS, they couldn't care less where you're incorporated - it has no effect on your tax liability. The address is used when audited, and the IRS expects you to give the address where the records are (i.e.: where the business, aka you, is physically located).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9574f0e2fb0fbf836e189b29db9332cd", "text": "\"If the IRS changes your return in any way (including math errors) - they send a letter explaining the change and the reasons for it. You should read that letter, it will answer your question (Usually its a CP12 notice). If you didn't receive it - you can call them and ask to resend it (they're unlikely to answer over the phone, but you can try asking). I'm confused by your using the word \"\"estimate\"\". Your tax return is not supposed to be estimate, it supposed to be precise. Why are you considering your tax return \"\"estimate\"\"? If your filed tax return shows refund of $X and you received $X+$180 - then as I said, a letter of explanation from the IRS is due. If you don't know what the refund amount on your return is and you're trying to \"\"estimate\"\" it now - you better get a copy of that return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9dca32b8177f2bddd8208506c0d1b84", "text": "You proceed with a proper legal advice. You should not ignore IRS letters. You should have taken your chances in trying to reach a compromise with them, but that ship has likely sailed already. You might want to consider bankruptcy. Ask your parents for a couple of hundreds of dollars to pay for a legal consultation with a lawyer and a CPA and proceed from there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97336ce35e043e2b0283be57f1a75128", "text": "In how much trouble can I get exactly if the IRS finds out? I understand that there's a 6 year statute of limitations on criminal charges and no limitation at all on fraud. Is this considered fraud? I'm assuming not. There's no statute of limitations for fraud (which is a criminal charge). The statute of limitations is for failure to report income which is not fraud. In your case, since you willingly decided to not report it knowingly that you should, it can most definitely account for fraud, so I wouldn't count on statute of limitations in this case. I should amend my taxes for those years That would be the easiest way to go. would the IRS go all the way and file criminal charges considering the amount of money I owe They have the legal right to, and if you do get caught - likely they will. Easy money for them, since you obviously have income and can pay all the fines and penalties. Practically speaking, what's the worst case scenario? Theoretically - can be jail as well. Being charged in a criminal court, even if the eventual punishment is just a penalty, is a punishment of its own. You'll have troubles finding jobs, passing security checks, getting loans approved, etc. For $3200, when you're in 25% bracket as an individual for years, I'd say not worth it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1513d548321287b8b1ab7d6ac433981", "text": "\"Buried on the IRS web site is the \"\"Fillable Forms Error Search Tool\"\". Rather than including an explanation of errors in the rejection email itself, you're expected to copy and paste the error email into this form, which gives more details about what's wrong. (Don't blame me; I didn't design it.) If I copy your error message in, here's the response I get: There is an error with the “primary taxpayer’s Date of Birth” in Step 2 Section 4. The date of birth that was entered does not match IRS records. Make sure you enter the correct birth date, in the correct format, in the correct space. Scroll down, and enter the current date (“Today’s date”). Today’s date is the day you intend to e-file the return again. Also, if you are making an electronic payment you must re-date that section. E-File your return. You say that you've already checked your birthday, so I don't know as this is particularly helpful. If you're confident that it's correct and in the right place, I think your next step needs to be contacting the IRS directly. They have a link at the bottom of the error lookup response on how to contact them specifically about their solution not working, or you could try contacting your local IRS office or giving them a call.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9760eb01c9865d9e976ff2bb5d0ca757", "text": "I'm not an attorney, nor am I a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you talk to these two types of professionals. From my limited knowledge, without proper documentation/organization, I can't see how the IRS/State will not consider this as a rent payment. The mortgage responsibility is of the person signing the mortgage contract, and you're under no obligation to pay that person anything. Had you not lived at the property, you might argue that it was a gift (although I'm not sure if it would stand), but since you do live in the property - it is quite obviously a rent payment. Putting your name on the deed may mitigate this slightly but I'm not sure how much - since you're still not obligated to pay the mortgage. However this is probably moot since it is unlikely for a bank to give a mortgage on a property to person A when it is also owned by a person B, without that person B being side to the mortgage contract.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a11834365a486a06411dce06c9b09bb", "text": "\"The wire is probably the quick way to go. There may be a lower cost method through an international bank like Citi or HSBC. If you are a US resident or have a \"\"substantial presence\"\" in the United States, the IRS may be interested in the origins of your money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7e3d7a58663bf7892905e74ddb6346a", "text": "\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5585aaa5c498c78f143339441300c8fa", "text": "Why not just leave it as is and register as foreign entity in New Mexico? You won't avoid the gross receipts tax, but other than that - everything stays as is. Unless Illinois has some taxes that you would otherwise not pay - just leave it there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02c78bcfa77c8f9dce19cef17e2a50db", "text": "It will not affect your tax bracket so long as he files his taxes. It will not affect your credit negatively so long as the joint account takes out no debts. If it does take out debts, then someone would need to pay them to avoid negative credit. Ideally debts should take signatures from both of you (ask the bank). The IRS will not automatically assume that the only reason that two people might have a joint account is illegal activities. If he withdraws money from the account in such a way to cause an overdraft, you might be responsible for it. However, it sounds like he isn't supposed to be withdrawing money from that account. So that's a potential problem but not a guaranteed problem. Make sure that you have the power to close the account without him (so if you break up later, you can take your name off unilaterally). Realize that you might have to pay a little to close the account if he overdraws it. If possible, have the bank refuse overdrafts. Consider a savings account rather than a checking account. The rules may better fit what you want to do. In particular, if you are limited to transfers, that's safer than checks. Schedule a time to talk to someone at the bank about the account. Ask them to leave plenty of time because you have questions. Explain what you want and let them tell you how to structure the account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79702816dfe3554f3eae54d04ca87ae3", "text": "I suggest you talk to a New York-licensed tax adviser (EA or NY-licensed CPA). New York is very aggressive when it comes to residency determination, and given your facts and circumstances you may end up being considered NY resident despite relocating to Florida. If you maintain a studio in NY, I'd say 99% chance is that you remain NY resident for the whole year (but verify with a professional).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "614098cccc7c2833b8fc3c2452d2e12c", "text": "\"Ditto @GradeEhBacon, but let me add a couple of comments: But more relevantly: GradeEhBacon mentioned transaction costs. Yes. Many tax shelters require setting up accounts, doing paperwork, etc. Often you have to get a lawyer or accountant to do this right. If the tax shelter could save you $1 million a year in taxes, it makes sense to pay a lawyer $10,000 to set it up right. If it could save you $100 a year in taxes, paying $10,000 to set it up would be foolish. In some cases the tax savings would be so small that it wouldn't be worth the investment of spending $20 on a FedEx package to ship the paperwork. Inconvenience. Arguably this is a special case of transaction costs: the cost of your time. Suppose I knew that a certain tax shelter would save me $100 a year in taxes, but it would take me 20 hours a year to do the paperwork or whatever to manage it. I probably wouldn't bother, because my free time is worth more than $5 an hour to me. If the payoff was bigger or if I was poorer, I might be willing. Complexity. Perhaps a special case of 3. If the rules to manage the tax shelter are complicated, it may not be worth the trouble. You have to spend a bunch of time, and if you do it wrong, you may get audited and slapped with fines and penalties. Even if you do it right, a shelter might increase your chance of being audited, and thus create uncertainty and anxiety. I've never intentionally cheated on my taxes, but every year when I do my taxes I worry, What if I make an honest mistake but the government decides that it's attempted fraud and nails me to the wall? Qualification. Again, as others have noted, tax shelters aren't generally, \"\"if you fill out this form and check box (d) you get 50% off on your taxes\"\". The shelters exist because the government decided that it would be unfair to impose taxes in this particular situation, or that giving a tax break encourages investment, or some other worthy goal. (Sometimes that worthy goal is \"\"pay off my campaign contributors\"\", but that's another subject.) The rules may have unintended loopholes, but any truly gaping ones tend to get plugged. So if, say, they say that you get a special tax break for investing in medical research, you can't just declare that your cigarette and whiskey purchases are medical research and claim the tax break. Or you talked about off-shore tax havens. The idea here is that the US government cannot tax income earned in another country and that has never even entered the US. If you make $10 in France and deposit it in a French bank account and spend it in France, the US can't tax that. So American companies sometimes set up bank accounts outside the US to hold income earned outside the US, so they don't have to bring it into the US and pay the high US tax rate. (US corporate taxes are now the highest of any industrialized country.) You could, I suppose, open an account in the Caymans and deposit the income you earned from your US job there. But if the money was earned in the US, working at a factory or office in the US, by a person living in the US, the IRS is not going to accept that this is foreign income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e725b58b1b28fc1dfc5ca7b43ed7c8f", "text": "\"Did it show just your address, or was your name on it as well? You didn't share how long you've lived at the address either, so it makes me wonder whether a former tenant is the one who filed that paperwork. It's also possible that someone used your address when making a filing. Whether that was deliberate or accidental is hard to discern, as is their intent if it was intentional. It could be accidental -- someone picked \"\"CA\"\" for California when they meant to pick \"\"CO\"\" for Colorado or \"\"CT\"\" for Connecticut...These things do happen. It can't make you feel any better about the situation though. You should be able to go online to the California Secretary of State's website (here) and look up everything filed by the LLC with the state. That will show who the founders were and everything else that is a matter of public record on the LLC. At the very least, you can obtain the registered agent's name and address for the LLC, which you can then use to contact them and ask why your address is listed as the LLC's business address. Once you have that info, you can then contact the Secretary of State and tell them it isn't you so they can do whatever is necessary to correct this. This doesn't sound like a difficult matter to clear up, but it's important to do your homework first and gather as much information as you can before you call the state. Answering \"\"I don't know\"\" won't get you very far with them compared to having the best answers you can about where the mistake started. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49beb5701fd58d0437b4ff5bea88d312", "text": "I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4df5bb9fc859ff7e608102a75e71a935", "text": "\"If you are a telecommuter and in good terms with your employer, then all you need is contact your employer and explain your situation. Ask them for a short letter that indicates: \"\"1. they require you to work from a privately rented office (or from a home office for those who prefer working from home), 2. this is one of the terms of your employment, and, 3. they will not reimburse you for this expense.\"\" With this letter in your hand, you satisify both the \"\"convenience of employer\"\" test AND the deduction of the rent for your private office as a unreimbursed employee expense. The IRS cannot expect your employer to open an office branch in your city just for your sake, nor can they expect you to commute to your employer's city for work, which is an impossiblity considering the distance. Additionally, the IRS cannot \"\"force\"\" telecommuters to work from home. The key is to get a letter from your employer. You'd be surprised how easily they are willing to write such letter for you.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
28c7b6c317811d118df97404ed186d2b	What evidence or research suggests that mid- or small-capitalization stocks should perform better than large caps?	[ { "docid": "bf6022bc93687e36f52a30b212aea8d4", "text": "I think it's safe to say that Apple cannot grow in value in the next 20 years as fast as it did in the prior 20. It rose 100 fold to a current 730B valuation. 73 trillion dollars is nearly half the value of all wealth in the world. Unfortunately, for every Apple, there are dozens of small companies that don't survive. Long term it appears the smaller cap stocks should beat large ones over the very long term if only for the fact that large companies can't maintain that level of growth indefinitely. A non-tech example - Coke has a 174B market cap with 46B in annual sales. A small beverage company can have $10M in sales, and grow those sales 20-25%/year for 2 decades before hitting even $1B in sales. When you have zero percent of the pie, it's possible to grow your business at a fast pace those first years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d10eb268437ac3cb2c275b49b796db2d", "text": "From Dimson, Elroy, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton. Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2002: Disappointingly, the small firm effect has not proved the road to great riches since soon after its discovery, the US size premium went into reverse. This was repeated in the United Kingdom and virtually all other markets around the world. Despite their disappointing performance in recent years, the very long-run record of small-caps remains one of outperformance in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, mid- and small-size companies are still an important asset class. Their differential performance over long periods of history shows that there is useful scope for investors to reduce risk by diversifying across the “large” and the “small” capitalization sectors of the market. Furthermore, given the pervasiveness of the size effect across the entire size spectrum, it is important to all investors since the size tilt of any portfolio will strongly influence its short- and long-run performance. This holds true whether there is a size premium or a size discount. The size effect has certainly proved persistent and robust. What is at issue is whether we should continue to expect a size premium over the longer haul. And accompanying charts: And one chart from BlackRock:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3221ea586106f111e68b463d6aeb1d53", "text": "Efficient Frontier has an article from years ago about the small-cap and value premiums out there that would be worth noting here using the Fama and French data. Eugene Fama and Kenneth French (F/F) have shown that one can explain almost all of the returns of equity portfolios based on only three factors: market exposure, market capitalization (size), and price-to-book (value). Wikipedia link to the factor model which was the result of the F/F research.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "22b1ea9120af491bb5ea89dbba820eb4", "text": "\"Thanks for pointing out [the study](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1748851). It's a slightly different cause than what I was describing when I posted this. Specifically, they show an effect not when the names get confused, but rather when the name similarity simply brings more attention to the stock. I was surprised nobody mentioned that in response to my post. But also interesting is that they had to control for simple confusion between stock symbols, which implies that ticker confusion has a known effect. So I dug into research on that and quickly found [this study](http://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/EFMA%20ANNUAL%20MEETINGS/2010-Aarhus/EFMA2010_0161_fullpaper.pdf) found \"\"a high positive correlation between returns on two matching stocks with similar ticker symbols\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc", "text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7bdf878050a0ce633c13691f39664af", "text": "Volume and prices are affected together by how folks feel about the stock; there is no direct relationship between them. There are no simple analysis techniques that work. Some would argue strongly that there are few complex analysis techniques that work either, and that for anyone but full-time professionals. And there isn't clear evidence that the full-time professionals do sufficiently better than index funds to justify their fees. For most folks, the best bet is to diversify, using low-overhead index funds, and simply ride with the market rather than trying to beat it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62f08eaa49bccd9597553e00a23f7716", "text": "\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e152f6b5bba8fdb5ea92ad24f628b2ec", "text": "\"To answer your question directly.. you can investigate by using google or other means to look up research done in this area. There's been a bunch of it Here's an example of search terms that returns a wealth of information. effect+of+periodic+rebalancing+on+portfolio+return I'd especially look for stuff that appears to be academic papers etc, and then raid the 'references' section of those. Look for stuff published in industry journals such as \"\"Journal of Portfolio Management\"\" as an example. If you want to try out different models yourself and see what works and what doesn't, this Monte Carlo Simulator might be something you would find useful The basic theory for those that don't know is that various parts of a larger market do not usually move in perfect lockstep, but go through cycles.. one year tech might be hot, the next year it's healthcare. Or for an international portfolio, one year korea might be doing fantastic only to slow down and have another country perform better the next year. So the idea of re-balancing is that since these things tend to be cyclic, you can get a higher return if you sell part of a slice that is doing well (e.g. sell at the high) and invest it in one that is not (buy at the low) Because you do this based on some criteria, it helps circumvent the human tendency to 'hold on to a winner too long' (how many times have you heard someone say 'but it's doing so well, why do I want to sell now\"\"? presuming trends will continue and they will 'lose out' on future gains, only to miss the peak and ride the thing down back into mediocrity.) Depending on the volatility of the specific market, and the various slices, using re balancing can get you a pretty reasonable 'lift' above the market average, for relatively low risk. generally the more volatile the market, (such as say an emerging markets portfolio) the more opportunity for lift. I looked into this myself a number of years back, the concensus I came was that the most effective method was to rebalance based on 'need' rather than time. Need is defined as one or more of the 'slices' in your portfolio being more than 8% above or below the average. So you use that as the trigger. How you rebalance depends to some degree on if the portfolio is taxable or not. If in a tax deferred account, you can simply sell off whatever is above baseline and use it to buy up the stuff that is below. If you are subject to taxes and don't want to trigger any short term gains, then you may have to be more careful in terms of what you sell. Alternatively if you are adding funds to the portfolio, you can alter how your distribute the new money coming into the portfolio in order to bring up whatever is below the baseline (which takes a bit more time, but incurs no tax hit) The other question is how will you slice a given market? by company size? by 'sectors' such as tech/finance/industrial/healthcare, by geographic regions?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2aa8f9bc9b2fedb0eef66df8b2eea64f", "text": "Smaller markets can actually be more volatile so it's not a good idea to lower Graham's criteria for them. The only real adjustment possible is inflation adjustment. $100 million in 1973 United States works out to $500 million today based on the difference in CPI/Inflation from 1973. This number will be different for other markets where the rate of inflation since 1973 has been different. So the real question to ask is - what is to $100 million in the United States in 1973 worth today in your market? Source: http://www.serenitystocks.com/how-build-complete-benjamin-graham-portfolio", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3834023eee46345c1a76dc2fc03ec2f", "text": "Here is one the links for Goldmansachs. Not to state the obvious, but most of their research is only available to their clients. http://www.goldmansachs.com/research/equity_ratings.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f619457d2ac508e86957b06260510702", "text": "\"This is a really interesting question and something a lot of work is being done to understand. I'm going to look at the closely related question \"\"Do non market-cap etf weighting methods consistently outperform once you take into account their investment biases?\"\" Let's use revenue weighting as a reason why investment biases are so important. In revenue weighting, you would own almost no fast-growing tech companies as they generally have little revenue. This sounds great if we are talking about say Pets.com in the late 90s but you also would miss most of the rise of Google. To believe in these ETFs consistently outperform (adjusted for risk) you would have to have a strong reason to believe that earnings, sales, or dividends are a better predictor of company value than market value. Market analysts include the above three metrics and many more when pricing stocks so out-performance using only one of the above metrics seems unlikely. There is one caveat to this and that is value and small cap stocks have been shown to give slightly better risk-adjusted returns in the very long run (see Fama/French) and many of these alternative weighting methods will have a value or small cap bias. First, it is unclear if this out-performance will continue now that it is more widely known. Second, even if you believe this will continue you can more easily and cheaply get this bias though value/small-cap etfs than these weighting schemes. In the end, the only thing that is perfectly clear is that higher fee investments will generally under-perform.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a90095b3459dd36af8cddddb5c90d453", "text": "You're not seeing the forest for the trees. Proper capital allocation takes diligent research from a community in choosing the best prospects. That community then supports LONG-TERM investment in that company. This is how proper companies are fostered; proper research is done; technologies advance, societies develop. Long-term investment leads to proper capital allocation. Please do tell me how short-term investment has any value in proper capital allocation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22a624586462392a84b59b2656031d90", "text": "Why would it not make more sense to invest in a handful of these heavyweights instead of also having to carry the weight of the other 450 (some of which are mostly just baggage)? First, a cap-weighted index fund will invest more heavily in larger cap companies, so the 'baggage' you speak of does take up a smaller percentage of the portfolio's value (not that cap always equates to better performance). There are also equal-weighted index funds where each company in the index is given equal weight in the portfolio. If you could accurately pick winners and losers, then of course you could beat index funds, but on average they've performed well enough that there's little incentive for the average investor to look elsewhere. A handful of stocks opens you up to more risk, an Enron in your handful would be pretty devastating if it comprised a large percentage of your portfolio. Additionally, since you pay a fee on each transaction ($5 in your example), you have to out-perform a low-fee index fund significantly, or be investing a very large amount of money to come out ahead. You get diversification and low-fees with an index fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa196599aea1fbefd2765f38b644ff1f", "text": "\"This is a good question and my answer below, being the first rationale that crossed my mind, is far from fleshed-out. It's just a reply based on many books on the historical cycles of markets and it's something I've discussed at work (I work in finance). Historically we can observe that periods of financial \"\"booms\"\" entailing high valuations of public equities tend to lead to lower returns. It's a fairly simplistic notion, but if you're paying more now for something - when it's potentially close to a high water mark - then you're returns in the short term are likely to be somewhat stunted. Returns from the underlying companies have a hard time keeping up with high valuations such that investors aren't likely to see a bountiful return in the short run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2f7ad0541af31f8d8438cfa6e0f8f23", "text": "In less than two decades, more than half of all publicly traded companies have disappeared. There were 7,355 U.S. stocks in November 1997, according to the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. Nowadays, there are fewer than 3,600. A close look at the data helps explain why stock pickers have been underperforming. And the shrinking number of companies should make all investors more skeptical about the market-beating claims of recently trendy strategies. Back in November 1997, there were more than 2,500 small stocks and nearly 4,000 tiny “microcap” stocks, according to CRSP. At the end of 2016, fewer than 1,200 small and just under 1,900 microcap stocks were left. Most of those companies melted away between 2000 and 2012, but the numbers so far show no signs of recovering. Several factors explain the shrinking number of stocks, analysts say, including the regulatory red tape that discourages smaller companies from going and staying public; the flood of venture-capital funding that enables young companies to stay private longer; and the rise of private-equity funds, whose buyouts take shares off the public market. For stock pickers, differentiating among the remaining choices is “an even harder game” than it was when the market consisted of twice as many companies, says Michael Mauboussin, an investment strategist at Credit Suisse in New York who wrote a report this spring titled “The Incredible Shrinking Universe of Stocks.” That’s because the surviving companies tend to be “fewer, bigger, older, more profitable and easier to analyze,” he says — making stock picking much more competitive. Consider small-stock funds. Often, they compare themselves to the Russell 2000, an index of the U.S. stocks ranked 1,001 through 3,000 by total market value. “Twenty years ago, there were over 4,000 stocks smaller” than the inclusion cutoff for the Russell 2000, says Lubos Pastor, a finance professor at the University of Chicago. “That number is down to less than 1,000 today.” So fund managers have far fewer stocks to choose from if they venture outside the index — the very area where the best bargains might be found. More money chasing fewer stocks could lead some fund managers to buy indiscriminately, regardless of value. Eric Cinnamond is a veteran portfolio manager with a solid record of investing in small stocks. Last year, he took the drastic step of shutting down his roughly $400 million mutual fund, Aston/River Road Independent Value, and giving his investors their money back. “Prices got so crazy in small caps, I fired myself,” he says. “My portfolio was 90% in cash at the end, because I couldn’t find anything to buy. If I’d kept investing, I was sure I’d lose people their money.” He adds, “It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done professionally, but I didn’t feel I had a choice. I knew my companies were overvalued.” Mr. Cinnamond hopes to return to the market when, in his view, values become attractive again. He doesn’t expect recent conditions to be permanent. The evaporation of thousands of companies may have one enduring result, however — and it could catch many investors by surprise. Most research on historical returns, points out Mr. Mauboussin, is based on the days when the stock market had twice as many companies as it does today. “Was the population of companies so different then,” he asks, “that the inferences we draw from it might no longer be valid?” So-called factor investing, also known as systematic or smart-beta investing, picks hundreds or thousands of stocks at a time based on common sources of risk and return. Among them: how big companies are, how much their shares fluctuate, how expensive their shares are relative to asset value and so on. But the historical outperformance of many such factors may have been driven largely by the tiniest companies — exactly those that have disappeared from the market in droves. Before concluding that small stocks or cheap “value” stocks will outrace the market as impressively as they did in the past, you should pause to consider how they will perform without the tailwinds from thousands of tiny stocks that no longer exist. The stock market has more than tripled in the past eight years, so the eclipse of so many companies hasn’t been a catastrophe. But it does imply that investing in some of the market’s trendiest strategies might be less profitable in the future than they looked in the past.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1dc5ad53dbebd7ef9cc8e2a028298b67", "text": "\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be1fa1dd1241182e1c2149af0395dc19", "text": "Conglomerates don't work. We've seem thay countless times in countless periods in countless places in history... A focused company will always outperform an unfocused company in the long run... Grocery stores trade at tiny multiples. Tech firms at massive multiples. The instant you buy a 3x EBITDA when you're trading at 15x EBITDA, you've increased the market value of the acquired firm by 5x...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4d030a54052cb3d51590f518fd22cdc", "text": "What you were told isn't an absolute truth, so trying to counter something fundamentally flawed won't get you anywhere. For example: chinese midcap equities are up 20% this year, even from their high of 100%. While the BSE Sensex in India is down several percentage points on the year. Your portfolio would have lost money this year taking advice from your peers. The fluctuation in the rupees and remnibi would not have changed this fact. What you are asking is a pretty common area of research, as in several people will write their dissertation on the exact same topic every year, and you should be able to find various analysis and theories on the subject. But the macroeconomic landscape changes, a lot.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8ec9bb47841d9f9d1227102d6136538d	Warren and it's investments [duplicate]	[ { "docid": "089a5ec00ca7984dbdec7f503440b6e2", "text": "If I were in your shoes I would concentrate now on investing in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool is your income. Going to school is great, make sure you can finish. Also is there additional coursework you can obtain that might help boost your salary? I would look for course in the following areas that might be outside your core competency: After that I would concentrate on some books that will help you in your journey. However, I would not start investing until you have a well paying full time job: That will get you started.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9b203f5e786001b6923c2aee538fae4e", "text": "Personally, I invest in mutual funds. Quite a bit in index funds, some in capital growth & international.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a03c953af7e493438d0b7e0261d42eb", "text": "\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "062a414f5fbe9238aa7c8c05efd34e9e", "text": "> it seems like they pretty much sit in offices and crunch numbers, mostly figuring out how to structure deals, and whatnot. That's mainly true for VP below. Investment decisions are made by more senior people that sit on investment committees. Not all PE firms focus on operational improvements but some hire industry experts (e.g. former CEOs) and then help smaller firms with their expertise but also access to cheaper financing. E.g. sometimes PE firms would buy some small firms and create a big company out of them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b8c060e6bac93f266e126bd89410858", "text": "stimulate $1 trillion in infrastructure expenditures over 10 years by granting $137 billion in tax credits to private investors - over 10 years this trillion seems the same as we have before: * [Road infrastructure investment in the US, 1995 to 2015](https://www.reportlinker.com/data/series/oJRgKMNK7JM) - $94M in 2015 * [Rail infrastructure investment in the US 1995 to 2015](https://www.reportlinker.com/data/series/IOc4fG3MgKM) - $17M in 2015", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82f557e3bc6679dec9faab7b6e58cc05", "text": "Vanguard offers an index fund. Their FTSE Social Index Fund. For more information on it, go here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0558ed6d09ea4a81858a6f2c0b2fc66e", "text": "Oh woohooo . . .and its all a great investment AAA . .you have to buy and when we do . .it goes straight down because we find the biggest seller was Morgan and Stanley Yah. . .we know that game really well now . .always buy the good news Build some fucking public toilets", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9a364385b7cd1efc9c1bbe8b0eb5ff3", "text": "I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02382e9730d0476bf5a1918851d312c7", "text": "\"Classic investing guru Benjamin Graham defines \"\"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return.\"\" He contrasts this with speculation which is anything else (no thorough analysis, no safety of principal, or no adequate return). The word \"\"adequate\"\" is important, since it contrasts adequate returns with those that are either lower than needed or higher than necessary to reach your goals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f175d50b874cfd98fd91db1fb224437", "text": "\"I am reminded of a dozen year old dialog. I asked my 6 year old, \"\"If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?\"\" She replied, \"\"Four, you can call it anything you want, but the dog still has four legs.\"\" Early on in my marriage, my wife was heading out to the mall, and remarked that she was \"\"going to invest in a new pair of shoes.\"\" I explained to her that while I was happy she would have new shoes to wear, words have meaning, and unless she was going to buy the ruby red slippers Dorothy wore in the Wizard of Oz, or Elvis' Blue Suede Shoes, her's were not expected to rise in value and weren't an investment. Some discussion followed, and we agreed even the treadmill, which is now 20 years old, was not an 'investment' despite the fact that it saved us more than its cost in a combined 40 years of gym memberships we did not buy. In the end, no one who is financially savvy calls a lottery ticket an investment, and few who buy them acknowledge that it's simply throwing money away.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9899673a835b874e0b5f5165967076ed", "text": "> it makes US investments even better because the rate of return gets boosted higher. Except it doesn't. Do they really teach this? Does anyone have a link to textbook thinking on this subject, because that's a blatant lie and might explain why so many people understand the dynamics at work here completely wrong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "547c5288c6257859afa48a19b2a24f88", "text": "\"As an aside, why does it seem to be difficult to get a conclusive answer to this question? I'm going to start by trying to answer this question and I think the answer here will help answer the other questions. Here is a incomplete list of the challenges involved: So my question is, is there any evidence that value investing actually beats the market? Yes there is a lot of evidence that it works and there is a lot of evidence that it does not. timday's has a great link on this. Some rules/methods work over some periods some work during others. The most famous evidence for value investing probably comes from Fama and French who were very careful and clever in solving many of the above problems and had a large persistent data set, but their idea is very different from Damodaran's, for instance, and hard to implement though getting easier. Is the whole field a waste of time? Because of the above problems this is a hard question. Some people like Warren Buffet have clearly made a lot of money doing this. Though it is worth remembering a good amount of the money these famous investors make is off of fees for investing other peoples' money. If you understand fundamental analysis well you can get a job making a lot of money doing it for a company investing other peoples' money. The markets are very random that it is very hard for people to tell if you are good at it and since markets generally go up it is easy to claim you are making money for people, but clearly banks and hedge funds see significant value in good analysts so it is likely not entirely random. Especially if you are a good writer you can make a more money here than most other jobs. Is it worth it for the average investor saving for retirement? Very, very hard to say. Your time might be better spent on your day job if you have one. Remember because of the fees and added risk involved over say index investing more \"\"Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e94e5d41bae9c399526f9811866f985", "text": "It's quite alright, it's been over a decade since he passed so I'm not particularly sensitive about it any more. I'll have a look at investopedia, but what I'm mainly interested in is private equity. I wanted to ask directly about that, but I feel that I need a frame of reference to understand what's going on. As in, I doubt I'd be able to really get private equity without first having an understanding of public trading. Is this subreddit really that reputable? I've learned to not really trust reddit, for the most part. Is there some kind of curation here?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7068685da6d41e4de33c1724134345", "text": "From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f72096078666904daa338a9408f0f8e9", "text": "Do you think Buffet's track record is a result of luck? Also it is tough to compare Singer and Buffet because their strategies are so different. Paul Singer's investing focuses on activism & distress, whereas Buffet is a value investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f23416c0ae6956ee2796889c0c53fa72", "text": "Fahad, in finance we make a distinction between investments that tend to grow in value and assets that hold value. Investments that grow in value are generally related to investing in well-thought out businesses. Investments can be done in retirement accounts through stocks and bonds but also owning part of a business directly. Good investments make more and more money off the money you put in. Common examples of assets include gold and other non-productive property like real-estate you don't rent or cars. You can even have some assets in your retirement account as many would argue government bonds behave like assets. All of these things tend to (more or less) go up in value as the cost of everything goes up in value, but don't tend to make you any excess money in the long run. There is certainly a place for both investments and assets. Especially as a young person it is good to lean toward investments as you likely have a lot of time for the money to grow as you get older. As RonJohn suggests, in the United States this is fairly easy as retirement accounts are common there is a long history of stable financial law even in crises. Pakistan's institutions are fairly stable and improving but still assets and investments of all types can be riskier. So, I recommend taking your father's advice... partially. Having some assets are good in riskier situations, but good investments are generally the way to grow comfortably wealthy. A good mix of the two is the way to grow wealthy slowly while protecting yourself from risk. You, your father and your neighbors know you local situation better than I, who has only visited a number of Pakistan's neighboring countries, so I can't really give more detailed advice but hopefully this gets you started.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3723a4fdaad705ab05c7ea8082883767	High-risk investing is better for the young? Why?	[ { "docid": "7294853a49f545ac4cd90e8e3e97f261", "text": "What is the importance or benefit of the assumption that high-risk is preferable for younger people/investors instead of older people? Law of averages most high risk investments [stocks for examples, including Mutual funds]. Take any stock market [some have data for nearly 100 years] on a 15 year or 30 years horizon, the year on year growth is around 15 to 18 percentage. Again depends on which country, market etc ... Equally important every stock market in the same 15 year of 30 year time, if you take specific 3 year window, it would have lost 50% or more value. As one cannot predict for future, someone who is 55 years, if he catches wrong cycle, he will lose 50%. A young person even if he catches the cycle and loses 50%, he can sit tight as it will on 30 years average wipe out that loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0a96be69a097f0ddb3916ff126d5baa", "text": "The reason that you are advised to take more risk while you are young is because the risk is often correlated to a short investment horizon. Young people have 40-50 years to let their savings grow if they get started early enough. If you need the money in 5-15 years (near the end of your earning years), there is much more risk of a dip that will not correct itself before you need the money than if you don't need the money for 25-40 years (someone whose career is on the rise). The main focus for the young should be growth. Hedging your investments with gold might be a good strategy for someone who is worried about the volatility of other investments, but I would imagine that gold will only reduce your returns compared to small-cap stocks, for example. If you are looking for more risk, you can leverage some of your money and buy call options to increase the gains with upward market moves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e256880a79a54701a562389d0a2fd2ab", "text": "If you spent your whole life earning the same portfolio that amounts $20,000, the variance and volatility of watching your life savings drop to $10,000 overnight has a greater consequence than for someone who is young. This is why riskier portfolios aren't advised for older people closer to or within retirement age, the obvious complementary group being younger people who could lose more with lesser permanent consequence. Your high risk investment choices have nothing to do with your ability to manage other people's money, unless you fail to make a noteworthy investment return, then your high risk approach will be the death knell to your fund managing aspirations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "662eb29ae1c627e71fd606bad9f67009", "text": "There's two reasons. One is that you have a longer time horizon, other answers cover that. The second is that for someone who is younger, most of their capital is human capital in terms of their future work output (and earnings). If you're 25 and your $20,000 portfolio gets wiped out, that's only a small amount of your total earnings. You still have 45 years in which to earn money (and invest it). If you're 65 and your $1,000,000 portfolio gets wiped out, you're in much bigger trouble. Note that this means that in certain circumstances, a younger investor would want to be more conservative. If you're 25, but got a million dollar settlement for an injury which means you can't work anymore, you want to be more conservative than your average 25-year-old. If you're 65, and just sold a business for which you get $1,000,000 in two years, you can be more aggressive with your currently invest-able portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3a90085114bcdc92d97809050fef1f2", "text": "I'm going to diverge from most of the opinions expressed here. It is common for financial advisors to assume that your portfolio should become less risky as you get older. Explanations for this involve hand-waving and saying that you can afford to lose money when young because you have time to make up for it later. However, the idea that portfolios should become less risky as you get older is not well-grounded in finance theory. According to finance theory, regardless of your age and wealth, returns are desirable and risk is undesirable. Your risk aversion is the only factor that should decide how much risk you put in your portfolio. Do people become more risk averse as they get older? Sometimes. Not always. In fact, there are theoretical reasons why people might want more aggressive portfolios as they age. For example: As people become wealthier they generally become less risk averse. Young people are not normally very wealthy. When you are young, most of your wealth is tied up in the value of your human capital. This wealth shifts into your portfolio as you age. Depending on your field, human capital can be extremely risky--much riskier than the market. Therefore to maintain anything like a constant risk profile over your life, you may want very safe investments when young. You mention being a hedge fund manager. If we enter a recession, your human capital will take a huge hit because you will have a hard time raising money or getting/keeping a job. No one will value your skills and your future career prospects will fall. You will not want the double whammy of large losses in your portfolio. Hedge fund managers are clear examples of people who will want a very safe personal portfolio during their early working years and may be willing to invest very aggressively in their later working and early retirement years. In short, the received wisdom that portfolios should start out risky and get safer as we age is not always, and perhaps not even usually, true. A better guide to how much risk you should have in your portfolio is how you respond to questions that directly measure your risk aversion. This questions ask things like how much you would pay to avoid the possibility of a 20% loss in your portfolio with a certain probability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "231edf979c5c89266277168a74e11be4", "text": "\"There is no rule-of-thumb that fits every person and every situation. However, the reasons why this advice is generally applicable to most people are simple. Why it is good to be more aggressive when you are young The stock market has historically gone up, on average, over the long term. However, on its way up, it has ups and downs. If you won't need your investment returns for many years to come, you can afford to put a large portion of your investment into the volatile stock market, because you have plenty of time for the market to recover from temporary downturns. Why it is good to be more conservative when you are older Over a short-term period, there is no certainty that the stock market will go up. When you are in retirement, most people withdraw/sell their investments for income. (And once you reach a certain age, you are required to withdraw some of your retirement savings.) If the market is in a temporary downturn, you would be forced to \"\"sell low,\"\" losing a significant portion of your investment. Exceptions Of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines. If you are a young person who can't help but watch your investments closely and gets depressed when seeing the value go down during a market downturn, perhaps you should move some of your investment out of stocks. It will cost you money in the long term, but may help you sleep at night. If you are retired, but have more saved than you could possibly need, you can afford to risk more in the stock market. On average, you'll come out ahead, and if a downturn happens when you need to sell, it won't affect your overall situation much.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57d1348dfcd941101dd44c34c0bd49fa", "text": "Would my high-risk investment choices, aside from the main question, have any bearing on the road I want to go down and test (managing mutual/hedge funds)? Absolutely! First of all, understand that hedge fund managers are managing other people's money. Those people desire a certain risk profile and expected return, so your hedge fund will need to meet those expectations. Plus, hedge fund managers don't typically get fixed fees alone - they also get a percentage of any gains the fund makes; so managers have a vested interest in making sure that hedge funds perform well.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f276d8ccfb139215f4493621ad208221", "text": "\"Building on the excellent explanation by \"\"Miichael Kjörling\"\": Why would you rather \"\"term deposit\"\" your money in a bank and only earn interest of certain percentage but not not invest in stocks / real state and other opportunities where you will not only earn much higher dividends / profit but will have an opportunity for capital gains, multiple times like Apple's last 4 years(AAPL) ?? This is all down to risk / reward and risk taking. More risk = More profit opportunities / More Losses ( More Headache) Less risk(Govt BONDS) = Less profit / Less Losses (peace of mind)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fdf8698afbbce4fdfcff1a82a3e7435", "text": "\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \"\"income\"\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55baf837a5adacbc1887364ddc7a650d", "text": "As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad32b366e3bdae012d4e82acaf4d66d1", "text": "\">Of course; the generation Xers are those in the age range where many were approaching the time when they would, but had not yet, transferred the bulk of their retirement savings to lower risk investments. Your analysis is WAY off-base. Gen X was more than a DECADE AWAY from even thinking of switching to \"\"lower risk investments\"\". The OLDEST Gen X'ers were born in 1964 and have (just now) turned 48 -- they were (at most) 44 years old in 2008 when the market crashed. The YOUNGEST Gen X'ers were born circa 1981-82, and (just now) have reached age 30 -- they were just getting started in their careers (around age 26) in 2008 when the market crashed. The MAJORITY of Gen X'ers were -- in 2008 -- in their mid 30's. NO ONE switches to \"\"low risk investments\"\" in their mid 30's. --- No, the only Gen X'ers who DIDN'T get \"\"screwed\"\" by the market crash were either: 1. Savvy enough to have SEEN the bubble & crash coming and so got OUT of the stock market and/or housing; or... 2. Waited out the storm & sat tight -- and allowed their market holdings to both crash and then rebound (though they would still largely be \"\"down\"\" from where they were at peak 2008, they wouldn't have suffered huge losses).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8fa04eaae270a59d75c5b36c12e036b", "text": "\"Between \"\"fresh out of college\"\" and \"\"I have no debts, and a support system in place which because of which I can take higher risks.\"\" I would put every penny I could afford in the riskiest investment platform I was willing to. Holding onto money in a bank account is likely to cost you %1-%2 a year depending on what interest rates are and what inflation looks like. Money invested in a market could loose it all for you or you could become an overnight millionaire. Loosing it all would suck but you are young you will bounce back. Losing it slowly to inflation is just silly when you are young. If there is something you know you have to do in the next few years start to save for it but otherwise use the fact that you are young and have a safety net to try to make money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cc1cbf238b28b58a628df8b2952238f", "text": "he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance. It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work. Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion. Period. It says nothing about your age. Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone. In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case. At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable. With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio. Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07ff8f6bdf26e89b18a978a60f4e1929", "text": "\"Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward. That is not true. Roughly, the mathematical analogue of \"\"higher risk and higher reward\"\" is \"\"higher standard deviation and higher mean\"\". In other words, the aggressive strategy does have a higher expected rate of return (higher mean). Its disadvantage is that it has a higher likelihood of incurring intermediate losses (and/or higher magnitude of intermediate losses) on the way. This is classically illustrated with the following chart - from Vanguard. You can see that the average return is greater the riskier the portfolio (i.e., the more allocated to stocks relative to bonds), but this higher average return comes at the price of a greater range of possible returns. With an aggressive portfolio, you take a greater risk of losses at any given moment for a greater chance of gains over a long period. Given this, it should be obvious why the advice is to be aggressive early on. Early in life, you don't care about whether your current position is up or down, because you're not taking the money out. If your portfolio is down, you just leave the money in there until it goes back up again. Later in life, you need to spend the money; you now care about whether your current position is up or down, because you can't afford to wait out a down market and may have to realize a loss by selling. It's important to note that the expected return is always greater for a higher-risk portfolio, as is the expected risk; the expected rate of return doesn't magically change as you age. What changes is your ability to absorb losses to hold out for later gains.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cab6f29603421ac01a73951b5efaa1ac", "text": "\"The article \"\"Best Stock Fund of the Decade: CGM Focus\"\" from the Wall Street Journal in 2009 describe the highest performing mutual fund in the USA between 2000 and 2009. The investor return in the fund (what the shareholders actually earned) was abysmal. Why? Because the fund was so volatile that investors panicked and bailed out, locking in losses instead of waiting them out. The reality is that almost any strategy will lead to success in investing, so long as it is actually followed. A strategy keeps you from making emotional or knee-jerk decisions. (BTW, beware of anyone selling you a strategy by telling you that everyone in the world is a failure except for the few special people who have the privilege of knowing their \"\"secrets.\"\") (Link removed, as it's gone dead)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0805a7b927cefad4bf4b37891f454293", "text": "\"A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/\"\"aggression\"\" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db1ccbc57a778e7a93f06a6a95ab0dde", "text": "\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc3b53420f83deaefdcd21bacc9b616d", "text": "Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62f08eaa49bccd9597553e00a23f7716", "text": "\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ff6f273e82d001cb5990f389e723ced", "text": "\"The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why? Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of \"\"assuming risk\"\" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also. But that's not an excuse to go leveraged anyway; it's a reason to hold back. In fact, regular stocks are sufficiently risky that most people probably shouldn't be holding a 100% stock portfolio. They should be tempering that risk with bonds, instead, and increasing the size of their bond holdings over time. The appropriate time to use leverage is when you have information which limits your risk. You have done research, and have reason to believe that you understand the future of an individual stock/index better than the rest of the stock market does. You calculate that the potential for achieving returns with leverage outweighs the risks. Then you dump your money into the leveraged position. (In exchange for this, the market receives information about anticipated future returns of this instrument, because of the price movement which occurs as a result of someone putting his money where his mouth is.) If you're just looking to dump money into broad market indicies in a leveraged fashion, you're doing it wrong. There is no free money. (Ed. Which is not to say there's not money. There's lots of money. But if you go looking for the free kind, you won't find it, and may end up with money that you thought was free but was actually quite expensive.) Edit. Okay, so you don't like my answer. I'm not surprised. I'm giving you a real answer instead of a \"\"make free money\"\" answer. Okay. Here's your \"\"how to make free money\"\" answer. Assume you are using a constant leverage ratio over the length of time you've invested your money, and you don't get to just jump into and out of the market (that's market-timing, not leverage) so you have to stay invested. You're going to have a scenario which falls into one of these categories: The S&P500 historically rises over time. The average rate of return probably exceeds the average interest rate. So the ideal leverage ratio is infinite. Of course, this is a stupid answer in real life because you can't pull that off. Your risk tolerance is too low and you will have trouble finding a lender willing to lend you unsecured money, and you'll probably lose all your money in a crash sooner or later. Ultimately it's a stupid answer because you're asking the wrong question. You should probably ask a better question: \"\"when I use leverage to gain additional exposure to risk, am I being properly compensated for assuming that risk?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe4a232f283d9d04afaebe8eee9c613", "text": "\"No one is quite sure what happened (yet). Speculation includes: The interesting thing is that Procter & Gamble stock got hammered, as did Accenture. Both of which are fairly stable companies, that didn't make any major announcements, and aren't really connected to the current financial instability in Greece. So, there is no reason for there stock prices to have gone crazy like that. This points to some kind of screw up, and not a regular market force. Apparently, the trades involved in this event are going to be canceled. Edit #1: One thing that can contribute to an event like this is automatic selling triggered by stop loss orders. Say someone at Citi makes a mistake and sells too much of a stock. That drives the stock price below a certain threshold. Computers that were pre-programmed to sell at that point start doing their job. Now the price goes even lower. More stop-loss orders get triggered. Things start to snowball. Since it's all done by computer these days something like this can happen in seconds. All the humans are left scratching their heads. (No idea if that's what actually happened.) Edit #2: IEEE Spectrum has a pretty concise article on the topic. It also includes some links to follow. Edit #3 (05/14/2010): Reuters is now reporting that a trader at Waddell & Reed triggered all of this, but not through any wrongdoing. Edit #4 (05/18/2010): Waddell & Reed claims they didn't do it. The House Financial Services Subcommittee investigated, but they couldn't find a \"\"smoking gun\"\". I think at this point, people have pretty much given up trying to figure out what happened. Edit #5 (07/14/2010): The SEC still has no idea. I'm giving up. :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25ae5486b8a65b1b44e753ea7aba523b", "text": "\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7e6a1ebcc07afeb83042bd1b2cdff4b4	What does a CFP do?	[ { "docid": "0da87bbbb2cd4939439ab3133a692198", "text": "A Certified Financial Planner has passed a licensing exam and will advise you and help you reach your financial goals. A good CFP can help you a lot, especially if you are unsure how to set up your insurance, investment, savings, and financial plans on your own. You do not need a CFP to get a life insurance policy. If you do get a CFP, he or she should help you above and beyond life insurance -- i.e. retirement planning, investment advice, education planning, etc. It's advantageous to you to pay a fixed price for services instead of a percentage or commission. Negotiate fees up front. For life insurance, in most cases a term policy will fit your needs. Whole life, universal life, etc., combine investments and life insurance into a single product and are big commission makers for the salesman. They make it sound like the best thing ever, so be aware. One of my rules of thumb is that, generally speaking, the larger the commission is for the salesperson, the worse the product is for the consumer. Welcome to life insurance pitches. Term life is far less expensive and provides a death benefit and nothing else. If you just had a baby and need to protect your family, for example, term life is often a good solution, easy to buy, and inexpensive. As you stated, any of the major providers will do just fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea334ad4ac33cf1f6fb0128a5aba4dde", "text": "\"CFP stands for \"\"Certified Financial Planner\"\", and is a certification administered by the CFP board (a non-government non-profit entity). This has nothing to do with insurance, and CFP are not insurance agents. Many States require insurance agents to be explicitly licensed by the State as such, and only licensed insurance agents can advise on insurance products. When you're looking for an insurance policy as an investment vehicle, a financial adviser (CFP, or whatever else acronym on the business card - doesn't matter) may be helpful. But in any case, when dealing with insurance - talk to a licensed insurance agent. If your financial adviser is not a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) - talk to a licensed tax adviser about your options before making any decisions.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "571db86fb23c87cd29384769e9b92df2", "text": "a quick summary of the paper's purpose, for those interested: ECB uses a macroeconomic model to project stimulus measures on 1) households 2) firms 3) fiscal authority and 4) a monetary authority over the next 25 quarters (6 years beginning 2012) it begins with the dynamics of households and firms: mainly, upon their interactions as consumers and suppliers, as well as various frictions that arise between countries - namely, labor and consumption rates. the monetary authority deals with basic applications i.e., the cost of money (bond issuance) the fiscal authority is introduced for the purpose of gauging the effects of government intervention, and the correlations between the rates of government consumption (OMT) and houshold consumption (with the aim of stimulating the economy)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8488cd4b2a558962be5407e1f414681", "text": "My understanding is that the CRSP database is used in conjunction with Capital IQ. All the financial information you need will be in the Capital IQ database. As far as filtering, all you need to do is set up a series of IF statements. I am not familiar with the database so I cant help you, but you should have ample resources at your university to help you as the filters you are trying to do are pretty straight forward.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60875b339c77510ae0299dc38f34c543", "text": "you are on the right track. 7/66 will be legally necessary (most likely), and CFP is pretty much a professional necessity at this point. insurance license isn't a bad idea, but i would need to know the full scope of services offered to give you more info. as far as resources go, watch bloomberg in the morning and a bit before you hit the hay for futures and international movement. their website is pretty solid to check on throughout the day, too. beyond that, it's kind of all preference as to what sources you use. i'd recommend staying away from very obviously biased outlets. but there will be professional sources that are availed to you once you're up and running - your dad might have some subscriptions he can give to you. i check on the Atlantic, fivethirtyeight, and the economist regularly for context, as well. on a personal note, i would encourage you to really weigh your options before committing to taking on the practice. i am a professional (hold 7/63/66/9/10 and CFP) and can tell you that, in my opinion, it is very exhausting and largely unrewarding working with clients. i won't go into a pessimistic diatribe here, as i don't want to discourage you from doing something you want. but be really sure - unless you're an analyst, this sort of work experience does not lend itself to changing careers or type of work you do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86624c3d1509fa6dba40561c99974129", "text": "\"What a great explanation! I was familiar with many of the concepts, but I've learnt quite a lot. Do you happen to know any sources for further reading that are just as understandable to a non-economist? And/Or would you mind continuing / expanding this into whichever direction you find worth exploring? I would love to see this explanation \"\"connected\"\" to the debt crisis and how/why the US and europe seem to be in different situations there. Maybe that would be too complex to explain in more detail using your model, but maybe it is possible..?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3c332fbce2b61f308b02c595062977e", "text": "Ok so this is the best information I could get! It is a guarantee from a financial institution that payment will be made for items or services once certain requirements are met. Let me know if this helps! I'll try to get more info in the meantime.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45a74bb7a434a99bb72976106f5e86ef", "text": "NAPFA claims to have members in Canada. They are an organization of fee-only financial planners--they work for hourly fees, not commissions, so they have no conflicts of interest when giving advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28678cdfa93468dea239ed6f106a2842", "text": "\"I don't disagree with that but my point is that there is a need to be engaged on both fronts: international as well as domestic. CFR President Richard N. Haass argues in his new book \"\"A World in Disarray\"\" that it's imperative to our long-term interest that we do both, successfully. That means not just changing allocations but raising more money to get our fiscal house in order as well. Again, just a different school of thought. I follow it but I get why others don't.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "382ff86e0a2e64b85a2ea9b159e7acb3", "text": "\"This chart summarizes the FED's balance sheet (things the FED has purchased - US treasuries, mortgage backed securities, etc.) nicely. It shows the massive level of \"\"printing\"\" the FED has done in the past two years. The FED \"\"prints\"\" new money to buy these assets. As lucius has pointed out the fractional reserve banking process also expands the money supply. When the FED buys something from Bank A, then Bank A can take the money and start lending it out. This process continues as the recipients of the money deposit the newly printed money in other fractional reserve banks. FYI....it took 95 years for the FED to print the first $900 billion. It took one year to print the next $900 billion.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fda5f5c4f7c382202bb5fab7941277f4", "text": "\"The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has a page specifically about working with a financial planner or advisor. It's a good starting point if you are thinking about getting a financial professional to help you plan and manage your investments. In the \"\"Where To Look\"\" section on that page, FCAC refers to a handful of industry associations. I'll specifically highlight the Financial Planning Standards Council's \"\"Find a planner\"\" page, which can help you locate a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). Choose financial advice carefully. Prefer certified professionals who charge a set fee for service over advisors who work on commission to push investment products. Commission-based advice is seldom unbiased. MoneySense magazine published a listing last year for where to find a fee-only financial planner, calling it \"\"The most comprehensive listing of Canadian fee-only financial planners on the web\"\" — but do note the caveat (near the bottom of the page) that the individuals & firms have not been screened. Do your own due diligence and check references.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a09d423d5138871550a7696acd6bc97", "text": "\"You need a license/registration to be a \"\"conventional\"\" financial planner. But as long as your work is limited to budgets, and cash flow analysis, it may be more like accounting. In your shoes, I would consult the local CPA association about what you need (if anything) to do what you're doing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "374e6710563e24b0d8106fb204e53dd2", "text": "Not sure why people are suggesting CFP or CFA to someone who hasn't graduated with a BS yet. With that said, CFA had a claritas (fundamentals course) with like 20-20 page chapters going over basic finance and investment info. Pretty sure you can still get those pdfs for free. Investopedia is also great for general concepts for banking and investments. CFA is very expensive and I wouldn't touch it until you've taken general business classes and really built up your foundation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61613f9d8b9dd2efa33ee36ade8f02a6", "text": "\"To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the \"\"real economy\"\" is to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to \"\"sit on\"\" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b51e15974dd48332f992862cc5d6fab", "text": "\"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \"\"borrowing\"\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \"\"lending\"\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51d67dbcaecc91a60313072496ea52fb", "text": "Your role sounds like accounting/bookkeeping. I worked in fp&a for a REIT and my job was to forecast cash flows and support development managers who wanted to pitch projects to senior management. Occasionally, I helped analyze new acquisitions and every quarter we had to do valuations for covenant compliance on our loans. Was a cool job but eventually left for capital markets role.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc929fa4355c3dd27f4ca55f52c55e68", "text": "\"And where does, say, Federal reserve, gets the money to buy those [2.5 trillions](https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124)? As for \"\"inflationary pressure\"\" - we don't really know it. Those money circulate between various financial instruments - so it is a very big question whether or not they spill out to affect consumer prices.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
61b7cb4c9985298a852dc757609cbf47	Super-generic mutual fund type	[ { "docid": "a66fc17f8cc2ae924765246d0e4bc808", "text": "You can also create a CD ladder (say 1/3 in a 6 month CD, 1/3 in a 1 year CD, 1/3 in a 2 year CD) with half of your emergency fund money. You always want to leave some of it in a liquid account so you can get at it immediately without any interest penalty. CD's provide higher interest than a savings account. By staggering the lengths of the CD's, you give yourself more options, and can roll them over into CD's with higher rates (since interest rates are soooo low right now) as the CD's mature.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79a7be86c8b7c56dca5a5d1caa005029", "text": "\"Since this is your emergency fund, you generally want to avoid volatility while keeping pace with inflation. You really shouldn't be looking for aggressive growth (which means taking on some risk). That comes from money outside of the emergency fund. The simplest thing to do would be to shop around for a different savings account. There are some deals out there that are better than ING. Here is a good list. The \"\"traditional\"\" places to keep an emergency fund are Money Market Mutual Funds (not to be confused with Money Market Accounts). They are considered extremely safe investments. However, the returns on such a fund is pretty low these days, often lower than a high-yield online savings account. The next step up would be a bond fund (more volatility, slightly better return). Pick something that relies on Government bonds, not \"\"high-yield\"\" (junk) bonds or anything crazy like that. Fidelity Four in One comes pretty close to your \"\"index of indexes\"\" request, but it isn't the most stable thing. You'd probably do better with a safer investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aec1192ef6541a2d6224645a3b260ea9", "text": "Congrats on having such a nice emergency fund. That's pretty substantial. I don't want to be the one to suggest the One Investment To Rule Them All because I might be wrong. :) I'd investigate other avenues for investment. Here are a few (in no particular order): My two cents but I think you're wise to be wary of investing in US equities now. Hedging (both with your passive investments and with another source of income) is something you can afford to do. (But to answer your question, there are indexes that are broader than the S&P 500. The Wilshire 5000 index has all of them, for example.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e6a893421677586f657499d3a01381b", "text": "\"It sounds like you want a place to park some money that's reasonably safe and liquid, but can sustain light to moderate losses. Consider some bond funds or bond ETFs filled with medium-term corporate bonds. It looks like you can get 3-3.5% or so. (I'd skip the municipal bond market right now, but \"\"why\"\" is a matter for its own question). Avoid long-term bonds or CDs if you're worried about inflation; interest rates will rise and the immediate value of the bonds will fall until the final payout value matches those rates.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "825b37e57e118707124a3e76177bfcb3", "text": "Since you already have twice your target in that emergency fund, putting that overage to work is a good idea. The impression that I get is that you'd still like to stay on the safe side. What you're looking for is a Balanced Fund. In a balanced fund the managers invest in both stocks and bonds (and cash). Since you have that diversification between those two asset classes, their returns tend to be much less volatile than other funds. Also, because of their intended audience and the traditions from that class of funds' long history, they tend to invest somewhat more conservatively in both asset classes. There are two general types of balanced funds: Conservative Allocation funds and Moderate Allocation funds. Conservative allocation funds invest in more fixed income than equity (the classic mix is 60% bonds, 40% stocks). Moderate allocation funds invest in more equity than fixed income (classic mix: 40% bonds, 60% stocks). A good pair of funds that are similar but exemplify the difference between conservative allocation and moderate allocation are Vanguard's Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) for the former and Vanguard's Wellington Fund (VWELX) for the latter. (Disclaimer: though both funds are broadly considered excellent, this is not a recommendation.) Good luck sorting this out!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "136a3319c5a9aa18f28e1dc9a86d035d", "text": "If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "12dfd7a4c63537325923b5f65bab573a", "text": "Exchange-traded funds are bought and sold like stocks so you'd be able to place stop orders on them just like you could for individual stocks. For example, SPY would be the ticker for an S & P 500 ETF known as a SPDR. Open-end mutual funds don't have stop orders because of how the buying and selling is done which is on unknown prices and often in fractional shares. For example, the Vanguard 500 Index Investor shares(VFINX) would be an example of an S & P 500 tracker here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aa935aa25a7851ccd845e69c74c8def", "text": "\"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \"\"mutual funds\"\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc89ac65703cbe166a0f98fdfe4dba54", "text": "\"Use VTIVX. The \"\"Target Retirement 2045\"\" and \"\"Target Retirement 2045 Trust Plus\"\" are the same underlying fund, but the latter is offered through employers. The only differences I see are the expense ratio and the minimum investment dollars. But for the purposes of comparing funds, it should be pretty close. Here is the list of all of Vanguard's target retirement funds. Also, note that the \"\"Trust Plus\"\" hasn't been around as long, so you don't see the returns beyond the last few years. That's another reason to use plain VTIVX for comparison. See also: Why doesn't a mutual fund in my 401(k) have a ticker symbol?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed7e00711ef0c440f3985a8963d02b05", "text": "You can set up a Self Managed Super Fund (SMSF) and use it to buy residential investment property, and as Justin has mentioned even borrow to acquire the investment property through the SMSF. However, you cannot hold your home in the SMSF, as this would be classed as an in-house asset, and you are only allowed to hold a maximum of 5% of the total market value of SMSF as in-house assets. Furthermore, as you already own your house, you are not allowed to transfer residential property into a SMSF from a related party, even if done at current market value (you are allowed to transfer business real property from a related party at current market value). Regarding loans, you are not allowed to lend money from your SMSF to a related party as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d53eb6e97cd4e36144f3f6406937ca0", "text": "Thanks for the huge insight. I am still a student doing an intern and this was given as my first task, more of trying to give the IA another perspective looking at these funds rather than picking. I was not given the investors preference in terms of return and risk tolerances so it was really open-ended. However, thanks so much for the quick response. At least now I have a better idea of what I am going to deliver or at least try to show to the IA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7ce8a8943cebbacfc68a2735d5f6f1d", "text": "\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \"\"derivative\"\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "793ccb71f403b6df10f6d9e5aeef7d72", "text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88edd029ff0f292e8b015f2b0773a604", "text": "\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a657750c12ad24f753f130ba5bff9636", "text": "For long periods of time a short ETF's performance will not match the negative of the long ETF, e.g. funding costs and the fact that they 'only' match daily returns will result in a suboptimal performance. If possible use other derivatives like a put on a long gold etf (fgriglesnickerseven)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4edc4c5604999faf7ba4fa4c1f99c4d", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb7489191787be6458bb24d48707cb7c", "text": "You are not limited in these 3 choices. You can also invest in ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, but traded like stocks. Usually (at least in Canada), MERs for ETFs are smaller than for mutual funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbae56ad4aca8a1caeb2c6a7ab08472", "text": "\"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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001308bb6898cc328653575ba51889b7", "text": "Not to my knowledge. Often the specific location is diversified out of the fund because each major building company or real estate company attempts to diversify risk by spreading it over multiple geographical locations. Also, buyers of these smaller portfolios will again diversify by creating a larger fund to sell to the general public. That being said, you can sometimes drill down to the specific assets held by a real estate fund. That takes a lot of work: You can also look for the issuer of the bond that the construction or real estate company issued to find out if it is region specific. Hope that helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a06204d0c55ccb723b886366940db61", "text": "I don't think that you'll notice a difference in the NAV in a fund with fees that are low as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund. Their management fees are incorporated into the NAV, but keep in mind that the fund has a total of $144 billion in assets, with $66 billion in the investor class. The actual fees represent a tiny fraction of the NAV, and may only show up at all on the day they assess the fees. With Vanguard total stock market, you notice the fee difference in the distributions. In the example of Vanguard Total Stock Market, there are institutional-class shares (like VITPX with a minimum investment of $200M) with still lower costs -- as low as 0.0250% vs. 0.18% for the investor class. You will notice a different NAV and distributions for that fund, but there may be other reasons for the variation that I'm not familar with, as I'm not an institutional investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf406fc668170807dc692a9f9092dd32", "text": "\"There is a lot misinformation in this thread that I'd like to clear up. In fact, you're more than welcomed to PM me if you wish to see any backup to the statements I'm about to make. First, I'd like to say that as an Uber/Lyft driver, the experience has been nothing short of exhilarating. I normally work in the L.A. and O.C. areas of So. Cal and the amount of interesting, super successful, and wonderful people I meet on a daily basis is off the charts. It's as if I'm some sort of talk show host on wheels. Initially, I applied for Lyft, as the social and community angle of its service intrigued the hell out of me. I'm an outgoing guy and I'm also an artist of some type who receives a royalty check only once a month. Instead of doing kickstarters and begging for money, I thought doing Lyft would be a great idea instead. So far my customers have been nothing short of an inspiration. Anyway, after passing a background check, a driving test with my mentor, a driving record check, alongside submitting all my documentation (license, registration, insurance) , and a quick vehicle inspection (my car is rather new and in great condition) I was hired quickly. That same day I decided to get to work quickly, see how the whole system works. As soon as I got to the destination I wanted to get to I got my first call on my phone within 5 minutes. I use my GPS and rush to pick my customer up (while obeying all traffic laws, of course). After a couple of minutes of chit chat I come to find out my first Lyft customer ever is an Uber recruiter. She likes my car and my approach so she hands me a Uber logo'd black bag with an iPhone, a car charger, and a mount. I asked her if this means I have to work exclusively for Uber, she says, \"\"Nope.\"\" My eyes then light up like some medieval lights in the sky, chicken little for the peasantry, ancient aliens approved phenomena when I realize I'll have access to both customer bases just one week removed from not being able to pay my phone bill. After submitting a background check, a driving record check, and pretty much all the stuff Lyft asked for, I was driving for both Uber and Lyft a week after I was hired for Lyft. The good news for you the consumer is that both companies are being cut throat because they want your money! There's never been a better time to hitch a ride on the cheap. Both companies have thrown millions of dollars over the past couple of months through social media, driver bonuses, and other venues, so you're able to get a free ride or a deep discount off a long ride. If you haven't tried both services, now's the time. Don't want to risk getting a DUI just for driving down a couple of blocks to your favorite bar this weekend? You'll probably be able to get a free ride there (if you scour gently for specials) and pay between $7-13 for the trip back. Better than getting your car impounded, losing your license, and paying $10,000+ in penalties and court fees, eh? You have no idea how many poor saps I take to and from work who can't drive because they just got a D.U.I., and who are now plunking $25-35 per ride just to get to where they gotta go. INSURANCE As for insurance, both companies have given me supplemental insurance. I have full coverage on my car for when I'm off the clock (which was required at time of hiring, btw). So here's how the insurance for Lyft and Uber works. [For Lyft](http://i.imgur.com/mc6hanN.jpg) When App is turned on (on the way to pick up client) -or- \"\"Contingent Liability\"\" 1. * up to $50k/person (bodily injury) 1. * up to $100k/accident (bodily injury) 1. * up to $25k/accident (Property damage) When you pick up client(s) in the car and you're on your way to the destination. Excessive liability & UM/UIM 1. Up to $1,000,000/occurence Contingent Collision & Comprehensive 1. up to $50,000/accident ($2500 deductible) [For UberX](http://i.imgur.com/k9kIvzB.png) When App is turned on (on the way to pick up client) -or- \"\"Contingent Liability\"\" 1. up to $50k/person (bodily injury) 1. up to $100k/accident (bodily injury) 1. up to $25k/accident (Property damage) When you pick up client(s) in the car and you're on your way to the destination. Excessive liability & UM/UIM Up to $1,000,000/occurence Contingent Collision & Comprehensive up to $50,000/accident ($1000 deductible) Other than the deductible, as you can see both plans are pretty much the same. Which in my opinion, should be more than enough. SERVICES & EXPECTATIONS Both apps are easy to use and within 5-10 minutes (sometimes much sooner, there've been many times where I get a call and the customer is on the sidewalk a few feet from where I was parked waiting for my next call). Both passengers and drivers adhere to a rating system. As of today, if either driver or passenger fail to maintain a rating of 4.6 and above they risk being booted from using the app. So it's important that drivers know what the hell they are doing (like being courteous, respectful, professional, clean, and know how to use a GPS while driving accurately and safely and/or knowing their routes instinctively) and passengers should also be polite, respectful, communicative (very important since drivers aren't psychics). Also, don't be so drunk that you either pass out or throw up in the back and make sure that if your bring your friends along for the ride, that they adhere to the code of conduct expected of passengers. I've run into numerous instances where an otherwise perfect passenger gets dinged for their drunk and/or rude friends. Also, as a driver, for your insurance to work, don't EVER end a drive early because you made a wrong turn or were late for a pick up. You're risking an insurance hiccup in the event of an incident, and passengers should also make sure that their driver has their app online throughout the entire trip, as well as making sure the driver's pic of him/her and his/her car match the profile you see on the app. As for safety, I've yet to hear from a passenger they felt they were ever in immediate danger. Did they get a creepy vibe from one of their drivers? Sure, not everyone is a social butterfly, and there has been an inundation of ex-cab drivers going over to Uber (which is good, cause' the service is getting pro drivers with experience, but could prove detrimental, since they're gonna have a hard time competing with Lyft on the charisma side of things). However, I've already numerous accounts from young women in Hollywood who are now refusing to call for a yellow cab or taxis on Hollywood Blvd and Sunset and the surrounding areas due to unwelcome sexual advances by drivers looking to take advantage of their sometimes solitary and inebriated drive home. It's heartwarming and great to hear whenever you drop one of these young women off at their places and they thank you for being both professional, courteous, welcoming, and above all else, trustworthy, all while paying a fraction of the cost of what a cab would normally run at that time of night. MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (IN SUMMARY) I'm literally having the time of my life. My other job requires me to interact with humanity, pick its brain, and then express those experiences to everyone else in an invigorating, positive, and inspirational manner. What better way to do it--while earning some decent money--than driving around for Uber and Lyft. These services are, without a doubt, revolutionary, and are being used and employed by both young and old, men and women, struggling students, and strategically utilized by incredibly wealthy and successful Hollywood types and investment bankers. It's cheap, reliable, and very fun too. It's also bringing back the long lost art of human interaction and conversation back into our daily lives. So far, so good, and it breaks my heart whenever I hear misinformation and astroturfing about these services throughout the internet, and I'm supremely angered as to how certain municipalities are colluding with taxi cab lobbies to prevent Uber and Lyft and other ride-share services from competing fairly at a time where cities are desperate to ease congestion, reduce DUI's, and make sure their citizens are happy and are left with more money in their pocketbooks.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4f0b80784928bee1230505db0eb23a5f	Do mutual fund companies deliberately “censor” their portfolios/funds?	[ { "docid": "eeae47327398ea15c73b93538235cb5f", "text": "\"Do mutual funds edit/censor underperforming investments to make their returns look better, and if so, is there any way one can figure out if they are doing it? No, that's not what the quote says. What the quote says is that the funds routinely drop investments that do not bring the expected return, which is true. That's their job, that is what is called \"\"active management\"\". Obviously, if you're measuring the fund by their success/failure to beat the market, to beat the market the funds must consistently select over-performers. No-one claims that they only select over-performers, but they select enough of them (or not...) for the average returns to be appealing (or not...) for the investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20eaa2ce1822366372a8b6126a2f940c", "text": "There is a survivorship bias in the mutual fund industry. It's not about individual stocks in which those funds invest. Rather, it's in which funds and fund companies/families are still around. The underperforming funds get closed or merged into other funds. Thus they are no longer reported, since they no longer exist. This makes a single company's mutual funds appear to have a better history, on average, than they actually did. Similarly, fund companies that underperform, will go out of business. This could make the mutual fund industry's overall history appear to be better than it actually was. Most companies don't do this to deliberately game the numbers. It's rational on the part of fund companies to close underperforming funds. When a fund has a below average history, investors will likely not invest in it, and will remove their existing money. The fund will shrink while the overhead remains the same, making the fund unprofitable for the company to run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c60b445afe0bab8264191b238caa2fe", "text": "\"If I invest in individual stocks I will, from time to time, sell stocks that aren't performing well. If the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, then the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, regardless of whether selling those stocks is labeled as \"\"delete[ing] failures\"\". Same thing for mutual funds: selling underperforming stocks is perfectly ordinary, and calling it \"\"delete[ing] failures\"\" in order to imply some sort of dishonesty is simply dishonest.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0f25b9fbec9ffacf7aed54f24f4be5ec", "text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7bbbba72cb8dc5b8dcf6cba5fd65700", "text": "The S&P 500 is a market index. The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500. I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e09b473dcb81d2f1f51efcea3d3b24c7", "text": "\"That's like a car dealer advertising their \"\"huge access\"\" to Chevrolet. All brokers utilize dark pools nowadays, either their own or one belonging to a larger financial institution. Why? Because that's a primary source of broker income. Example: Under current US regulations the broker is under no obligation to pass these orders to actual (a.k.a. lit) exchanges. Instead it can internalize them in its dark pool as long as it \"\"improves the price\"\". So: If a broker doesn't run its own dark pool, then it sends the orders to the dark pool run by a larger institution (JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, Getco, Knight Capital) and gets some fraction of the dark pool's profit in return. Are Mom and Pop negatively impacted by this? Not for most order types. They each even got a free penny out of the deal! But if there were no dark pools, that $1.00 difference between their trade prices would have gone half ($0.50) to Mom's counterparty and half ($0.50) to Pop's counterparty, who could be someone else's Mom and someone else's Pop. So ... that's why brokers all use dark pools, and why their advertisement of their dark pool access is silly. They're basically saying, \"\"We're going to occasionally throw you a free penny while making 49 times that much from you\"\"! (Note: Now apply the above math to a less liquid product than AAPL. Say, where the spread is not $0.01, but more like $0.05. Now Mom and Pop still might make a penny each, while the broker can make $4.98 on a 100 share trade!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6aa7994d1eb6dfbbd1f75c1cafa06219", "text": "A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the results of the kinds of analyses that one can do for a single stock must be commingled to produce something analogous for the fund's NAV. In other words, there is plenty of shooting in the dark going on. That being said, there are plenty of people who claim to do such analyses and will gladly sell you their results (actually, Buy, Hold, Sell recommendations) for whole fund families (e.g. Vanguard) in the form of a monthly or weekly Newsletter delivered by US Mail (in the old days) or electronically (nowadays). Some people who subscribe to such newsletters swear by them, while others swear at them and don't renew their subscriptions; YMMV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d9303a97a7532a9f39858d68b75bf2a", "text": "Without knowing the specifics it is hard to give you a specific answer, but most likely the answer is no. If they limit the participation in the site to accredited investors, this is probably not something they are doing willingly, but rather imposed by regulators. Acredited investors have access to instruments that don't have the same level of regulatory protection & scrutiny as those offered to the general public, and are defined under Regulation D. Examples of such securities are 144A Shares, or hedgefunds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3434f214ebf6ea235e1f6dc952df5914", "text": "\"How does [FINRA's 5% markup policy] (http://www.investopedia.com/study-guide/series-55/commissions-and-trade-complaints/finra-5-markup-policy/) affect the expense/profit/value of an ETF/Mutual Fund? An extreme example to illustrate: If my fund buys 100 IBM @ 100, The fund would credit the broker $10,000 for those shares and the broker would give the fund 100 shares. Additionally there would be some sort of commission (say $10) paid on top of the transaction which would come out of the fund's expense ratio. But the broker is \"\"allowed\"\" to charge a 5% markup. So that means, that $100 price that I see could have hit the tape at $95 (assume 5% markup which is allowed). Thus, assuming that the day had zero volatility for IBM, when the fund gets priced at the end of the day, my 100 shares which \"\"cost\"\" 10,000 (plus $10) now has a market value of $9,500. Is that how it \"\"could\"\" work? That 500 isn't calculated as part of the expense of the fund is it? (how could it be, they don't know about the exact value of the markup).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d7c47268b8731b24a5cc95a73efbe03", "text": "\"How on earth can you possibly know what is going on in individual company X? The sole exception is if it is your own company. The stock markets of the world are in fact a nest of sharks. The big sharks essentially make money out of the little sharks. Some little sharks manage not to be eaten, and grow bigger. Good luck with that. \"\"Insider trading\"\" is, when found out, a crime these days. But \"\"insider knowledge\"\", \"\"insider hints\"\", \"\"knowledge of market sentiment\"\" and indeed just rumours about a given company are the kinds of things you won't particularly get to hear of in the fog of disinformation, and don't particularly want to waste your time with for a very uncertain loss or gain at the end of the year. The thing I find annoying about mutual funds is that they can be very stupid, and I speculate that it may be the consequence of the marketing on the one hand, and the commission structure on the other. I started cashing in my funds in late 2007, following the collapse of Northern Rock here in the UK. The \"\"2008\"\" crisis was in fact the slowest economic car crash in history. But very very few mutual funds saw, or seemed to see, the way the wind was blowing, and switch massively to cash. If the punters had the courage to hang on, of course, mostly stocks bounced back in 2009 and 2010. Moral: remember you can cash your stuff in any time you want.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40e08223ac41fd50cdae1dcf1e7cebc1", "text": "The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f69471fbc64767b814c43447c1a02d6f", "text": "There are not necessarily large shareholders, maybe every other Joe Schmoe owns 3 or 5 shares; and many shares might be inside investment funds. If you are looking for voting rights, typically, the banks/investment companies that host the accounts of the individual shareholders/fund owners have the collective voting rights, so the Fidelity's and Vanguard's of the world will be the main and deciding voters. That is very common.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13804378135ed6bfb6d6e7517aac9d40", "text": "index ETF tracks indented index (if fund manager spend all money on Premium Pokemon Trading Cards someone must cover resulting losses) Most Index ETF are passively managed. ie a computer algorithm would do automatic trades. The role of fund manager is limited. There are controls adopted by the institution that generally do allow such wide deviations, it would quickly be flagged and reported. Most financial institutions have keyman fraud insurance. fees are not higher that specified in prospectus Most countries have regulation where fees need to be reported and cannot exceed the guideline specified. at least theoretically possible to end with ETF shares that for weeks cannot be sold Yes some ETF's can be illiquid at difficult to sell. Hence its important to invest in ETF that are very liquid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daccd8ca0d17624588d8df91bea8c332", "text": "One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20e5cfc13dc16a19aef4dc3ba03eba08", "text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "403f5cce6098e955f1016b38320d2ee1", "text": "\"I think the answer to your question is no, in theory. By screening out funds, you must actively manage the investments. To then try to ensure you track the index closely enough, you have to do further management. Either you spend your own time to do this or you pay someone else. This is ok, but it seems contrary to the primary reasons most people choose an index fund and why the product exists. You want a specific type of ethical investment(s) that has lower fees and performs well. I think you can get close, it just won't be like an \"\"index fund\"\". Don't expect equal results.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcbd96d50a6f159f56b3bc04413bca94", "text": "\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is over. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does not want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca4e08fd07ce1d7ceac49708e140e482", "text": "You'd be moving from 33.5K of taxable income + 16.5K of untaxable income, to 65K of taxable income (worst case). So the question is whether the net from the extra 31.5K of taxable income is more than the 16.5K, and since marginal tax rates in the relevant brackets are no more than 32% according to the table you posted (22% federal and 10% provincial), it's definitely a win to move jobs. More precisely, the marginal tax rate is 25% on the first 8044 (41544-33500) and 32% on the rest, making for total extra tax of about 9.5K and thus net income (beyond the 33.5K baseline) of 22K. Compared to the 16.5K this leaves you 5.5K up. If you end up at the 70K end, you're another 3.4K up beyond that.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
066aaab7ffbc665fb9cd907b3a514e66	Self assessment expenses - billing date or payment date?	[ { "docid": "848ab8b6c4f59f784f99de5bb5c720c8", "text": "Unless you're running a self-employed business with a significant turnover (more than £150k), you are entitled to use cash basis accounting for your tax return, which means you would put the date of transactions as the payment date rather than the billing date or the date a debt is incurred. For payments which have a lag, e.g. a cheque that needs to be paid in or a bank transfer that takes a few days, you might also need to choose between multiple payment dates, e.g. when you initiated the payment or when it took effect. You can pick one as long as you're consistent: You can choose how you record when money is received or paid (eg the date the money enters your account or the date a cheque is written) but you must use the same method each tax year.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8143e59701da827051bb11538170aa2e", "text": "Hi guys, have a question from my uni finance course but I’m unsure how to treat the initial loan (as a bond, or a bill or other, and what the face value of the loan is). I’ll post the question below, any help is appreciated. “Hi guys, I have a difficult university finance question that’s really been stressing me out.... “The amount borrowed is $300 million and the term of the debt credit facility is six years from today The facility requires minimum loan repayments of $9 million in each financial year except for the first year. The nominal rate for this form of debt is 5%. This intestest rate is compounded monthly and is fixed from the date the facility was initiated. Assume that a debt repayment of $10 million is payed on 31 August 2018 and $9million on April 30 2019. Following on monthly repayments of $9 million at the end of each month from May 31 2019 to June 30 2021. Given this information determine the outstanding value of the debt credit facility on the maturity date.” Can anyone help me out with the answer? I’ve been wracking my brain trying to decide if I treat it as a bond or a bill.” Thanks in advance,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592", "text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28fbd6147331296e24091a48b5f615a7", "text": "It is important to understand that when or before you received services from your medical provider(s), you almost certainly signed a document stating that you understand that you are fully responsible for the entire bill, even though the provider may be willing to bill the insurer on your behalf as a service. In almost all cases, this is the arrangement, so it is very unlikely that you will be able to dispute the validity of the bill, since you did receive the service and almost certainly agreed to be fully responsible for the payments. With regard to the discounts, your medical provides have likely contracted with your insurer to provide services at a certain price or discount level, so I would base all of your negotiations with the providers and/or the collectors on those amounts. They can't legitimately bill you for the full amount since you are insured by a company they have a contract with, and you are not self-pay/uninsured, and the fact that they haven't been paid by your insurer doesn't change that, because the discount likely depends on the contact they have with your insurer and not whether or not they are billed/paid by your insurer. Please note - this is a common arrangement, but I'd recommend that you verify this with your insurer. Unfortunately, payment in 90+ days is often typical by insurance standards, so it's not yet clear to me whether or not your insurer has broken any laws such as a Prompt Pay law, or violated the terms of your policy with them (read it!). However, you need to find out which claims rep/adjuster is handling your claims and follow up with them until the payments are made. It's not personal, so make this person's life miserable until it is done and call them so often that they know it's you by the caller ID. I would also recommend contacting the collector(s), and letting them know that you don't have the money and so will not be able to pay, provide them with copies of the EOBs that state that the insurance company plans to pay the providers, and then ignore their calls/letters until the payments are made. When they call, simply reiterate that you don't have the money and that your insurance company is in the process of paying the bills. You have to expect that you will be dealing with a low-paid employee that is following a script. You are just the next person on their robo-call list, and they are not going to understand that you don't have a pile of money laying around with which to pay them, even if you tell them repeatedly. Make sure that you at no point give them access to any of your financial accounts, such as a checking or savings account, or a debit card - they will access it and clean you out. It is likely that your insurance provider will pay the providers directly since they were likely billed by the providers originally. If the providers have sold the debt to the collectors (and are not just employing a collector for debt they still own), you may have to follow up with the providers as well and make sure that the collection activity stops, since the providers may also need to forward the payments to the collectors once they are paid by the insurance company. Of course, if the insurer refuses to pay the claims, at that point I would recommend meeting with a lawyer to seek to force them to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d3b2a9a6abd42118fa040f7b762a52b", "text": "\"In the US, you'd run the risk of being accused of fraud if this weren't set up properly. It would only be proper if your wife could show that she were involved, acting as your agent, bookkeeper, etc. Even so, to suggest that your time is billed at one rate but you are only paid a tiny fraction of that is still a high risk alert. I believe the expression \"\"if it quacks like a duck...\"\" is pretty universal. If not, I'll edit in a clarification. note -I know OP is in UK, but I imagine tax collection is pretty similar in this regard.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f1b1c566e68e180bc8d2edd76e7676a", "text": "\"But I have been having a little difficulty to include the expenditure in my monthly budget as the billing cycle is from the 16th to 15th of the next month and my income comes in at the end of the month. Many companies will let you change the statement date if you want, so one way to do this would be to request your bank to have statements due at the end of the month or first of month. You can call and ask, this might resolve your problem entirely. How can I efficiently add the credit card expenditure to my monthly budget? We do this using YNAB, which then means our monthly budget is separate from our actual bank accounts. When we spend, we enter the transaction into YNAB and it's \"\"spent.\"\" Additionally, we just pay whatever our credit card balance is a day before the end of the month so it is at $0 when we do our budget discussion at the end of each month.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b677bf9fd32eb6bc39174c40ce70a5b", "text": "If the hospital is run like hospitals in the US it can take a long time just to determine the bill. The hospital, Emergency room, ER doctors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, X-Ray department, pharmacy and laboratory are considered separate billing centers. It can take a while to determine the charges for each section. Is there an insurance company involved? When there is one involved it can take weeks or months before the hospital determines what the individual owes. The co-pays, coverages, and limits can be very confusing. In my experience it can take a few months before the final amount is known. You may want to call the hospital to determine the status of the bills.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6b09a1c18842ba3d64088cabe20f311", "text": "Personal story here: I ended up at the Santa Monica hospital without insurance and left with a bill of $30k-$35k. They really helped me, so I felt like I had a duty to pay them. However, close inspection revealed ridiculous markups on some items which I would have disputed, but I noticed that I had been billed for a few thousands of services not rendered. I got very mad at them for this, they apologized, told me they'd fix it. I never heard back from them and they never put it in collection either. I'm assuming they (rightfully) got scared that I'd go to court and this would be bad publicity. Sometimes I feel guilty I didn't pay them anything, sometimes I feel like they tried to screw me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f544b73053ef55810b85675372d3150a", "text": "I store all my receipts digitally, and make sure to input them into accounting program sooner than later, just so I don't forget about it. For practical purposes, the two important things are: Any kind of a digital system makes this pretty easy, even just putting the sums in a spreadsheet and the receipts into files with the date in the name. However, because it's easy enough, I also have a box where I stuff the paper receipts. I expect never to need them, but should something very weird happen to my computer and backups, they would be there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84bc66f322b8d2b1c50ecec75a3970be", "text": "Careful, here. The last time we got a bill from the doctor's office because they made a billing mistake it turns out the bill was a mistake. Before you pay anything go through the list of charges and payments and make sure it's accurate. (In our case she went to an appointment and was then told there was no reason for the doctor to see her that day. Several months later a bill for the visit showed up--except they hadn't kept straight what payment was for what visit so it took some digging to figure out what had happened.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "540ad14306a6ab98c337a396e981a398", "text": "Even for those of us who aren't at risk of over drafting, direct debit is a less-than-stellar option. Direct debit is a great way to begin ignoring how large your bills are. By explicitly paying them through my bank's online billpay, I notice immediately when a bill is larger than it ought to be. This is often caused by a billing error. In which case I've found it far easier to resolve disputes when the money is still in my hands. It's significantly harder to convince an internet provider, cell phone service, or utility to reverse an incorrect charge after it's been paid than it is before. The other times, it's because I've been using the service more than normal. For example, sending text messages more frequently or using more electricity. Explicitly paying these bills makes me realize upfront that there's been a change in my behavior and I can either reduce my expenses or accept the higher cost for higher service. My own experience leads me to believe that paying your bills automatically every month is a great way to ignore these events, and leak money like a sieve. Online bill pay makes doing this as trivial as I could hope for, and the risk of missing a payment is essentially nil.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6cd27e3c2f8b12e4334eb3d747c96c3", "text": "The hospital likely has a contract with your insurance company which makes them obligated to bill the insurance before billing you! I had a similar occurrence that was thrown out when my insurance company provided a copy of a contract with the hospital to the judge. So if there is an agreement they must file with the insurance in timely manner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b4466c1672ecccd8c473e8503ff8b95", "text": "\"According to the instructions for IRS Form 8889, Expenses incurred before you establish your HSA are not qualified medical expenses. If, under the last-month rule, you are considered to be an eligible individual for the entire year for determining the contribution amount, only those expenses incurred after you actually establish your HSA are qualified medical expenses. Accordingly, your medical expenses from year A are not considered \"\"qualified medical expenses\"\" and you should not use funds in your HSA to pay them unless you would like to pay taxes on the distributed funds and a 20% penalty. Publication 969 states very clearly on page 9: How you report your distributions depends on whether or not you use the distribution for qualified medical expenses (defined earlier). If you use a distribution from your HSA for qualified medical expenses, you do not pay tax on the distribution but you have to report the distribution on Form 8889. There is nothing about the timing of contributions versus distributions. As long as the distribution is for a qualified medical expense, the distribution will not be included in gross income and not subject to penalty regardless of how much money you had in your HSA when you incurred the medical expense.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3174bd88a6eb03c2c32fcf1803446a5f", "text": "My guess: they are giving you a constant number of days between when the bill is sent and when it is due. Due dates are usually set either: same date each month IE the 3rd of each month. same day IE first thursday of the month. Note: due date might vary based on weekends. Number of days in the month - date on bill should be pretty constant if due date option #1 is being used. Note how Feb dates were usually earlier, since it is a shorter month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18d9cbc00c698170d9acdf0c488dd88c", "text": "If you read all that paperwork they made you fill out at the emergency room, there is probably something in there explicitly stating that you owe any bills you rack up regardless of what happens with the insurance company. They generally have a disclaimer that filing for you with your insurance company is a courtesy service they offer, but they are not obliged to do it. Ultimately, you are responsible for your bills even if the provider slow-billed you. Sorry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf395ba4cd893fe297222a85e755771d", "text": "Better suited to /r/personalfinance, but you definitely owe the money. Unless you had something in writing that they were going to send a bill to a certain address, it's your responsibility to pay. Hell, even if you did have something in writing that said they'd send the bill somewhere else it's still your responsibility to pay even if the bill doesn't show up. You know you owed them money. When your parents didn't get the bill, you should have called the company to ask about it. It's your responsibility to follow up since you're the one that owes the money. What did you think would happen when you went 5 months without paying $312 that you knew you owed?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c318c953c93d76372cc5e4e2817fd93c	Why is a stock that pays a dividend preferrable to one that doesn't?	[ { "docid": "7dcda72e44ad0126ba5ec11ec96b37e3", "text": "Check out the questions about why stock prices are what they are. In a nutshell, a stock's value is based on the future prospects of the company. Generally speaking, if a growth company is paying a dividend, that payment is going to negatively affect the growth of the business. The smart move is to re-invest that capital and make more money. As a shareholder, you are compensated by a rising stock price. When a stock isn't growing quickly, a dividend is a better way for a stockholder to realize value. If a gas and electric company makes a billion dollars, investing that money back into the company is not going to yield a large return. And since those types of companies don't really grow too much, the stocks typically trade in a range and don't see the type of appreciation that a growth stock will. So it makes sense to pay out the dividend to the shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10d8658ae1f278bd82771c88cacf32fa", "text": "The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "613fb19903e86d17b4d0dae3b5a7afe7", "text": "One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d508d155637deec50c60a2ca1ee444b", "text": "\"Dividend paying stocks are not \"\"better\"\" In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations. The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares. Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field. IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "13741d54162a9c82b58e040a60a81243", "text": "There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a441a35f5ea8b2a32692d8b7d32d6a20", "text": "\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c9eee7ddb2b677c51d0b55c42a95900", "text": "\"Some investment trusts have \"\"zero dividend preference shares\"\" which deliver all their gains as capital gains rather than income, even if the trust was investing in income yielding stocks. They've rather gone out of fashion after a scandal some years ago (~2000). Good 2014 article on them here includes the quote \"\"Because profits from zero dividend preference shares are taxed as capital gains, they can be used tax efficiently if you are smart about how you use your annual capital gains tax allowance.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff", "text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9b6e76052a90103ff5a9ddac9ac31a5", "text": "\"Baseball cards don't pay dividends. But many profitable companies do just that, and those that don't could, some day. Profits & dividends is where your analogy falls apart. But let's take it further. Consider: If baseball cards could somehow yield a regular stream of income just for owning them, then there might be yet another group of people, call them the Daves. These Daves I know are the kind of people that would like to own baseball cards over the long term just for their income-producing capability. Daves would seek out the cards with the best chance of producing and growing a reliable income stream. They wouldn't necessarily care about being able to flip a card at an inflated price to a Bob, but they might take advantage of inflated prices once in a while. Heck, even some of the Steves would enjoy this income while they waited for the eventual capital gain made by selling to a Bob at a higher price. Plus, the Steves could also sell their cards to Daves, not just Bobs. Daves would be willing to pay more for a card based on its income stream: how reliable it is, how high it is, how fast it grows, and where it is relative to market interest rates. A card with a good income stream might even have more value to a Dave than to a Bob, because a Dave doesn't care as much about the popularity of the player. Addendum regarding your comment: I suppose I'm still struggling with the best way to present my question. I understand that companies differ in this aspect in that they produce value. But if stockholders cannot simply claim a percentage of a company's value equal to their share, then the fact that companies produce value seems irrelevant to the \"\"Bobs\"\". You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors. The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket. A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares. Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying \"\"book value\"\" per share.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b630929af30262fb03a36642052d7bd0", "text": "Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "003ff0722258a8a1db2755954ebb35ee", "text": "\"I seem not to be able to comment on the first answer due to reputation, so I'll aim to enhanced the first answer which is generally good but with these caveats: 1) Dividends are not \"\"guaranteed\"\" to preferred shareholders. Rather, preferred shareholders are normally in line ahead (i.e. in preference to or \"\"preferred\"\") of common shareholders in terms of dividend payment. This is an extremely important distinction, because unlike investments that we generally consider \"\"guaranteed\"\" such as CDs (known as GICs in Canada), a company's board can suspend the dividend at anytime for long periods of time without significant repercussions -- whereas a missed payment to a bank or secured bondholder can often push a company into bankruptcy very quickly. 2) Due to point 1), it is extremely important to know the \"\"convenants\"\" or rules sorrounding both the preferred shares you are buying and the other more senior creditors of that issuing company (i.e. taxes (almost always come first), banks loans, leases, bonds etc.). It is also important to know if a particular preferred share has \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends. You generally only want to buy preferred's that have \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends, since that means that anytime the company misses a payment, they must pay those dividends first before any other dividends at the same or lower priority in the future. 3) Unlike a common stock, your upside on a preferred stock is relatively fixed: you get a fixed share of the company's profit and that's it, whereas a common shareholder gets everything that's left over after interest and preferred dividends are paid. So if the company does really well you will theoretically do much better with common stock over time. For the above reasons, it is generally advisable to think of preferred shares as being more similar to really risky bonds in the same company, rather than similar to common stock. Of course, if you are an advanced investor there are a lot more variables in play such as tax considerations and whether the preferred have special options attached to them such conversion into common shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ae7681cfe1d319898337f727b749fc4", "text": "Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43a8a0bd9f7e3a02c41380568ddbd89c", "text": "\"Preferred dividends and common dividends are completely separate transactions. There's not a single \"\"dividend\"\" payment that is split between preferred and common shares. Dividends on preferred shares are generally MUCH higher than common dividends, and are generally required by the terms of the preferred shares, again unlike common dividends, which are discretionary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7357993aa3e3e8e6d746463fbc6fefa2", "text": "Shares often come associated with a set of rights, such as ability to vote in the outcome of the company. Some shares do not have this right, however. With your ability to vote in the outcome of the company, you could help dictate that the company paid dividends at a point in time. Or many other varieties of outcomes. Also, if there were any liquidity events due to demand of the shares, this is typically at a much higher price than the shares are now when the company is private/closely held.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fd8ecaa4e48f0176054c42c39d7c412", "text": "\"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it \"\"wasting money\"\" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a", "text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730", "text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22ea84df5765d24026478526849a4fb6", "text": "Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4ed417141918153347ad59bdaa98385", "text": "Buying stocks is like an auction. Put in the price you want to pay and see if someone is willing to sell at that price. Thing to remember about after hours trading; There is a lot less supply so there's always a larger bid/ask price spread. That's the price brokers charge to handle the stocks they broker over and above the fee. That means you will always pay more after the market closes. Unless it is bad news, but I don't think you want to buy when that happens. I think a lot of the after market trading is to manipulate the market. Traders drive up the price overnight with small purchases then sell their large holdings when the market opens.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b070bafb6bb09999ae7567f65cd6f0ac	Does investing in a company support it?	[ { "docid": "c6cb4a956263e8a41ee3791e633b372f", "text": "Would you consider the owner of a company to be supporting the company? If you buy stock in the company you own a small part of that company. Your purchase also increases the share price, and thus the value of the company. Increased value allows the company to borrow more money to say expand operations. The affect that most individuals might have on share price is very very small. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing for you to do if it is something you believe in. After all if enough people followed those same convictions it could have an impact on the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c671fbf2d129267bb6316c15735d1b2b", "text": "\"We're not \"\"helping\"\" the company in a comparable sense to donating money to a non-profit. As you wrote, investing in a company deals with ownership and in a sense, becoming a part owner of a company, even if it is a minor ownership, indicates that we sense it has some sort of value, whether that's ethical, financial or tangible value. As investors, we should take responsibility and ensure that our voices are heard when voting occurs (sadly, not too common). EDIT: @thepassiveinvestor makes an excellent point that this paragraph only applies to IPOs: Keep in mind, when we purchase stock in a company, that money is used for business purposes. It also signals value to the market as well, if enough money or enough investors buy the stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf93f14c4c9dbe35734cc4af063d42a", "text": "As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f5da25c83626a5a159a078dfdc8dd25", "text": "As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "45f75f318140ab32ba09e27eb9b885aa", "text": "\"Investing in an existing company is almost like buying a house, or even becoming an \"\"Angel investor\"\" in a start-up. Before you start the process, decide how much you want to be involved in the day-to-day and which industries you would feel most comfortable in. The latter is an important consideration since you would have to know sufficient about the industry in order to evaluate the quality of your prospective investment. Searching for a suitable business is a time-consuming process: The guidance for evaluating any company has been answered in another question, so I'll simply link. Most business owners are looking to their businesses to provide them a pension, so they often look to sell around retirement age. Buying such a business is tricky - you may be assisting the next generation to finance the purchase which can have it's own struggles. Ideally you'll be looking for a young(ish) company with proven sales and which is looking to finance growth in an optimal way. Such a company may have many options for raising capital so you'll be competing to invest. As to whether or not it's a good idea... KFC only became a household name and global franchise after Pete Harman joined Harland Sanders as a partner. Richard and Maurice McDonald may have founded McDonald's but it was Ray Kroc who made it a success. New partners bring in new ideas and fresh energy which the original entrepreneurs may have lost during the difficulties of starting out. But that goes back to my first query; just how much do you want to get involved?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f2b3bea16a194d79cea04a22815d518", "text": "449 of the 500 companies in the S&P 500 used 54% of their earnings to buy back shares for over $2 trillion. Rather than invest in development, capital, human capital, bigger dividends, they're repurchasing shares to boost their EPS and increase share value in the short term. Why is this an issue? Because it shows that these companies are uneasy about the long term. It stunts growth. Doesn't have to be research, simply expansion or rewarding employees/shareholders. Employees of the company receive no benefits and bagholders may make a quick buck short term, but suffer long. Execs of the company however get fat AF checks for hitting target ratios and price. Stock buybacks enable this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a57f8a7e43f68fa77372db1607017ea4", "text": "But investing into your own company is already a tax deductible event. Expenditures like Research & Development, employee compensation, and acquiring new equipment are all things that reduce taxable income. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/05/20/third-cash-owned-5-us-companies/84640704/ > Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOGL), Cisco Systems (CSCO) and Oracle (ORCL) are sitting on $504 billion, or 30%, of the $1.7 trillion in cash and cash equivalents held by U.S. non-financial companies in 2015, according to an analysis released Friday by ratings agency Moody's Investors Service. That's even more cash concentration than in previous years, as these five companies held 27% of cash in 2014 and 25% in 2013. Apple alone is holding more cash and investments than eight of the 10 entire industry sectors. 1/3 of all dollars created by the US Federal Reserve banking system (physically minted or otherwise) is collectively held by 5 companies. Companies exist to accumulate wealth and will seek to avoid unnecessary expenditures, which includes taxes. The corporate income tax rate is 35%. For individuals, the top income tax bracket (for every dollar of income above $400,000) is 39.6%. I argue that dropping the top individual income tax bracket down to 34% will not materially affect these companies (paying 35% income tax) from continuing to just sit on a ludicrous sum of wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90da7807b82f18388c78a07d60511260", "text": "\"It's not either or. Much of the time the value of the stock has some tangible relation to the financial prospects of the company. The value of Ford and GM stock rose when they were selling a lot of cars, and collapsed when their cars became unpopular. Other companies (Enron for example) frankly 'cook the books' to make it appear they are prospering, when they are actually drowning in debt and non-performing assets. So called \"\"penny stocks\"\" have both low prices and low volumes and are susceptible to \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemes, where a manipulator buys a bunch of the stock, touts the stock to the world, pointing to the recent increase in price. They then sell out to all the new buyers, and the price collapses. If you are going to invest in the stock market it's up to you to figure out which companies are which.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb6bef38badbb80ac0351264579ffbfe", "text": "\"The way to invest money in a company is to buy its shares, or derivatives of its shares. However, it seems you're way in over your head. Don't buy what you don't understand. There is plenty of material to teach you about stock investing on the internet. However, a book may be the fastest way to learn what you need to know. And yes, there is a \"\"for dummies\"\" book about that: Stock Investing ForDummies. I just found it by Googling, I'm sure you can find even more interesting books out there. (Note, the link is to the \"\"cheat sheet\"\" in the back of the book. The full book is worth reading.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c50f4befa2ff841763a4a23ab2ef8cd2", "text": "Not directly. But companies benefit in various ways from a higher stock price. One way a high stock price can hurt a company is that many companies do share buybacks when the price is too high. Economically speaking, a company should only buy back shares when those shares are undervalued. But, management may have incentives to do buybacks at irrationally high prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3203580708f5da3c2fd8f0e3fa45ffb", "text": "\"Every investment comes with a risk. There is also a bit of speculation involved. In there is an anticipation that one expects the value to go up in normal course of events. By your definition \"\"If I buy this equipment, I could produce more widgets, or sell more widgets,\"\" as an investment. Here again there is an anticipation that the widgets you sell will give you more return. If you are investing in stock/share, you are essentially holding a small portion of value in company and to that extent you are owining some equipment that is producing some widget .... Hence when you are purchasing Stocks, it would be looked as investment if you have done your home work and have a good plan of how you want to invest along with weiging the risk involved. However if you are investing only for the purpose of making quick bucks following so called hot tips, then you are not investing but speculating.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c2ba8dba2f6f2b1e937ccfc001c4238", "text": "\"In some cases, when a company purchases a minor stake, they often intend to increase the size of the stake over time. As a reference, note that Coca Cola has increased their stake in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) over time. It also adds some \"\"support\"\" to the price because these investors may be willing to step in and purchase the stock if there is any distress or poor performance. Finally, its generally a good \"\"tell\"\" that the stock has good things going for it and may be subject to additional interest from large investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f0d832f5d7b871a5be90f876c28da0d", "text": "A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d68fc2a7722d857c5ffbe80888669754", "text": "\"There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns. The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :) While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with \"\"best practices\"\"... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals. Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0c0d39f8df8c4b635315554a55d549e", "text": "\"Sure, it doesn't, but realistically they can't/shouldn't do anything about it in their index funds, because then they're just another stock picker, trying to gauge which companies are going to do best. Their funds not all being indexes is what I was getting at with my original question. How much leeway do they have in their definitions of other funds? IE, if they had a dividend fund that included all large cap dividend paying stocks above 3% yield, they couldn't take out Shell just because of climate risk without fundamentally changing what the fund is. But if it's just \"\"income fund\"\" then they can do whatever in that space.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b93344044b6216beaa023228a7c575e", "text": "There's really not a simple yes/no answer. It depends on whether you're doing short term trading or long term investing. In the short term, it's not much different from sports betting (and would be almost an exact match if the bettors also got a percentage of the team's ticket sales), In the long term, though, your profit mostly comes from the growth of the company. As a company - Apple, say, or Tesla - increases sales of iPhones or electric cars, it either pays out some of the income as dividends, or invests them in growing the company, so it becomes more valuable. If you bought shares cheaply way back when, you profit from this increase when you sell them. The person buying it doesn't lose, as s/he buys at today's market value in anticipation of continued growth. Of course there's a risk that the value will go down in the future instead of up. Of course, there are also psychological factors, say when people buy Apple or Tesla because they're popular, instead of at a rational valuation. Or when people start panic-selling, as in the '08 crash. So then their loss is your gain - assuming you didn't panic, of course :-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b246bdaf4503b29d579c9e01389a1e48", "text": "Apart from investing in their own infrastructure, profits can be spent purchasing other companies, (Mergers and Acquisitions) investing in other securities, and frankly whatever they please. The idea here is that publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make as much money as they can with the resources (including cash, but including so much more than that) available to the company. It happens that the majority of huge companies eventually stopped growing and figured out that they weren't good at making money outside their core discipline and started giving the money back through dividends, but that norm has been eroded by tech companies that have figured out how to keep growing and driving up share prices even after they become giants. Shareholders will pressure management to issue dividends if share prices don't keep going up, but until the growth slows down, most investors hang on and don't rock the boat.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81274911372a5638c5f3fdc2923a01e8", "text": "Yes, an investment can be made in a company before IPO. The valuation process is similar as that done for arriving at IPO or for a normal listed company. The difference may be the premium perceived for the idea in question. This would differ from one investor to other. For example, whether Facebook will be able to grow at the rate and generate enough revenues and win against competition is all a mathematical model based on projections. There are quite a few times the projection would go wrong, and quite a few times it would go correct. An individual investor cannot generally borrow from banks to invest into a company (listed or otherwise) (or for any other purpose) if he does not have any collateral that can be kept as security by the bank. An individual can get a loan only if he has sufficient collateral. The exceptions being small personal loans depending on one's credit history. The Private Equity placement arm of banks or firms in the business of private equity invest in start-up and most of the time make an educated guess based on their experience. More than half of their investments into start-ups end up as wiped out. An occasional one or two companies are ones that they make a windfall gain on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac18a23cf30f659b257d22786cc092b5", "text": "\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a07e87da207c1c5a6824bf4d57247125	Tax me more: Can I pay extra to the government so I don't have to deal with all this paperwork?	[ { "docid": "70cf8d23890f8f5e17526f378a4ec318", "text": "\"In a word, no. If your income is high enough to have to file a return, you have to file a return. My accountant has a nice mindset for making it more palatable. I'll paraphrase: \"\"Our tax system is ludicrously complicated. As a result, it is your duty as an American to seek out and take advantage of every deduction and credit available to you. If our politicians and leaders put it into the tax code, use it to your advantage.\"\" A friend of mine got a free golf cart that way. It was a crazy combination of credits and loopholes for electric vehicles. That loophole has been closed, and some would say it's a great example of him exercising his patriotic duty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca68b853da4903c868ef1cf8c1746131", "text": "\"Actually, if you don't care about paying a bit more, either hire an accountant and dump the paper on them, or (may be cheaper but a bit more work) spring for tax software. Modern tax programs can often download most of your data directly. If you don't care about claiming deductions you can skip a lot of the rest. I'm perfectly capable of doing my taxes on paper or in a spreadsheet... but I spring for tax software every year because I find it a _LOT more pleasant. Remember that most of the complexity does come from policies intended to reduce your taxes. When you call for simplification, you may not like the result. It's better than it was a decade or two ago. I used to joke that the battle cry of the next revolution would be \"\"No Taxation Without Proper Instructions!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d615272fc63f3c83770340271b0f895a", "text": "Currently, the answer is no, you cannot get out of filing a tax return. As noted in the comments, if you want to pay more to get out of the drudgery of working on your return, you can pay an accountant to do it for you. You are not alone in thinking that the current income tax system in the U.S. is overly complicated. What you are essentially describing is a flat tax, a system where there would be a simple tax rate that is paid with no deductions, loopholes, etc., and minimal reporting requirements. Besides flat tax proposals, others have proposed eliminating the income tax altogether and switching to a national sales tax, such as the FairTax proposal. Each of these proposals has pros and cons over the current system, and if you have questions about them, feel free to ask a new question. But what they have in common is that they would drastically simplify the system of taxation in this country. If that sounds good to you, you can learn more about these proposals and support organizations and candidates that advocate these reforms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdbf1892068b0986e049fd7246643448", "text": "\"Perhaps the real question you are asking is \"\"How can the tax code be fixed to make it simple for everyone (including me), and what would it take to effect those changes\"\"? There are really two causes for the complexity of the tax code. Many of those who enter Government hold a desire for power, and Government uses the tax code as one lever of power to distribute largess to their supporters, and to nudge everyone to behaviors which they favor. The current system enables incumbents to spend taxpayer money to reward those they favor, and thus they accumulate power and security. Those who enter Government also love to spend money (especially other people's money), and their rapacious behavior recognizes no boundaries. They will spend money without control until the taxpayers yank them to a brutal stop. They enact complex rules which are used to ease the (tax) burden for some, which buys their support (with taxpayer money), and they spend money to benefit those which they favor. The system of lobbyists and contributors exists to entice Government to treat them and the causes they support favorably. This system enables incumbents to spend taxed money to reward those they favor, and to tax those they disfavor. Thus their greed is satisfied, and their power is increased. The freedom you seek is not available, although you can minimize the effort required for compliance. You can take the standard deduction, and use nothing but the W-2 provided by your employer, and unless you are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax, you will find that the tax software will do most of the work for you. Do you want to approach the Nirvana of minimal effort to appease your tax collectors? Avoid starting your own business, charitable donations, investment income, 1099 income, and you will need minimal paperwork. Avoid earning enough to risk the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax). Refuse to take the mortgage interest deduction, tax credits for electric vehicles, tax credits for high-efficiency appliances and air conditioners, tax credits for residential solar panel installations. Do not own investments which pay interest, or own stocks where you need to track the \"\"basis\"\" (purchase price) of the stocks, nor buy and then sell valuable items that might gain value (where you would need to track the purchase price, the \"\"basis\"\"). Avoid owning and leasing a rental home for income, deducting businesses expenses and mileage for business purposes, contributions to a retirement plan (outside an employer plan) -- all complicate your tax filing. The solution you truly desire is either a \"\"Flat Tax\"\" or the \"\"Fair Tax\"\". These solutions would effect either a single tax rate (with no deductions or adjustments to income, yeah right), or a national retail sales tax, which would tax the money spent in the economy regardless of the source of the money (legal, gifts, crime) and there would be no need to report income, or classify it. The largest objection to either is that the tax code might become less \"\"progressive\"\" (increasing tax rate with increasing income). Good Luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "18022fc1f1297df64ca19c71ace3c1ca", "text": "Go to a good bookstore and find a book about saving on income tax. Unlike other countries, where filling in your tax returns usually means you have to pay extra money, in Germany filling in your tax return usually means that you will be paid money, and the more tax deductible items you can fill in, the more money you will get back. At the very least, ask some German colleagues about the most typical tax deductible items. They love getting taxes back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2226740c96f085d39471c7c914edee3f", "text": "If you are paid by foreigners then it is quite possible they don't file anything with the IRS. All of this income you are required to report as business income on schedule C. There are opportunities on schedule C to deduct expenses like your health insurance, travel, telephone calls, capital expenses like a new computer, etc... You will be charged both the employees and employers share of social security/medicare, around ~17% or so, and that will be added onto your 1040. You may still need a local business license to do the work locally, and may require a home business permit in some cities. In some places, cities subscribe to data services based on your IRS tax return.... and will find out a year or two later that someone is running an unlicensed business. This could result in a fine, or perhaps just a nice letter from the city attorneys office that it would be a good time to get the right licenses. Generally, tax treaties exist to avoid or limit double taxation. For instance, if you travel to Norway to give a report and are paid during this time, the treaty would explain whether that is taxable in Norway. You can usually get a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries against your US taxes, which helps avoid paying double taxes in the USA. If you were to go live in Norway for more than a year, the first $80,000/year or so is completely wiped off your US income. This does NOT apply if you live in the USA and are paid from Norway. If you have a bank account overseas with more than $10,000 of value in it at any time during the year, you owe the US Government a FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR). This is pretty important, there are some large fines for not doing it. It could occur if you needed an account to get paid in Norway and then send the money here... If the Norwegian company wires the money to you from their account or sends a check in US$, and you don't have a foreign bank account, then this would not apply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8613a48d2920c4a773321741f27078e6", "text": "It's going to depend entirely on your tax situation, its complexity, and your willingness/interest in dealing with tax filings. Personally I find that not only do I not enjoy dealing with figuring out my taxes, but I don't know even a fraction of the possible deductions available and all the clever ways to leverage them. Plus the tax code is changing constantly and staying on top of that is not something I'm ever going to attempt. I am of the philosophy that it is my duty to pay only the absolute minimum tax legally required, and to utilize every possible exemption, deduction, credit, etc. that is available to me. Plus my business activities are a bit on the non-traditional side so it requires some unorthodox thinking at times. For me, a trained professional is the only way to go. What it costs me, I way more than make up in savings on my tax bill. I also go out of my way to never get a refund because if I get one, it just means I gave the government a free loan. The last time I computed my own taxes (used TurboTax if memory serves) was I think in the late 90s.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cecc860897423d6c529366fcac3bc914", "text": "\"You need to hire a tax professional and have them sort it out for you properly and advise you on how to proceed next. Don't do it yourself, you're way past the stage when you could. You're out of compliance, and you're right - there are penalties that a professional might know how to mitigate, and maybe even negotiate a waiver with the IRS, depending on the circumstances of the case. Be careful of answers like \"\"you don't need to pay anything\"\" that are based on nothing of facts. Based on what you said in the question and in the comments, it actually sounds like you do have to pay something, and you're in trouble with the IRS already. It might be that you misunderstood something in the past (e.g.: you said the business had filed taxes before, but in fact that might never happened and you're confusing \"\"business filed taxes\"\" with \"\"I filed schedule C\"\") or it might be the actual factual representation of things (you did in fact filed a tax return for your business with the IRS, either form 1120 of some kind or 1065). In any case a good licensed (CPA or EA) professional will help you sort it out and educate you on what you need to do in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "563f7f6f56b95f036aeeef527b3212e5", "text": "Whether to employ a payroll service to handle the taxes (and possibly the payroll itself) is a matter that depends on how savvy you are with respect to your own taxes and with using computers in general. If you are comfortable using programs such as Excel, or Quicken, or TurboTax, or TaxAct etc, then taking care of payroll taxes on a nanny's wages all by yourself is not too hard. If you take a shoebox full of receipts and paystubs to your accountant each April to prepare your personal income tax returns and sign whatever the accountant puts in front of you as your tax return, then you do need to hire a payroll service. It will also cost you a bundle since there are no economies of scale to help you; there is only one employee to be paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d040358f6a20041bc83832cbfa7f5f6", "text": "Congratulations on starting your own business. Invest in a tax software package right away; I can't recommend a specific one but there is enough information out there to point you in the right direction: share with us which one you ended up using and why (maybe a separate question?) You do need to make your FICA taxes but you can write off the SE part of it. Keep all your filings as a PDF, a printout and a softcopy in the native format of the tax software package: it really helps the next tax season. When you begin your business, most of the expenses are going to be straightforward (it was for me) and while I had the option of doing it by hand, I used software to do it myself. At the beginning, it might actually seem harder to use the tax software package, but it will pay off in the end. Build relationships with a few tax advisors and attorneys: you will need to buy liability insurance soon if you are in any kind of serious (non hobby) business and accounting for these are no trivial tasks. If you have not filed yet, I recommend you do this: File an extension, overpay your estimated taxes (you can always collect a refund later) and file your return once you have had a CPA look over it. Do not skimp on a CPA: it's just the cost of running your business and you don't want to waste your time reading the IRS manuals when you could be growing your own business. Best of luck and come back to tell us what you did!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f414572f1273861b9e4d36c3ad3e02a", "text": "As I replied to someone else who said that: I'm often having to send stuff with the check. Paperwork, a bill etc. While that would work to a person who knows me, it's usually not going to work with a business or government who needs to know why I'm sending this check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cd9ddbb33a39b667b4b1e0f1df1a920", "text": "If you have complicated taxes (own a business, many houses, you are self employed, you are a contractor, etc etc) a person can make the most of your situation. If you are a w-2 single job, maybe with a family, the programs are going to be so close to spot on that the extra fees aren't worth it. I would never bother using HR Block or Liberty or those tax places that pop up. Use the software, or in my state sometimes municipalities put on tax help days at the library to assist in filling out the forms. If you have tough taxes, get a dedicated professional based on at least a few recommendations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4bdf77bd6c433338ae2798676b50331", "text": "\"There are many people who have deductions far above the standard deduction, but still don't itemize. That's their option even though it comes at a cost. It may be foolish, but it's not illegal. If @littleadv citation is correct, the 'under penalty of perjury' type issue, what of those filers who file a Schedule A but purposely leave off their donations? I've seen many people discuss charity, and write that they do not want to benefit in any way from their donation, yet, still Schedule A their mortgage and property tax. Their returns are therefore fraudulent. I am curious to find a situation in which the taxpayer benefits from such a purposeful oversight, or, better still, a cited case where they were charged with doing so. I've offered advice on filings return that wasn't \"\"truthful\"\". When you own a stock and cannot find cost basis, there are times that you might realize the basis is so low that just entering zero will cost you less than $100 in extra tax. You are not truthful, of course, but this kind of false statement isn't going to lead to any issue. If it gets noticed within an audit, no agent is going to give it more than a moment of time and perhaps suggest, \"\"you didn't even know the year it was bought?\"\" but there would be no consequence. My answer is for personal returns, I'm sure for business, accuracy to the dollar is actually important.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3c276445f1d5db3e000e6ae79c6709e", "text": "And if you need to pay business taxes outside of the regular US 1040 form, you can use the IRS' Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS). Basically, you enroll your bank accounts, and you can make estimated, penalty, etc. payments. The site can be found here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a179b6735e2b581d1797b56142f6ba59", "text": "Years ago I mailed my personal tax return one day after the due date, and my check was deposited as normal, and I never heard anything about it. As an employer, I once sent in my employee's withheld federal taxes one day after the due date, and I later received a letter stating my penalty for being late worked out to be around $600. The letter stated that since this was my first time being late they would waive the fee. In both cases, they could have charged me a late fee if they wanted to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8a34d5de6f3676427fdea0189bc6428", "text": "It would be quite the trick for (a) the government to run all year and get all its revenue in April when taxes are due and (b) for people to actually save the right amount to be able to cut that check each year. W2 employers withhold the estimated federal and state taxes along with the payroll (social security) tax from each paycheck. Since the employer doesn't know how many kids you have, or how much mortgage interest, etc you will take deductions for, you can submit a W4 form to adjust withholdings. The annual Form 1040 in April is to reconcile exact numbers, some people get a refund of some of what they paid in, others owe some money. If one is self-employed, they are required to pay quarterly estimated taxes. And they, too, reconcile exact numbers in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "986c9acc7c40e3a524b8ef9cff81fbe9", "text": "I just scanned in a single sheet summary of my last two years tax returns. It is something our CPA does for us. How would I post it? Don't worry, I marked out all the personal information. What is says is I paid over $50K in taxes in 2015. Last year we had one of our biggest contracts put on hold, so I only paid $20K. I won't have this years figures, because we don't submit them to our CPA until the end of the year. However, this year, we just bought out two other owners at $1.2M, which makes me a 33% owner. The contract is getting restarted (knock on wood), which all together means my personal tax liability is going to be well over $100K. My company is a commercial company, but we work with the government, and matter of fact some of the stuff we produce was designed and developed by the government (as is many of today's modern inventions - I think you would be surprised). So lets tackle it one at a time. Pick one of those things that commercial does better than government. P.s. Higher taxes doesn't mean higher for you, a lot of times it means higher for guys like me or way better than me (which I am perfectly fine with, and matter of fact would support). People who use infastructure more - like large corporations - should pay more for it...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "071f7252ad58078526431800146394df", "text": "\"When you say \"\"set aside,\"\" you mean you saved to pay the tax due in April? That's underpaying. It's a rare exception the IRS makes for this penalty, hopefully it wasn't too large, and you now know how much to withhold through payroll deductions. Problem is, this wasn't unusual, it was an oversight. You have no legitimate grounds to dispute. Sorry.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58c2c71412d6f9feae8bc64f2ce0e0b3", "text": "They're wrong, and it's easy to show that if you pay the same % in taxes then you end up the same either way. If you have an initial investment of 10k, an effective tax rate of 25%, and gains of 10% a year, here are the numbers: You invest 10k into a traditional. After 50 years, you have $1,173,908. After paying taxes, you end up with $880,431. You invest 10k into a Roth. After paying the taxes, your initial investment is $7500. After 50 years, you have $880,431 - the same you have with the traditional. The advantage from the Roth comes from two things - the assumption that taxes are lower now for you than they will be in the future (a good bet, given that taxes are relatively low in the US) and the ability to have a mix of taxable and non-taxable income to draw from in retirement to lower your effective tax rate (draw down the taxable up to a certain tax bracket then use your non-taxable above that).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9e69ab9fb91087bd50537b8319e08a0b	When do I pay taxes if I'm self employed?	[ { "docid": "bfc6b9e15735ccad53b4a312432b6239", "text": "I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b0fe4f46c95a1af4c1c188eddc55166d", "text": "For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fe6f7a9cad2f4520ed898b0c39b47ba", "text": "\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \"\"safe harbor\"\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56366def285b890e0e187764b2691abf", "text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d6a6791ce3ec6df6dfd451ae2ffb6d3", "text": "Your taxable income is your total income from however many sources of income you have. If you are in employment and doing self-employed job at the same time, your taxable income will be a combination of both incomes. For example if in employment you make £10000 and self employed you make another £10000 - your total income is £20000 and this is your taxable income. And even if your self-employed job does not bring you more than personal allowance, how would HMRC know that without you filling-in tax return?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee0f34fa27cb4ca84be860d651f060f3", "text": "You tagged with S-Corp, so I assume that you have that tax status. Under that situation, you don't get taxed on distributions regardless of what you call them. You get taxed on the portion of the net income that is attributable to you through the Schedule K that the S-Corp should distribute to you when the S-Corp files its tax return. You get taxed on that income whether or not it's distributed. If you also work for the small business, then you need to pay yourself a reasonable wage. The amount that you distribute can be one factor in determining reasonableness. That doesn't seem to be what you asked, but it is something to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37a8df9320affe0b7287c522247d716f", "text": "If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14473f2ac55ef0a59cf823be7856e1de", "text": "You will need to register as self-employed aka sole trader (that's the whole point: pay taxes on income that you're not getting as wages from an employer, who would arrange PAYE/NI contributions), or set up a limited company (in the last case you would have the option of either getting paid as wages or as dividends — which one is better is a complex issue which varies from year to year). You'll find lots of advice on the HMRC website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691ebc769be4882276be7460d9e1cd52", "text": "Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18aa3fdbbe9aca96da6f7a89dc764210", "text": "If you sell through an intermediate who sets up the shop for you, odds are they collect and pay the sales tax for you. My experience is with publishing books through Amazon, where they definitely handle this for you. If you can find a retailer that will handle the tax implications, that might be a good reason to use them. It looks like Etsy uses a different model where you yourself are responsible for the sales tax, which requires you to register with your state (looks like this is the information for New York) and pay the taxes yourself on a regular basis; see this link for a simple guide. If you're doing this, you'll need to keep track of how much tax you owe from your sales each month, quarter, or year (depending on the state laws). You can usually be a sole proprietor, which is the easiest business structure to set up; if you want to limit your legal liability, or work with a partner, you may want to look into other forms of business structure, but for most craftspeople a sole proprietorship is fine to start out with. If you do a sole proprietorship, you can probably file the income on a 1040 Schedule C when you do your personal taxes each year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8a34d5de6f3676427fdea0189bc6428", "text": "It would be quite the trick for (a) the government to run all year and get all its revenue in April when taxes are due and (b) for people to actually save the right amount to be able to cut that check each year. W2 employers withhold the estimated federal and state taxes along with the payroll (social security) tax from each paycheck. Since the employer doesn't know how many kids you have, or how much mortgage interest, etc you will take deductions for, you can submit a W4 form to adjust withholdings. The annual Form 1040 in April is to reconcile exact numbers, some people get a refund of some of what they paid in, others owe some money. If one is self-employed, they are required to pay quarterly estimated taxes. And they, too, reconcile exact numbers in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd07b9332ec0af4e8cddc1f4c558f5dc", "text": "\"From the IRS page on Estimated Taxes (emphasis added): Taxes must be paid as you earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. If the amount of income tax withheld from your salary or pension is not enough, or if you receive income such as interest, dividends, alimony, self-employment income, capital gains, prizes and awards, you may have to make estimated tax payments. If you are in business for yourself, you generally need to make estimated tax payments. Estimated tax is used to pay not only income tax, but other taxes such as self-employment tax and alternative minimum tax. I think that is crystal clear that you're paying income tax as well as self-employment tax. To expand a bit, you seem to be confusing self-employment tax and estimated tax, which are not only two different things, but two different kinds of things. One is a tax, and the other is just a means of paying your taxes. \"\"Self-employment tax\"\" refers to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that you must pay on your self-employment income. This is an actual tax that you owe. If you receive a W-2, half of it is \"\"invisibly\"\" paid by your employer, and half of it is paid by you in the form of visible deductions on your pay stub. If you're self-employed, you have to pay all of it explicitly. \"\"Estimated tax\"\" does not refer to any actual tax levied on anyone. A more pedantically correct phrasing would be \"\"estimated tax payment\"\". Estimated taxes are just payments that you make to the IRS to pay tax you expect to owe. Whether you have to make such payments depends on how much tax you owe and whether you've paid it by other means. You may need to pay estimated tax even if you're not self-employed, although this would be unusual. (It could happen, for instance, if you realized large capital gains over the year.) You also may be self-employed but not need to pay estimated tax (if, for instance, you also have a W-2 job and you reduce your withholding allowances to have extra tax withheld). That said, if you earn significant income from self-employment, you'll likely have to make estimated tax payments. These are prepayments of the income tax and Social Security/Medicare taxes you accrue based on your self-employment income. As Pete B. mentioned in his answer, a possible reason that your estiamtes are low is because some taxes have already been withheld from the paychecks you received so far during the year (while you were an employee). These represent tax payments you've already made; you don't need to pay that money a second time, but you may need to make estimated tax payments for your income going forward.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f2ff5ed3f7d9d6c17bd7c358111fd09", "text": "The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "113ceb5d9dd121482e9d9a44002a48f2", "text": "Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0c51eea3ded591cacec119ff328abda", "text": "Payment of taxes for your personal return filed with the IRS always come from your personal account, regardless of how the money was earned. Sales tax would be paid from your business account, so would corporate taxes, if those apply; but if you're talking about your tax payments to the IRS for your personal income that should be paid from your personal account. Also, stating the obvious, if you're paying an accountant to handle things you can always ask them for clarification as well. They will have more precise answers. EDIT Adding on for your last part of the question I missed: In virtually all cases LLC's are what's called a pass through entity. For these entities, all income in the eyes of the federal government passes directly through the entity to the owners at the end of each year. They are then taxed personally on this net income at their individual tax rate, that's the very abridged version at least. The LLC pays no taxes directly to the federal government related to your income. Here's a resource if you'd like to learn more about LLC's: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04bbc88a939792d7bc92dd48454f2d87", "text": "\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ab958f97e8daad4ad0303ab42971a604	Why is the highest quintile the only quintile whose wealth exceeds its income?	[ { "docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f", "text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97dd95216f61b7b4ca84a94b66c47844", "text": "There are a lot of forces at play here, one of which is addressed in your second bullet point. Housing, transportation, food, and healthcare are pretty much the staple expenses of a modern day human. While these expenses all have a range from minimum required to function and luxurious all humans incur these costs. The lower rung wage earners earn an amount closer to their actual costs than higher earners. As income scales up these expenses typically also scale up with different lifestyle choices. There reaches a breaking point though where is so much excess to your income that you begin meaningfully spending on investments; you may also begin to take a meaningful portion of your compensation in securities rather than currency. In times where the economy is booming, folks who hold assets in securities rather than currency really win. In 2008 people in that highest rung really took a wealth hit (and probably an income hit).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0943efcc83439fa03b5ee014a3ce8fbf", "text": "In a business environment, this phenomenon could be easily explained by 'operational leverage'. Operational leverage is the principle that increasing revenues by a small amount can have a disproportionately large impact on net income. Consider this example: you run a business that rents out a factory and produces goods to sell to consumers. The rent costs you $10k / month, and all of your other costs depend on how many goods you produce. Assume each good gives you $10 in profit, after factoring your variable costs. If you sell 1,000 units, you break-even, because your variable profit will pay for your rent. If you sell 1,100 units, you make $1,000 net profit. If you sell 1,200 units, you double your overall profit, making $2,000 for the month. Operational leverage is the principle that adding incremental revenue will have a greater impact than the revenue already received, because your fixed costs are already 'paid for'. Similarly in personal finance, consider these scenarios: You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,000 - your monthly savings (and therefore your wealth) will be zero. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,100 - your monthly savings will be $100 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,200 - increasing your income by ~10% has allowed your monthly savings double, at $200 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $2,000 - your monthly savings are 5 times higher, when your income only increased by ~80%. Now in the real world, when someone makes more money, they will increase their expenses. This is because spending money can increase one's quality of life. So the incline does not happen quite so quickly - as pointed out by @Pete & @quid, there comes a point where increased spending provides someone with less increase in quality of life - at that point, savings really would quickly ramp up as income increases incrementally. But assuming you live the same making $2,000 / month as $1,000 / month, you can save, every month, a full month's worth of living expenses. This doesn't even factor in the impact of earning investment income on those savings. As to why the wealth exceeds income at that specific point, I couldn't say, but what I've outlined above should show how it is quite reasonable that the data is as-reported.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c2f67d30263121ee023c4e9234794cc1", "text": "TL;DR: Income is how much you make, net worth is the value of all your assets: cash, real estate, stocks, etc. With the case of Buffett: Berkshire Hathaway's - Buffett's company - market capitalisation is ~$460 Billion. Buffett controls 18% of shares. $460B x 18%: ~$80 Billion. So we can estimate that a large part of his net worth is tied up in BH stock (obviously this isn't perfect either as there are other factors at play here). BUT this is only on paper. Ie yes he's worth that, but he doesn't really have $80 Billion somewhere in a bank. He gets the money to live from other personal investments and business means.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f071e945bba3472b76c827d82dfbd1d", "text": "[Here's](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18) and explanation. The broadest interpretation is that there are quadrillions (1,000,000,000,000,000) of dollars in various markets. Bill Gates could become a Trillionaire, so even his wealth is a drop the ocean. Well, not really, but you get the idea. A lot of this money is constantly on the move, it is impossible to track down all the movements. Value is increasing, Value is destroyed etc. Your bank account can be tallied, but it's impossible to track down the money of the world, a continent or even a small country. Even bigger companies have trouble tracking down their money. The idea of the 'tally' is a bit of an outdated one, it came from a time when there was a gold standard, and when old fashioned marxism was still a thing. //edit: words, English, difficult", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b31565f39a22a3c38bad6baeab2848a1", "text": "You can say it's a bad proxy but practically all the richest people have their money tied up in equities, and it would be foolish for them not to. You have to include that somehow. Net worth is not just liquid assets", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49992736fd22c5c34efdd7992ee2229c", "text": "The logic is that the value of America could be determined by adding up the assets of all Americans. If houses are more expensive then America is richer (we own a large number of more expensive houses), even though no additional real assets have been created (as if more houses were built).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89027dae39e2b8fc85a969a574124174", "text": "And most wealth is squandered by the third generation. Someone has to become independently wealthy for the cycle to start over. Many will read this headline and use it as an excuse for their own lack of will to succeed. Someone had to succeed independently at some point, to earn the original wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c2b6ce53f3c3f98d525ff6c730df800", "text": "[Nope] (https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/07/13/worlds-rich-are-hording-10-trillion-in-cash/). It's all hoarded in various index accounts, mostly off-shore for obvious reasons. They want to protect their wealth, which is fine. But if you want to protect wealth you don't invest it all in means of production or real-state, which are both vulnerable to heavy crashes. You keep it protected interest-yielding accounts, in places like the Cayman Islands, or Switzerland.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae4d07bfbe8ca228742be94731ed1111", "text": "It all depends on the country. In the US, mobility at the top is reasonably high (ie first generation millionaires, first generation billionaires, etc). In other western countries, mobility at the top is very poor. This is typically due to regulation and taxes that make it incredibly difficult for small businesses to be compliant and compete (ie hire a bad employee as a small startup, and it can cripple the business if you cannot easily fire them). Mobility at the bottom is reversed. Getting out of abject poverty in the US is incredibly difficult, almost impossible. In other western countries it is not easy, but far easier than the US thanks to those social safety nets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b035ad6a97d41e25812effa927950f2", "text": "In addition to those who are wealthy (not the same as high income), there are also a certain number of people whose professional livelihood is enhanced by projecting wealth/income they may or may not have. For example, some consultants, lawyers, financial advisors or other salespeople. The same is true of luxury homes for industries where entertaining clients and associates is expected. These people are essentially making an educated bet that the additional sales they expect to make will outweigh the additional expense of the luxury items, similar to purchasing advertising. But in many cases, people are either living beyond their current income, or living beyond their long-term income by failing to save for when they are too old/sick to work. Additionally, many car brands that we traditionally associate with luxury have created mid-priced lines in the $30-40K range recently, so it is possible that some of the cars you are seeing are not as expensive as you might expect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d9948dd52d6c2486e3016ceaefb19cd", "text": "I don't really understand the paper. To me, the top 1% do not make their income from salary, but rather from equity or various other asset-based income. Mixing both in the paper to assume that if you don't make $100k/y on salary by 25 you're a loser (sorry, part of the 99%) is dishonest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00ebe675aa3b9e72368efc6cbd63f1b1", "text": "Yes, but, that math is still inconsistent. . . . . . . . If you haven't figured out, I'm just messing with you. :D But, to answer your question. The highest GDP is not being even accessed by all members of our nation. Hence, some people are living a top 1st world nation, some are in moderate 2nd level nation; while a good chunk are living as though they are in a 3rd world/developing nation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75056fd07d30862bad206916f2cc6322", "text": "\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \"\"tax havens\"\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14cbea4564e47ff4109b0975795473d6", "text": "\"Thats why I think its really funny when everyone says Bill Gates or Carlos Slim or anyone else like that is the \"\"richest\"\" in the world. It's all a floating benchmark based on that day's stock valuations and known stock holdings and has nothing to do with liquid cash or assets. I'd be more curious to know about old European money such as Rothschilds, old country royalty and the true value of Rockerfellers assets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e73ccf77803714df5c45a597cf7a9e4", "text": "In fairness decline of velocity of wealth might not be entirely explained by wealth disparity but environmental decline. (Or the low hanging fruit theory if you will.) This is is the socialist belief. If true economists have a lot to answer for. Beyond that the implementation of truly progressive tax rates could significantly help as the writer alludes to. The top is not anywhere near adequately sampled with such a low number of sample sizes which the IRS calls tax brackets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b309d8497110987412f3ebce00f7f42f", "text": "There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars. These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d7b55389bc2acad8bedf354250ef0ce", "text": "\"Really this is no different from any kind of large lump sum and having a mortgage. There are probably many questions and answers on this subject. It really doesn't matter that the proceeds were the result of a sale, an inheritance would not change the answer. I think it is important to note that the proceeds will not eliminate the house 2 mortgage. A high level choice of investment one makes is between equity (such as stock) and debt investments (such as bonds and mortgages). You are in a unique case of being able to invest in your own mortgage with no investment fee. This may tip the scales in favor of paying down the mortgage. It is difficult to answer in your specific case as we don't know the rest of your finances. Do you have a sizable 401K that is heavily invested in stocks? Do you have the need for a college fund? Do you have an emergency fund? Do you have a desire to own several homes generating income property? If it was me I'd do the following in order, skipping steps I may have already completed: I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? I really kind of hate this attitude. Your goal is to get rid of the mortgage in a timely manner. Doing such makes paying for kids college a snap, reduces the income one might need in retirement, basically eliminates the need for life insurance, and gives one a whole lot of money to have fun with.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5725552036d5e3fc805427013be71153	Is there any advantage to owning equity in a company compared to a royalty agreement?	[ { "docid": "d05fc33bb41d52ddcd24e1d0ce1c13e9", "text": "Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "909417d8d10021a49861245cd34381e3", "text": "\"Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question \"\"Where is the value of the company coming from?\"\" This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments. In the current moment, it can also be defined as \"\"Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses\"\" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of \"\"Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)\"\", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc. Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts. At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense. However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances. When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: \"\"How much is the company worth at this moment?\"\", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out. In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for. This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity. This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out. The account which represents X in gnucash is called \"\"Equity\"\", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years. While the name would more accurately be called \"\"Starting Equity\"\", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named \"\"Equity\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf93f14c4c9dbe35734cc4af063d42a", "text": "As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a0b627c9da236657a47dd6eddb5215c", "text": "Ownership vs loanership. You can either own the factors of production, and so directly recieve the dividends of that production, or you can loan your wealth to someone who will use it to buy ownership in the factors of production, and give you a portion. Guess which one grows faster? One thing that was missed in this article, is that the political climate towards equity ownership has been very favorable since the 1980's, encouraging and simplifying the ownership of equity. The problem is that the middle class didn't take advantage of it, and now it's essentially too late.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc3613b07125009c56b2b3899676fdf8", "text": "If you own 100% of the shares of a company, then you own those shares personally. They are not owned by the company. If you sell 50% of you shares to a third party, then you receive the proceeds of the sale, not the company. In this case, the company's net equity is unchanged but you have exchanged 50% of your equity for cash. If you wish the company to receive the proceeds of the sale of shares, then you would have the company issue new shares in the company. In this case, your company's net equity would increase by the cash amount received and your personal equity would change accordingly. EDIT In order to fairly sell 50% of equity by issuing new shares it would be necessary for the new investor to invest 50K. This is because the new equity would be the original 50K of equity plus the cash received for new shares. Thus : cost of 50% of equity = 50% of (50K + cash recieved) = cash received. Solving for cash received gives 50K, so that is the correct amount to charge the new investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f18a170ac1d92e77e5a4792ddf675b6", "text": "Equity can be diluted by future investors, royalties get paid on each sale, companies can continue selling things even when operating at negative profit, back royalties due can be negotiated and at least partially paid in a bankruptcy. From the standpoint of the investor: If it doesn't look like the company will likely have commercial success with a second product, it may be wise to simply take a portion of the product that is actually selling rather than risk your capital on the company's future successes (or failures). From the standpoint of the business owner/entreprenuer, if you believe you have a second product close to the end of the development pipeline it would be wise not to give up equity in the entire enterprise simply to gain required financing to ramp up production and marketing on an existing product. Paying a royalty may be advantageous compared to paying interest on a loan as well (royalty payments are contingent on the occurrence of a sale while interest is due regardless).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74ef942d4e73c953544714a81f8b0383", "text": "Paying out dividends and financing new projects with debt also lessens the agency problem. The consequences of a failed project are greater when debt is used, so the manager now has a greater incentive to see that the project is a success. This, in addition to the paid divided is a benefit to the shareholder. If equity wasn't paid out and instead used for the project then the manager may not be so interested in its success. And if it's a failure then the shareholders are worse off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b573ff1763f664a030871b1be7801af5", "text": "Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's. Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5113b7444d0fc0998ef14da59956b5ec", "text": "I agree with the other comments that you should not buy/hold your company stock even if given at a discount. If equity is provided as part of the compensation package (Options/Restrictive Stock Units RSU)then this rule does not apply. As a matter of diversification, you should not have majority equity stake of other companies in the same sector (e.g. technology) as your employer. Asset allocation and diversification if done in the right way, takes care of the returns. Buying and selling on the same day is generally not allowed for ESPP. Taxation headaches. This is from personal experience (Cisco Systems). I had options issued in Sept 2008 at 18$ which vested regularly. I exited at various points - 19$,20$,21$,23$ My friend held on to all of it hoping for 30$ is stuck. Options expire if you leave your employment. ESPP shares though remain.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79f388d2574f818e5c8512003c48d607", "text": "This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc. For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2569304fbab4b2df0d16e3d0e3223be", "text": "With LLCs, the operation agreement can define different shares for different kinds of income or equity, and different partners may be treated differently. In essence, you can end up with a different stock class for each partner/member. So you need to read the grant document and the OA really carefully to know what you're getting. You may want to have a lawyer read through it for you. This may be way more complicated than classes of shares in a corporation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65341cfd9b4397498cdd8102ad2dbd20", "text": "No. Share are equity in companies that usually have revenue streams and/or potential for creating them. That revenue can be used to pay out dividends to the shareholders or to grow the company and increase its value. Most companies get their revenue from their customers, and customers rarely give their money to a company without getting some good or service in exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e93cddcced62dfdb09049d2d96c932b", "text": "What you will probably get is an option to buy, for £10,000, £10,000 worth of stock. If the stock price on the day your option is granted is £2.50, then that's 4,000 shares. Companies rarely grant discounted options, as there are tax disincentives. The benefit of the stock option is that when you exercise it, you still only pay £10,000, no matter what the 4,000 shares are now worth. This is supposed to be an incentive for you to work harder to increase the value of the company. You should also check the vesting schedule. You will typically not be able to exercise all your options for some years, although some portion of it may vest each year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f48115d3d43eea8f5b9323be4de730af", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6a86727ce2c1f10f9574097f583a59e", "text": "Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae148a4b9aca1e2103a1c57a04f56f16", "text": "This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c1f0b258fe1ee8894a5e39061f00b759	What Did Benjamin Graham Mean by Earnings Stability in The Intelligent Investor?	[ { "docid": "1adf6bf3b115f70cb8d77a0be6e30f97", "text": "\"Yes - this is exactly what it means. No losses (negative earnings). With today's accounting methods, you might want to determine whether you view earnings including or excluding extraordinary items. For example, a company might take a once-off charge to its earnings when revising the value of a major asset. This would show in the \"\"including\"\" but not in the \"\"excluding\"\" figure. The book actually has a nice discussion in Chapter 12 \"\"Things to Consider About Per-Share Earnings\"\" which considers several additional variables to consider here too. Note that this earnings metric is different from \"\"Stock Selection for the Defensive Investor\"\" which requires 10 years. PS - My edition (4th edition hardback) doesn't have 386 pages so your reference isn't correct for that edition. I found it on page 209 in Chapter 15 \"\"Stock Selection for the Enterprising Investor\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abc2f84718703e157926e5b001527a6f", "text": "\"Please note that the following Graham Rating below corresponds to five years: Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 50.00% Benjamin Graham - once known as The Dean of Wall Street - was a scholar and financial analyst who mentored legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, William J. Ruane, Irving Kahn and Walter J. Schloss. Buffett describes Graham's book - The Intelligent Investor - as \"\"by far the best book about investing ever written\"\" (in its preface). Graham's first recommended strategy - for casual investors - was to invest in Index stocks. For more serious investors, Graham recommended three different categories of stocks - Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV - and 17 qualitative and quantitative rules for identifying them. For advanced investors, Graham described various \"\"special situations\"\". The first requires almost no analysis, and is easily accomplished today with a good S&P500 Index fund. The last requires more than the average level of ability and experience. Such stocks are also not amenable to impartial algorithmic analysis, and require a case-specific approach. But Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV stocks can be reliably detected by today's data-mining software, and offer a great avenue for accurate automated analysis and profitable investment. For example, given below are the actual Graham ratings for International Business Machines Corp (IBM), with no adjustments other than those for inflation. Defensive Graham investment requires that all ratings be 100% or more. Enterprising Graham investment requires minimum ratings of - N/A, 75%, 90%, 50%, 5%, N/A and 137%. International Business Machines Corp - Graham Ratings Sales \| Size (100% ⇒ $500 Million): 18,558.60% Current Assets ÷ [2 x Current Liabilities]: 62.40% Net Current Assets ÷ Long Term Debt: 28.00% Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 100.00% Dividend Record (100% ⇒ 20 Years): 100.00% Earnings Growth (100% ⇒ 30% Growth): 172.99% Graham Number ÷ Previous Close: 35.81% Not all stocks failing Graham's rules are necessarily bad investments. They may fall under \"\"special situations\"\". Graham's rules are also extremely selective. Graham designed and backtested his framework for over 50 years, to deliver the best possible long-term results. Even when stocks don't clear them, Graham's rules give a clear quantifiable measure of a stock's margin of safety. Thank you.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "74f5180f25f128a9c22aaf7654f0730f", "text": "Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e65bd064fbdce5bd4a59cc1b63ec68e", "text": "From every article I've encountered, the chicken and egg aspect suggests that IV is produced by looking at options pricing, and calculating the IV from that. The implication is that whatever is known at that time is included in the price. And that when you see a particular option trade an unusual number of contracts at a given price, the implication is that someone thinks they know something that's not already priced in, i.e. that the current price is not accurate, they can profit on the future event.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fdbf339263b1065a53a294559a4d6dd", "text": "\"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: \"\"Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7ba96c65118aba556e5fd66ad996b27", "text": "\"In this instance \"\"quotational\"\" is a reference to a market price quote, not a mathematical function. Staunch \"\"value investors\"\" like Graham, Dodd, Munger, Buffett et al. believe there is a material difference between what security is \"\"worth\"\" and what the current market mood quotes as its price. You, the investor, perform your analysis then derive a value for a security. If there has been no material change to an aspect of the security you analyzed then there hasn't been a change in that security's value, even if there has been a decline in the price quoted by the market, that is a \"\"quotational loss.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d60e8694d9498ef8bffe8e020f24d0c", "text": "\"You're mixing up rhetoric (aka discussion and argument) with dialectic (the \"\"logical\"\" search for absolute truth). No essay about business could possibly be dialectic. Mine isn't. Paul Graham's certainly aren't. Therefore they are rhetoric, discussion and argument. And \"\"This person has much to gain if you do what he says\"\" is an absolutely valid argument. BTW - I'm self-taught. If you want to learn more, I highly recommend \"\"Thank You For Arguing.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d468a0e6187ebb28e046806b9f0ccf5", "text": "\"Your explanation is nearly perfect and not \"\"hand wavy\"\" at all. Stock prices reflect the collective wisdom of all participating investors. Investors value stocks based on how much value they expect the stock to produce now and in the future. So, the stability of the stock prices is a reflection of the accuracy of the investors predictions. Investor naivity can be seen as a sequence of increasingly sophisticated stock pricing strategies: If investors were able to predict the future perfectly, then all stock prices would rise at the same constant rate. In theory, if a particular investor is able to \"\"beat the market\"\", it is because they are better at predicting the future profits of companies (or they are lucky, or they are better at predicting the irrational behavior of other investors......)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a2789990856d8afd6cbc98beec94ec6", "text": "Crisis and volatility benefit financiers and the wealthy, even more now than they did then. Back then, anybody left standing could buy at the bottom of a depression--while it was those who needed wages to eat who really suffered. Nowadays, arbitrage and derivatives (not to mention federal policy) make volatility itself a profitable proposition for people with lots of money to invest. That said, I don't think it's a necessary conclusion from Garfield's statement that he thought those at the top intentionally caused inflation and depression--merely that their actions brought it about. Maybe he was complaining that the economy would be healthier and more stable if it were truly a free market, or maybe he was arguing that greed at the top led to imprudent policy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d749f778e3867fd0ff9cb0a5ad2224f9", "text": "Here's the original academic backbone that it's based on and expanded upon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modigliani%E2%80%93Miller_theorem I think thats it's overly conservative in this case (I fully accept academic theories only go so far in the real world) as Damodaran (NYU professor) has made a pretty solid case that cash on balance sheet at large cap tech companies is valued by the markets at less than its after tax $ value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5425400aa00739f218859eaffbd248", "text": "\"The argument you are making here is similar to the problem I have with the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis. That is if the market already has incorporated all of the information about the correct prices, then there's no reason to question any prices and then the prices never change. However, the mechanism through which the market incorporates this information is via the actors buying an selling based on what they see as the market being incorrect. The most basic concept of this problem (I think) starts with the idea that every investor is passive and they simply buy the market as one basket. So every paycheck, the index fund buys some more stock in the market in a completely static way. This means the demand for each stock is the same. No one is paying attention to the actual companies' performance so a poor performer's stock price never moves. The same for the high performer. The only thing moving prices is demand but that's always up at a more or less constant rate. This is a topic that has a lot of discussion lately in financial circles. Here are two articles about this topic but I'm not convinced the author is completely serious hence the \"\"worst-case scenario\"\" title. These are interesting reads but again, take this with a grain of salt. You should follow the links in the articles because they give a more nuanced understanding of each potential issue. One thing that's important is that the reality is nothing like what I outline above. One of the links in these articles that is interesting is the one that talks about how we now have more indexes than stocks on the US markets. The writer points to this as a problem in the first article, but think for a moment why that is. There are many different types of strategies that active managers follow in how they determine what goes in a fund based on different stock metrics. If a stocks P/E ratio drops below a critical level, for example, a number of indexes are going to sell it. Some might buy it. It's up to the investors (you and me) to pick which of these strategies we believe in. Another thing to consider is that active managers are losing their clients to the passive funds. They have a vested interest in attacking passive management.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c13c73a337f0b416dd0e626ae4d9b7cf", "text": "To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c32b346f9673dd384bb14d3388462a3c", "text": "\"The company was paying \"\"only\"\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \"\"too high,\"\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \"\"most\"\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \"\"stingy,\"\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7008b550403bc155de22a04bc7a30bb3", "text": "\"There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said \"\"Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10\"\". A few days later he comes back to me and says \"\"There are none\"\". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d", "text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52019f47440bfdf80c964bad8ededcdd", "text": "\"That's the key to modern finance: removing undesirable conditions until the model outcome supports the desired policy or sales pitch. We're safe because our model says so, and if it doesn't, change the model until it does. Anything that negatively affects the outcome is an \"\"anomaly\"\" - that anomalies are unavoidable, and will recur, is just an inconvenience better left out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd776fcff508cdba217b9e0a172c38b4", "text": "\"Been a long while since I've read it but if I remember correctly with quotational loss Graham refers to an unjustified decline in stock price because of Mr. Market's fear and loathing where the business prospects of the company are actually still sound. This is opposed to \"\"actual\"\" loss of capital which he would consider to be a company going bankrupt or just more generally turning out to have way worse business prospects than expected with the justified decline in stock price that entails.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4d796475e45756d96812ce214257eadb	What are my investment options in real estate?	[ { "docid": "f20fdb3b3ea6780e82c610fcb1950bd8", "text": "Your post seems to read as if you want to invest only in real estate rental properties as a start because they will be a reliable investment guaranteed to generate profits that you will be plowing back into buying even more rental properties, but you are willing to consider (possibly in later years) other forms of investment (in real estate) that will not require active participation in the management of the rental properties. While many participants here do own rental real estate and even manage it entirely, for most people, that is only a small part of their investment portfolio, and I suspect that hardly any will recommend real estate as the only investment the way you seem to want to do. Also, you might want to look more closely at the realities of rental real estate operations before jumping in. Things are not necessarily as rosy as they appear to you now. Not all your units will be rented all the time, and the rental income might not always be enough to cover the mortgage payments and the property taxes and the insurance payments and the repairs and maintenance and ... Depreciation of the property is another matter that you might not have thought about. That being said, you can invest in real estate through real estate investment trusts (REITs) or through limited partnerships where you have only a passive role. There are even mutual funds that invest in REITs or in REIT indexes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82cce7e98f05e442a949f64095925756", "text": "\"I compared investing in real estate a few years ago to investing in stocks that paid double digit dividends (hard to find, however, managing and maintaining real estate is just as hard). After discussing with many in the real estate world, I counted the average and learned that most averaged about 6 - 8% on real estate after taxes. This does not include anything else like Dilip mentions (maintenance, insurance, etc). For those who want to avoid that route, you can buy some companies that invest in real estate or REIT funds like Dilip mentions. However, they are also susceptible to the problems mentioned above this. In terms of other investment opportunities like stocks or funds, think about businesses that will always be around and will always be needed. We won't outgrow our need for real estate, but we won't outgrow our need for food or tangible goods either. You can diversify into these companies along with real estate or buy a general mutual fund. Finally, one of your best investments is your career field - software. Do some extra work on the side and see if you can get an adviser position at a start-up (it's actually not that hard and it will help you build your skill set) or create a site which generates passive revenue (again, not that hard). One software engineer told me a few years ago that the stock market is a relic of the past and the new passive income would be generated by businesses that had tools which did all the work through automation (think of a smart phone application that you build once, yet continues to generate revenue). This was right before the crash, and after it, everyone talked about another \"\"lost decade.\"\" While it does require extra work initially, like all things software related, you'll be discovering tools in programming that you can use again and again in other applications - meaning your first one may be the most difficult. All it takes in this case is one really good idea ...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06e1b8afb9052c723e8242b969dd441f", "text": "Real estate investment is a proven creator of wealth. Check into the history of the rich and you will find real estate investment. Starting your investment in multi-family is a great idea. It is a good way to gain experience in real estate while exponentially increasing cash flow. If you turn the properties over to a reputable property management company, your cash flow will be a little less but so will your headaches. (Expect to pay 8 - 10% of gross income.) You could start investing now by looking into discounted real estate such as foreclosures, tax sales, short sales etc while the market is still depressed. This way your return on investment should be higher. From there you could expand into land development (i.e. subdivision) or commercial investments. Commercial properties with triple net leases can be a great low-stress investment opportunity (but they take more cash upfront). Attending some local real estate investment classes would be a great idea for starters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e469606ed367da67077be8954d5324b4", "text": "\"If you're looking for a well-rounded view into what it's like to actually own/manage real-estate investments, plus how you can scale things up & keep the management workload relatively low, have a look at the Bigger Pockets community. There are blogs, podcasts, & interviews there from both full-time & part-time real estate investors. It's been a great resource for me in my investments. More generally, your goal of \"\"retiring\"\" within 20 years is very attainable even without getting extravagant investment returns. A very underrated determinant in how quickly you build wealth is how much of your income you are contributing to investments. Have a look at this article: The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c57aed130745f7340909eab64d045c58", "text": "\"My suggestion would be to do the math. That is the best advice you can get when considering any investment. There are other factors you haven't considered, too... like the fact that interest rates are at extremely low levels right now, so borrowing money is relatively cheap. If you're outside the US though, that may be less of a consideration as the mortgage lending institutions in Europe only tend to give 5-year locks on loan rates without requiring a premium. You may be somewhere else in the world. You will probably struggle to do the actual math about the probability of the market going down or up, but what you can do is this: Figure out what it would cost you to cash out the investments. You say your balance is $53,000 in various items. (Congrats! That's a nice chunk of money.) But with commissions and taxes and etc., it may reduce the value of your investments by 10% - 25% when you try to cash out those investments. Paying $3,000 to get that money out of the investments is one thing... but if you're sending $10,000 to the tax man when you sell this all off, that changes the economics of your investments a LOT. In that case you might be better off seeing what happens if the markets correct by 10%... you'd still have more than if you sold out and paid major taxes. Once you know your down payment, calculate the amount of property you could afford. You know your down payment could be somewhere around $50,000 after taxes and other items... At an 80:20 loan-to-value ratio that's about $250,000 of a property that you can qualify for, assuming you could obtain the loan for $200,000. What could you buy for that? Do some shopping and figure out what your options are... Once you have two or three potential properties, figure out the answer to \"\"What would the property give you?\"\" Is it going to be rented out? Are you going to live there? Both? If you're living in it, then you come out ahead if the costs for the mortgage debt and the ongoing maintenance and repairs are less than what you currently pay in rent. Figure out what you pay right now to put a roof over your head. Will the place you could buy need repairs? Will you pay more on a mortgage for $200,000 USD (in your local currency) than what you currently do for housing? Don't even factor in the possible appreciation of a house you inhabit when you're making this kind of investment decision... it could just as easily burn down as go up in value. If you would rent it, what kind of rental would that be? Long-term rental? Expect to pay for other people to break your stuff. Short-term rental? You can collect more money per tenant per day, but you'll end up with higher vacancy rates. And people still break your stuff. But do the math and see if you could collect enough in rent from a tenant (person or business or whatever the properties are you could buy) to cover the amount you are paying in debt, plus what you would pay in taxes (rent is income), plus what you would need for maintenance, plus insurance. IF the numbers make sense, then real estate can be a phenomenally lucrative investment. I own some investment properties myself. It is a great hedge against inflation (you can raise rents when contracts lapse... usually) and it is an excellent way to own a tangible item. But if you don't know the numbers and exactly how it would make you better off than sitting and hoping that the markets go up, because they generally do over time, then don't take the jump.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f84220fd43bec9562e69e878985ace2e", "text": "Insurance - get estimate from an insurance agent who works with policies for commercial real estate. See comments below regarding incorporation. Taxes - if this was basic income for a simple LLC, estimating 25-40% and adjusting over time might work. Rental property is a whole different prospect. Financial experts who specialize in rental properties would be a good source of advice, and worth the cost. See below regarding incorporating. Real estate appreciation - not something you can count on for developed property. Appreciation used to be almost guaranteed to at least keep up with inflation. Now property values are not even guaranteed to go up. Never have been but the general rule was improved real estate in good repair appreciated in price. Even if property values increase over time, rental properties depreciate. In fact, for rental properties, you can claim a certain rate of depreciation over time as an expense on taxes. This depreciation could mean selling for less than you paid for the property after a number of years, and owing capital gains taxes, since you would owe the difference between the depreciated value and the sale price. Related to taxes are local codes. Some areas require you to have a property management license to handle buildings with more than a certain number of units. If you are going to own rental properties, you should protect your private financial life by incorporating. Form a company. The company will own the property and hire any maintenance people or property managers or security staff or any similar employment activities. The company takes out the insurance and pays taxes. The company can pay you a salary. So, bottom line, you can have the company pay all the expenses and take all the risks. Then, assuming there's any money left after expenses, the company can pay you a manager's salary. That way if the worst happens and a tenant breaks their hip in the shower and sues you for ONE MILLION DOLLARS and wins, the company folds and you walk away. You might even consider two companies. One to own the property and lease it to a property management company. The property management company can then go bankrupt in case of some sort of liability issue, in which case you still keep the property, form a new management company, repaint and rename the property and move on. TL;DR: Get insurance advice from insurance agent before you buy. Same for taxes from an accountant. Get trained as a property manager if your local codes require it (might be a good idea anyway). Incorporate and have the company take all the risks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eeab1aacfb9f67c350b65bcfffaba13", "text": "To invest relatively small amounts in the real estate market, you could buy shares in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), a type of mutual fund. Admittedly that's a very different proposition from trying to become a landlord; lower risk but lower return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0a18cc899a00d5fae3a6011f519d2c1", "text": "\"A REIT is a real estate investment trust. It is a company that derives most of its gross income from and holds most of its assets in real estate investments, which, in this case, include either real property, mortgages, or both. They provide a way for investors to get broad exposure in a real estate market without going to buy a bunch of properties themselves. It also provides diversification within the real estate segment since REITs will often (but not necessarily) have either way more properties than an individual could get or have very large properties (like a few resorts) that would be too expensive for any one investor. By law, they must pay at least 90% of their taxable income as dividends to investors, so they typically have a good dividend rate (possibly but not necessarily) at the expense of growth of the stock price. Some of those dividends may be tax advantaged and some will not. An MLP is a master limited partnership. These trade on the exchange like corporations, but they are not corporations. (Although often used in common language as synonyms, corporation and company are not the same thing. Corporation is one way to organize a company under the law.) They are partnerships, and when you buy a share you become a partner in the company. This is an alternative form of ownership to being a shareholding. In this case you are a limited partner, which means that you have limited liability as with stock. The shares may appreciate or not, just like a stock, and you can generally sell them back to the market for a capital gain or loss under the same rules as a stock. The main difference here from a practical point of view is taxes: Partnerships (of any type) do no pay tax - Instead their income and costs are passed to the individual partners, who must then include it on their personal returns (Form 1040, Schedule E). The partnership will send each shareholder a Schedule K-1 form at tax time. This means you may have \"\"phantom income\"\" that is taxable even though cash never flowed through your hands since you'll have to account for the income of the partnership. Many partnerships mitigate this by making cash distributions during the year so that the partners do actually see the cash, but this is not required. On the other hand, if it does happen, it's often characterized as a return of capital, which is not taxable in the year that you receive it. A return of capital reduces your cost basis in the partnership and will eventually result in a larger capital gain when you sell your shares. As with any investment, there are pros and cons to each investment type. Of the two, the MLP is probably less like a \"\"regular\"\" stock since getting the Schedule K-1 may require some extra work at tax time, especially if you've never seen one before. On the other hand, that may be worth it to you if you can find one that's appreciating in value and still returning capital at a good rate since this could be a \"\"best of everything\"\" situation where you defer tax and - when you eventually do pay, you pay at favorable capital gains rates - but still manage to get your cash back in hand before you sell. (In case not clear, my comments about tax are specific to the US. No idea how this is treated elsewhere.) By real world example, I guess you meant a few tickers in each category? You can find whole lists online. I just did a quick search (\"\"list of MLP\"\" and \"\"list of REIT\"\"), found a list, and have provided the top few off of the first list that I found. The lists were alphabetical by company name, so there's no explicit or implicit endorsement of these particular investments. Examples of REIT: Examples of MLP:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1c24e36f701c54d0d64e560d2838b03", "text": "\"There's a hellova lot to be said for investing in real estate (simple residential real estate), even though it's grandma's advice. The two critical elements are 1) it's the only realistic way for a civilian to get leverage. this is why it almost always blows away \"\"tinkering in the stock markets\"\" in the 10-year frame. 2) but perhaps more importantly - it's a really \"\"enforced\"\" saving plan. you just have to pay it off every month. There are other huge advantages like, it's the best possible equity for a civilian, so you can get loans in the future to start your dotcom, etc. Try to buy yourself a very modest little flat (perhaps to rent out?) or even something like a garage or storeroom. Real estate can crash, but it's very unlikely; it only happens in end of the world situations where it won't matter anyway. When real estate drops say 30% everyone yells about that being a \"\"crash\"\" - I've never, ever owned a stock that hasn't had 30% down times. Food for thought!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "133154f62f8331a8df866bfc4aab2f0b", "text": "\"The trade-off seems to be quite simple: \"\"How much are you going to get if you sell it\"\" against \"\"How much are you going to get if you rent it out\"\". Several people already hinted that the rental revenue may be optimistic, I don't have anything to add to this, but keep in mind that if someone pays 45k for your apartment, the net gains for you will likely be lower as well. Another consideration would be that the value of your apartment can change, if you expect it to rise steadily you may want to think twice before selling. Now, assuming you have calculated your numbers properly, and a near 0% opportunity cost: 45,000 right now 3,200 per year The given numbers imply a return on investment of 14 years, or 7.1%. Personal conclusion: I would be surprised if you can actually get a 3.2k expected net profit for an apartment that rents out at 6k per year, but if you are confident the reward seems to be quite nice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da2523eb4bc3dc71b2bdad2079ee2ec5", "text": "\"Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free. This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef064ae7e68cf30d539f1a7323d318ef", "text": "\"In addition to Alex B's excellent overview, I'd like to add a few more bits of advice. First of all, one term you should know is \"\"commercial real estate\"\" - which is precisely what this is. There is a business element, but it is strictly (and almost entirely) intertwined to the underlying real estate, which makes this a special category of business which is generally considered simply \"\"commercial real estate\"\" (just like office buildings, shopping malls, etc). All real estate and businesses value are based on alternatives - what other options are there? In appraisal, these are generally called \"\"comparables\"\". A professional appraiser is generally available for commercial real estate of this type. While a full, official commercial appraisal can run into the thousands, many/most (all?) appraisers are willing to sell you a simplified version of their service, which can be called a \"\"letter of opinion\"\" and can help you get an idea for the market price (what other similar commercial properties are running for). A loan company would strictly require this, but if you are thinking of an all cash or form of seller-financing this would technically be optional. Your best bet is to read about some of what is involved in commercial real estate appraisal and evaluation, and you may even want to speak with commercial loan officers - even if you don't know that you want to get a loan to acquire the property! It's their job to help inform you about what is required and what they look for, so they can be a potential resource beyond your own research as well. With this said, the only way to estimate value (and, conveniently, the best way) is to look at other properties! And by \"\"others\"\", I mean that you should really not consider buying absolutely anything until you've viewed at least 6-10 other options in some depth - and you probably want to double or triple that number if you are looking to make this the last big business transaction of your life. If you don't you'll be relying on little more than dumb luck to carry you through - which in this area of business, you don't want to do because the dollar amounts and liabilities involved can bankrupt you in no time flat. With that general advice out of the way, here's a tiny nutshell version of valuation of commercial real estate. There are a few key parts involved in commercial real estate: land, improvements (buildings, docks, stuff like that), income, and wages. Land: the value of the land is based upon what you could sell it for, as-is. That is to say - who else might want it? This alone has many important factors, such as zoning laws, the neighborhood (including your neighbors), water/utilities, pacts on the land (someone may have insisted the land not be paved into a parking lot, or really anything like that), alternative uses (could you put a golf course on it, or is the land suitable for a big building or farming?), etc. And is this in a growing area, where you might hope the value will increase over the next decade, or decrease, or basically stay flat (and possibly cause losses compared to inflation)? Improvements: anything on the land is both an asset and a liability. It's an asset because it could add to the value of the land, but it might also reduce the land value if it interferes with alternate land uses. It's a liability, both in the legal sense and in that it requires maintenance. If you want to rent them out, especially, that means concern about any foundations involved, termites, roofs, sewage/septic tanks, utilities that are your responsibility (pipes, poles, wires), as well as any sort of ac/heating you may have, docks, and so on. These things are rarely free and absolutely can eat you alive. Income: Ah, the best part, the constant influx of cash! But wait, is it a constant influx? Some businesses are purely seasonal (summer only, winter only), some are year-round but have peak times, and others don't really have a \"\"peak\"\" to speak of. If you are renting, are there issues collecting, or with people over-staying? How about damage, making a mess, getting rowdy and disturbing others? Regardless, there is obviously some income, and this is usually the most dangerous part of the equation. I say \"\"dangerous\"\", because people absolutely lie like dogs on this part, all the time. It's easy to cook the books, assuming they even attempt to keep proper books in the first place! Businesses of this form often have a lot of cash business that's easy to hide (from Uncle Sam, or sometimes even the owners themselves if there are employees involved) - and fake! And some people are just shoddy bookkeepers and the info is just wrong. But, there will clearly be some kind of yearly income involved. What does this matter? Well...how much is there? How much is tied to the owners (personal friends do business and they will leave if the ownership/management changes)? In commercial real estate the income will be calculated for a fiscal year, and then there is something called a \"\"multiple\"\", which is market dependent. Let's say the whole place takes in $100k in rent a year. As part of buying this business, you are buying not just assets, but expected future income. In some commercial areas the multiple is as little as .5 to 2 - which means that the going rate is about 6-24 months worth of income, as part of the purchase price. So with 100k rent a year, that means 50k-200k of the purchase price is attributable to the income of the business. And if business is half of what you thought it would be? That means the net value of the whole enterprise decreases by 25k-100k - on top of the reduced income every year you own it! Income provides cash flow, which should pay all the expenses (cleaning up from wind storms, replacing windows that are broken, hauling off trash, replacing a well that ran dry), and then the extra that remains is positive cash flow. If you take out a loan, then ideally the cash flow would also pay that completely so long as you don't have any big unexpected expenses in the year - and still have some left over for yourself. Wages: Well, that money doesn't collect itself! There's sales, keeping the books, collecting the rent, performing maintenance, customer service, cleaning, paying the bills, keeping the insurance people happy, handling emergencies, and everything else involved with running the business. Someone is going to do it, and the biggest error people make here is not to put any value on their time - and to make it so they can never afford to take a vacation again! Pay yourself, and give yourself the flexibility to pay others when you can't (or don't want) to do it all yourselves. So, what's the point of all this? How do you actually make any money? In two ways: 1) selling the whole thing later, and 2) cash flow. For 1, it's important that you not be in a situation where you are betting that in the future there will be a \"\"person richer, and dumber, than I am now\"\". If the current owner wanted 2 million, then 1 mil, then less, over multiple years...this suggests either he is delusional about the value of his place (and most property owners are), or that its actually hard to find a buyer for such a business. You are going to want to make sure you understand why that is, because most of the value of real estate is...well, in the real estate itself! For 2, you need cash coming in that's considerably more than the cost of running the place. Also, cash flow can strongly change the value of the business for resale (depending on the multiple, this can make a huge difference or prevent you from selling the thing at all). You mentioned you want to put in more cabins, more marketing/sales efforts, etc. That's great, but first, that would mean added investment beyond the purchase price. Is it legally and physically practical to add more cabins, and what is their current utilization rate? If they are only renting 10% of their current capacity, increasing capacity may be premature. This will also vary through the year, so you may find there is a problem with being sold out sometimes...but only for a small percentage of the time. Which means you'll be adding buildings only to have them used for a fraction of the year, which will be very hard to make a profit from. If cash flow is good, ideally even being enough to cover a loan payment to help cover the purchase price (and remember that commercial real estate loans are much smaller loan-to-value ratios than in residential real estate), there is one final barrier to making money: the damn non-regular maintenance! Roofs, wells, and wooden walls all have a sad tendency to cost you nothing right up until the point they cost you $30k+ on a single day. Is there enough cash flow to make these sort of certainties (and if you plan to be there for years, they are a certainty) not put you in the poor house? This was rather long, but I hope this overview helps you appreciate all that you'll need to look into and be cautious of during your future en-devour! Commercial real estate is generally costly and high-risk, but also can be high reward. You'll need to compare many opportunities before you can get a \"\"feel\"\" for what is a good deal and what is a terrible one. You'll need to consider many factors, such as resale value and cash flow/income (which they will have to tell you and you can assume is not true, due to ignorance or malice), as well as maintenance and liabilities, before you can begin to really estimate the value of an enterprise of this sort. There are people who can help you, like appraisers and commercial brokers, but ultimately you'll need to do a lot of research and comparisons yourself to help you make a good decision. Finally, there is no very simple method for evaluating commercial real estate value. You need a variety of information, and you must be skeptical of what you are told because of the very large sums of money involved. It is doable (lots of people do it), but you must take care and do your due diligence so you don't get bankrupted by a single bad purchase.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4bf0dcb96ce68979ca1b604142bb2d7", "text": "\"Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of \"\"here is a nice house, live in it\"\". Which do you need more of? If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0129ccf189b8444f3ea2693d965ba8", "text": "\"First off, I would label this as speculation, not investing. There are many variables that you don't seem to be considering, and putting down such a small amount opens you to a wide variety of risks. Not having an \"\"emergency fund\"\" for the rental increases that risk greatly. (I assume that you would not have an emergency fund based upon \"\"The basic idea is to save up a 20% down payment on a property and take out a mortgage\"\".) This type of speculation lent a hand in the housing bubble. Is your home paid off? If not you can reduce your personal risk (by owning your home), and have a pretty safe investment in real estate. Mission accomplished. My hope for you would be that you are also putting money in the market. Historically it has performed quite well while always having its share of \"\"chicken littles\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1dafd282bb5c66c61fbf2635c3adf89c", "text": "As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12b393f48f29a67fb2145c2685cdab24", "text": "\"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is \"\"too good to not get into\"\" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e97b9935d422e0a08f35ada912eecf77", "text": "With an appropriate selection within a 401K and if operating expenses are low, you get tax deferred savings and possibly a lower tax bracket for now. The returns vary of course with market fluctuations but for almost 3 years it has been double digit growth on average. Some health care sector funds were up over 40% last year. YMMV. With stocks and mutual funds that hold them, you also are in a sense betting that people want their corporations to grow and succeed. Others do most of the work. Real estate should be part of your savings strategy but understand that they are not kidding when they talk about location. It can lose value. Tenants tend to have some problem part of the year such that some owners find it necessary to have a paid property manager to buffer from their complaints. Other owners get hauled into court and sued as slum lords for allegedly not doing basics. Tenants can ruin your property as well. There is maintenance, repair, replacement, insurance against injury not just property damage, and property taxes. While some of it might be deductible, not all is. You may want to consider that there are considerable ongoing costs and significant risks in time and money with real estate as an investment at a level that you do not incur with a 401K. If you buy mainly to flip, then be aware that if there are unforeseen issues with the house or the market sours as it can, you could be stuck with an immovable drain on your income. If you lose your job could you make payments? Many, many people sadly lost their homes or investment properties that way in 2008-2010.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55ecdda1e229a73cd562b64220076832", "text": "As user14469 mentions you would have to decide what type of properties you would like to invest in. Are you after negatively geared properties that may have higher long term growth potential (usually within 15 to 20km from major cities), or after positive cash-flow properties which may have a lower long term growth potential (usually located more than 20km from major cities). With negative geared properties your rent from the property will not cover the mortgage and other costs, so you will have to supplement it through your income. The theory is that you can claim a tax deduction on your employment income from the negative gearing (benefits mainly those on higher tax brackets), and the potential long term growth of the property will make up for the negative gearing over the long term. If you are after these type of properties Michael Yardney has some books on the subject. On the other hand, positive cash-flow properties provide enough rental income to cover the mortgage and other costs. They put cash into your pockets each week. They don't have as much growth potential as more inner city properties, but if you stick to the outer regions of major cities, instead of rural towns, you will still achieve decent long term growth. If you are after these type of properties Margaret Lomas has some books on the subject. My preference is for cash-flow positive properties, and some of the areas user14469 has mentioned. I am personally invested in the Penrith and surrounding areas. With negatively geared properties you generally have to supplement the property with your own income and generally have to wait for the property price to increase so you build up equity in the property. This then allows you to refinance the additional equity so you can use it as deposits to buy other properties or to supplement your income. The problem is if you go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth, you may have to wait quite a few years for your equity to increase substantially. With positively geared properties, you are getting a net income from the property every week so using none of your other income to supplement the property. You can thus afford to buy more properties sooner. And even if the properties go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth you are still getting extra income each week. Over the long term these properties will also go up and you will have the benefit of both passive income and capital gains. I also agree with user14469 regarding doing at least 6 months of research in the area/s you are looking to buy. Visit open homes, attend auctions, talk to real estate agents and get to know the area. This kind of research will beat any information you get from websites, books and magazines. You will find that when a property comes onto the market you will know what it is worth and how much you can offer below asking price. Another thing to consider is when to buy. Most people are buying now in Australia because of the record low interest rates (below 5%). This is causing higher demand in the property markets and prices to rise steadily. Many people who buy during this period will be able to afford the property when interest rates are at 5%, but as the housing market and the economy heat up and interest rates start rising, they find it hard to afford the property when interest rate rise to 7%, 8% or higher. I personally prefer to buy when interest rates are on the rise and when they are near their highs. During this time no one wants to touch property with a six foot pole, but all the owners who bought when interest rates where much lower are finding it hard to keep making repayments so they put their properties on the market. There ends up being low demand and increased supply, causing prices to fall. It is very easy to find bargains and negotiate lower prices during this period. Because interest rates will be near or at their highs, the economy will be starting to slow down, so it will not be long before interest rates start dropping again. If you can afford to buy a property at 8% you will definitely be able to afford it at 6% or lower. Plus you would have bought at or near the lows of the price cycle, just before prices once again start increasing as interest rates drop. Read and learn as much as possible from others, but in the end make up your own mind on the type of properties and areas you prefer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e0f31f94cf52b627aa07e0d9adb7d98", "text": "\"Find a stock screener that has data for the BSE and NSE. You may be able to look directly at volatility but a good stock screener will have the technical analysis indicator called \"\"average true range\"\", ATR for short. This will let you see the average range of price moves over several days.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
21f6c2d9117abd3e513148ca181ed668	Tax Form 1099 and hourly worker do i file a W-2 if my employer filed the 1099 for me?	[ { "docid": "97cbde3c965690a53a5b344eaf7ebe19", "text": "Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c14d942d1cffc6f843d1aefbbc04b1f5", "text": "\"1099's and other official tax forms are often reported to the IRS by the issuer, whether or not you include a copy in your return. You should not neglect to include this income in your 2016 return in an attempt to balance out the two tax years. It's up to you whether or not you feel like filing an amended 2015 return to recover over-payment of taxes from that tax year. You have up to three years to amend tax returns using form 1040X. Since you couldn't have furnished a 1099 for this when you filed your 2015 return (otherwise you wouldn't be in receipt of it for tax year 2016), I'm assuming you reported it simply as \"\"Other Income\"\" and therefore would have been [over] taxed your marginal rate on it. From irs.gov: When to amend a return. You should file an amended return if you need to correct your filing status, number of dependents, total income, tax deductions or tax credits. The instructions for Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, list additional reasons to amend a return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59e75daa5e86124187e195b99c1a93f1", "text": "In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260848 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240850 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fde0a3995bf32d9d9647f1f627bac675", "text": "Am I required to send form 1099 to non-US citizens who are not even residing in the US? Since they're not required to file US taxes, do I still have to send the form to them? That's tricky. You need to get W8/W9 from them, and act accordingly. You may need to withhold 30% (or different percentage, depending on tax treaty they claim on W8). If you withhold taxes, you also need to file form 1042. I suggest you talk to a tax professional. Is it fine to expose my ITIN (taxpayer identification number) to individuals or companies who I send the form to them. Since the form requires me to write my TIN/EIN, what would be the risks of this and what precautions should be taken to avoid inappropriate/illegal use? No, it is not OK. But if you pay these people directly - you don't have much choice, so deal with it. Get a good insurance for identity theft, and don't transact with people you don't trust. One alternative would be to pay through a payment processor (Paypal or credit cards) - see your next question. I send payments via PayPal and wire transfer. Should I send form 1099-MISC or 1099-K? Paypal is a corporation, so you don't need to send 1099 to Paypal. Whatever Paypal sends to others - it will issue the appropriate forms. Similarly if you use a credit card for payment. When you send money through Paypal - you don't send money directly to your business counterparts. You send money to Paypal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4541068da76cb92f024a769b9d81d85d", "text": "You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fb8ad9020bf14fbf901fe9c1f18a4c4", "text": "\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \"\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).\"\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \"\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7774c2bceeeac395e113b4bb31b43ee7", "text": "Many of the custodians (ie. Schwab) file for an extension on 1099s. They file for an extension as many of their accounts have positions with foreign income which creates tax reporting issues. If they did not file for extension they would have to send out 1099s at the end of January and then send out corrected forms. Obviously sending out one 1099 is cheaper and less confusing to all. Hope that helps,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f012c327a053717409f2d055434bc7a", "text": "Basically, it will depend on the documents your employer gives you. If your employer gives you a 2015 W-2 then you would claim it as income on your 2015 taxes. If the first W-2 they give you is for 2016, then you claim it on your 2016 taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b17812fbcc51ba2eaa7f18c455796b30", "text": "Should I have a W-2 re-issued? A W-2 can be corrected and a new copy will be filed with the IRS if your employer incorrectly reported your income and withholding on a W-2 that they issued. In this case, though the employer didn't withhold those taxes, they should not reissue the W-2 unless they plan to pay your portion of the payroll taxes that were not withheld. (If they paid your share of the taxes, that would increase your gross income.) Who pays for the FICA I should have paid last year? Both you and your employer owe 7.65% each for FICA taxes. By law your employer is required to pay their half and you are required to pay your half. Both you and your employer owe additional taxes because of this mistake. Your other questions assume that your employer will pay your portion of the taxes withheld. You employer could decide to do that, but this also assumes that it was your employer's fault that the mistakes were made. If you transitioned to resident alien but did not inform your employer, how is that your employer's fault?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dab4f4eba07fe5cdd610a1ed0521d85", "text": "You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c68cedbd4aa170b06821aa99ccc65c1", "text": "\"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying \"\"Oops, we made a mistake last year\"\". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while \"\"I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do\"\" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway. Note to readers preparing to down-vote: this answer is prolix and says things that are far too \"\"well-known to everybody\"\" (and especially to you), but please remember that they might not be quite so well-known to the OP.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f32d820d97c3f202be1a3c1a88a1820b", "text": "\"Does he need to file a tax return in this situation? Will the IRS be concerned that he did not file even if he received a 1099? No. However, if you don't file the IRS may come back asking why, or \"\"make up\"\" a return for you assuming that the whole amount on the 1099-MISC is your net earnings. So in the end, I suspect you'll end up filing even though you don't have to, just to prove that you don't have to. Bottom line - if you have 1099 income (or any other income reported to the IRS that brings you over the filing threshold), file a return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b01955977794a02a7d27bdbfa46c7c1", "text": "Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "938db83ce9d0d8d64a670ca38b919a3b", "text": "Note: This is not professional tax advice. If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000? US$100,000? I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own. Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation. Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising. Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors. Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned. Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes. BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64ff7d85368c789defd8b35ea3d24c03", "text": "\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "046c3a367b30527c5d320c397e8de7c7", "text": "If you are in the US and a regular employee, this will have to show up on your year-end W2 form as income. If it doesn't, there is some funky accounting business going and you should probably consult a professional for advice.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
34a59182681916c47be07657e67c4479	Are stock investments less favorable for the smaller investor?	[ { "docid": "c3659ad6a4c1d4d2f9e0aa0439187186", "text": "You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e3309d191d613404bd65a9a8a47dd1f", "text": "If you are looking at long-term investments then you can look to Dheer's answer and see that it doesn't matter whether the money is large or small, the return will be the same. When it comes to shorter-term investments, it can actually pay to be a smaller investor. Consider a stock that may not be trading in high volume. If I want to take a position for 2,000 shares, I can probably buy it quite quickly without moving the market considerably. If I was managing your hypothetical portfolio opening a position for 1,000,000 shares, it can cause the price to go up significantly because I have to execute the order very carefully in order to not tip my hand to the market that I want a million shares. Algorithmic traders will see the volume increasing on those shares and will raise their asking price. High speed traders and market makers will also cause a lot of purchasing overhead. Then later when it comes time to sell, I will lose a percentage to the price drop as I start flooding the market with available shares.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "21253916624b7918f6c3709e9a984172", "text": "Its pretty much always a positive to have large institutional investors. Here's a few cases where I can see an argument against large institutional investors: In recent years, we've seen corporate raiders and institutional investors that tend to influence management in ways that are focused on short term gain. They'll often go for board seats and disrupt the existing management team. It can serve as a distraction and really hurt morale. Institutional investors also have rules in their prospectus that they are required to abide by. For example, some institutional investors will not hold on to stock below $5. This really affected major banking stocks, some of which ended up doing reverse stock splits to keep their share price high. Institutional investors will also setup specific funds that require a stock to be listed as part of an index (i.e. the SPY, DJIA etc.,). When a stock is removed from an index, big investors leave quickly and the share price suffers. In recent months, companies like Apple have made their share price more affordable to attract retail investors. It gives an opportunity for retail to feel even more connected to the company. I'm not sure how much this affects overall sales... Generally, a good stock should be able to attract both retail and institutional investors. If there's not a good mix, then its usually a sign that somethings amiss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de2442349928571c8c1fd0025617a775", "text": "More questions! 1.) I thought the criticism of the Dow was that it's much smaller than other indexes and thus less representative of the market as a whole? 2,) When you say private investors are you talking about a few specific people? Or anyone who invests at all? Thanks", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea17710a4fd7f5570df071d180f65a63", "text": "\"It appears that there's a confusion between the different types of average. Saying \"\"the average investor\"\" generally means the most common type of small-scale unsophisticated investor - the mode (or possibly median) investor. However, while this class of investors is numerous, each of them has assets that are quite small compared to some other types of investors; and the market average performance is determined proportionally to the amount of assets held, not to the number of holders; so the performance of large investors \"\"counts\"\" that much more. For any measure, the mode of performance can be (and often is) different from the mean performance - in this case, Dalbar is saying that the most common results are lower than the (weighed) average results.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c6ab5bb3293780622eb0644d28f7890", "text": "The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f8322c9d7eca2e486c8147430074bb7", "text": "One implication is the added fees if you are investing in something with a trading cost or commission, such as your stock purchase. If you pay low costs to trade (e.g. with a discount broker) and don't switch your investments often, then costs overall should remain reasonable .. but always be aware of your costs and seek to minimize them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ef5ae799f8b31bb763122fa08838f1e", "text": "Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642605635985e7e03e7dea5aa0e99d77", "text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8857170018f503149b7d0033ac8cbc9f", "text": "It's great that you have gotten the itch to learn about the stock market. There are a couple of fundamentals to understand first though. Company A has strong, growing, net earnings and minimal debt, it's trading for $100 per share. Company B has good revenue but high costs of goods and total liabilities well in excess of total assets, it's trading for $0.10 per share. There is no benefit to getting 10,000 shares or 10 shares for your $1,000. Your goal is to invest in companies that have valuable products and services run by competent management teams. Sure, the number of shares you own will dictate what percentage of the company you own, and in a number of cases, your voting power. But even a penny stock will have a market capitalization of several million dollars so voting power isn't really a concern for your $1,000 investment. There is a lot more in the three basic financial statements (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows) than revenue. Seasoned accountants can have a hard time parsing out where money is coming from and where it's going. In general there are obvious red flags, like a fast declining cash balance against a fast growing liabilities balance or expenses exceeding revenue. While some of these things are common among new and high growth companies, it's not the place for a new investor with a small bankroll. A micro-cap company (penny stocks are in this group) will receive rounds of financing via issuing preferred convertible shares which may include options on more shares. For a company worth $20mm a $5mm financing round can materially change the finances of a company, and will likely dilute your holdings in common stock. Small growth companies need new financing frequently to fund their growth strategies. Revenue went up, great... why? Did you open another store? Did you open another sales office? Did the revenue increase this quarter based on substantially the same operation that existed last quarter or have you increased the capacity of your operation? If you increased the capacity of your operation what was the cost of the increase and did revenue increase as expected? Can you expect revenue to continue to grow at this rate or was it a one time windfall from an unusual order? Sure, there are spectacular gains to be had in penny stocks. XYZ Pharma Research (or whatever) goes from $0.05 to $0.60 and you've turned your $1,000 in to $12,000. This is a really unlikely event... Buying penny stocks is akin to buying lottery tickets. Unless you are a high ranking employee at the company capable of making decisions, or one of the investors buying the preferred shares mentioned in point 3, or are one of the insiders of a pump and dump scam on the stock, penny common stocks are not a place to invest. One could argue that even a company insider should probably avoid buying common stock. Just to illustrate the points above, you mention: Doing some really heavy research into this stock has made me question the whole penny stock market. Based on your research what is the enterprise value of the company? What were the gross proceeds of the last financing round, how many shares were issued and were there any warrants attached? What do you perceive to be heavy research? What background do you have in finance/accounting to give weight to your ability to perform such research? Crawl. Walk. Then run. Don't kid yourself in to thinking that since you have some level of education you understand the contracts involved in enterprise finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "951b9b0fce84b385eb005e407056b51a", "text": "Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02cf1973bc8bfdb5930a3f0b20037ecd", "text": "By exploiting institutional investors, HFT does hurt small investors. People with pension, mutual, and index funds get smaller returns. Endowment funds are also going to get hurt which hurts hospitals, schools, charities, and other institutions that work for the public good. I agree with you though. At this point we would likely be just arguing semantics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2900a922d243bb2b0282f4fcec6579b", "text": "\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cf18975c984604687f3099d5817b239", "text": "Yes, you should own a diverse mix of company sizes to be well diversified. While both will probably get hit in a recession, different economies suit different sized companies very differently in many cases, and this diversity positions you best to not only not miss out in cases where small companies do better out of recessions than large, but also in environments where small companies rate of growth is larger in bull markets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7edf5d450d98f1513b4faaa546c6202e", "text": "No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "699cc6e9542068712bf23b3cc1e56b16", "text": "\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9", "text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
585e5d7dee99cf0d0a25c6c5e6970a0c	Mailed in One-time Payment by Check	[ { "docid": "dbc64c870685d9d3c4e4e506ee4e6c5f", "text": "I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4f03c1b110541156fe89f80e845b9001", "text": "When setting these up for my own bill payment, I was surprised, after the fact, to see that a couple I thought would be a mailed check were actually instant transfers, and for others, vice versa. On line banking typically asks you for the due date and they handle from there. If you need this detail before the payment, I'd ask the bank. Else, it's easy to see after the fact for a given payee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c970e9e4752025f14c6a88559265046", "text": "\"The store owners don't know what your intentions are. All they know is they gave you good cash for a bad check. Part of this is that you're paying for the bad acts of others in the past, and these people aren't in the business of trying to understand your intentions. If you show good faith by going in and paying whatever you can, it will go a long way toward getting them to work with you on the balance. I don't know if they'd have much of a criminal case if the check you gave them was clearly marked as \"\"void\"\" and you've shown a willingness to resolve the situation. Of course you can't blame them for not wanting to accept another check from you. Good old hard cash, even if it isn't the full amount, will be a better sign of your intent to repay the debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "719f1685a89d9fb9de133c901e3092fc", "text": "Have the check reissued to the proper payee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b43468d17ae30e808449541d67848ad", "text": ">I might have an answer! I imagine they're capitalizing on people's laziness. I live in the Bay Area where some people probably don't mind paying $35 to not have to walk 100 feet to the office and drop off a check. Except that at their end they then have to deal with the cheques, have someone to receive them and so on, deal with the inevitable bounced cheques too.. Seems like a shitty plan, but yeah, I suppose if someone can gouge you they may well do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3b115181031954eaaccb2a341b09b63", "text": "While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e50f6d3b54844133f771525f6a664b3b", "text": "\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ee8c8550decc2affbf4a6d32464e470", "text": "Several options: Banks - ask in the branches near to you if any of them would do that. They generally only service their account members, but if you smile and talk nicely to the tellers they might do that for you. It may involve some nominal commission. Check cashing places - they're everywhere, and they carry large denomination bills. They will probably do that, but will likely charge a commission. Money orders - if you don't want to give a personal check, buy a money order at the post office, and dump the cash on them. It costs a nominal fee ($1.60 at USPS).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ef100bc0d7e435fdc5fbb103eef4366", "text": "\"It's a scam. The cashier's check will be forged. Craigslist has a warning about it here (item #3). What kind of payment do you think is not fakable? Or at least not likely to be used in scams? When on craigslist - deal only locally and in person. You can ask to see the person's ID if you're being paid by check When being paid by check, how can seeing his/her ID help? In case the check isn't cashable, I can find that person by keeping record of his/her ID? If you're paid by check, the payers details should be printed on the check. By checking the ID you can verify that the details match (name/address), so you can find the payer later. Of course the ID can be faked too, but there's so much you can do to protect yourself. You'll get better protection (including verified escrow service) by selling on eBay. Is being paid by cash the safest way currently, although cash can be faked too, but it is the least common thing that is faked currently? Do you recommend to first deposit the cash into a bank (so that let the bank verify if the cash is faked), before delivering the good? For Craigslist, use cash and meet locally. That rules out most scams as a seller. What payment methods do you think are relatively safe currently? Then getting checks must be the least favorite way of being paid. Do you think cash is better than money order or cashier order? You should only accept cash. If it is a large transaction, you can meet them at your bank, have them get cash, and you receive the cash from the bank. Back to the quoted scam, how will they later manipulate me? Are they interested in my stuffs on moving sale, or in my money? They will probably \"\"accidentally\"\" overpay you and ask for a refund of some portion of the overpayment. In that case you will be out the entire amount that you send back to them and possibly some fees from your bank for cashing a bad check.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e0ecaebd4337c74aafc2816abb535ab", "text": "\"I signed the checks \"\"JoeTaxpayer, parent\"\" and never had an issue with my bank. Note, I am in the US, and my experience may just be with my particular bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd7362d8729d8ff0c1f67fb347742f71", "text": "WE're talking about companies. Cooperate companies. What cooperate company is issuing bounced or fake checks to their employees that can also issue debit cards as payments? None. You're trying to split hairs between personal cashed checks and pay roll checks. They aren't the same at all. Payroll checks don't require a 3 day waiting period before the balance is moved to your account, personal checks that don't have a history of bouncing do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb1508ea931882b83665fb6c454f4549", "text": "For an individual its not automatic. One needs to ask the Bank, return the check. For Corporate Customer depending on how big the relationship is, many a times this is given as a service and there is an automatic return", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37c92235ba646978f24e7933ffa9da44", "text": "No, we did not apply for the loan. So, this is why we thought it was a bit strange a company just sending you a real check for $30K. It does not say anywhere in big red letters that it is a loan. Probably something in very small letters on a back of a paper. This is really horrible. Especially,if your customers do pay you by check and small business relies on online statement to determine who paid what. I can easily imagine a small outfit that just takes all the checks to the bank, cash them, and then use online statement to update their books. I do not see how it is helpful to businesses to receive pre-approved credit that is so poorly marked. Especially in the age of electronic transfers!!! I am trying to understand why I feel so offended by this, and I guess it all comes down to disgust: I refuse to believe that any serious company would use these sort of tactics and instead of us spending more time developing a better product, we have to put more time and effort into ensuring we do not fall victim to this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17609ed5dd1c22d3b7733a7358c9a2a2", "text": "\"I expect the company wanted to pay you for a product (on a purchase order) rather than as a contract laborer. Whatever. Would they be willing to re-issue the check to you as a sole proprietor of a business named ABC Consulting (or anything like that)? You can register your sole proprietor business with the state using a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA, or fictitious name), and then open the bank account for your business using the check provided by the customer as the first deposit. (There is likely a smaller registration fee for the DBA.) If they won't re-issue the check and you have to go the LLC route... Scrounge up $125 doing odd jobs or borrowing from a friend or parents. Seriously, anyone can earn that amount of money in a week or two. Besides the filing fee for the LLC, your bank may require you to provide an Operating Agreement (which is not required by the State). The Operating Agreement can be simple, or more complex if you have a partner (even if it's a spouse). If you do have a partner, it is essential to have such an agreement because it would specify the responsibilities and benefits allocated to each partner, particularly in the event of equity distributions (taking money out of the business, or liquidating and ending the LLC). There are websites that will provide you a boilerplate form for Operating Agreements. But if your business is anything more than just single member LLC, you should pay an attorney to draw one up for you so the wording is right. It's a safeguard against potential future lawsuits. And, while we're at it, don't forget to obtain a EIN (equivalent to a SSN) from the IRS for your LLC. There's no cost, but you'll have to have it to file taxes as a business for every year the LLC exists and has income. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab4e544caa7e8c7379f2f5832b9df854", "text": "\"Based on past case law, a check made payable to qualified charity and delivered (e.g., placed in the mail on 12/31 would count as delivered as it is out of the hands of the donor) would fall under the \"\"constructive receipt doctrine\"\". However, for non-charitable gifts (e.g., gifts to family members) it is the date the check is cashed (honored by the receiving bank). This is important as the annual gift exclusion is just that \"\"Annual\"\". Therefore, if I gift my child $14,000 by writing a check on 12/31/2014 but they deposit it on 1/3/2015 then I have used my annual gift exclusion for 2015 and not 2014. This means I could not gift them anything further in 2015. BTW the annual gift amount is for ALL gifts cash and non-cash. Most people don't seem to realize this. If I give $14,000 of cash to my child and then also give them Christmas gifts with a value of $1,000 I have exceeded my annual gift exclusion to that child. Usually there are ways around this issue as I can give $14,000 to each and every person I want and if married my spouse can do the same. This allows us to give $14,000 from each of us to each child plus $14,000 from each of us to their spouse if married and $14,000 from each of us to each of their children if they have any.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2661232f0ca4b7cb6063bd231cb62f70", "text": "In the United States, post-dating a check, on its own, has no valid use. It can be cashed at any time at the discretion of the bank. You would need to send a notice of postdating to your bank describing the check. This doesn't prevent the recipient of cashing the check, but it does prevent your bank from charging your account until the date you specify NOTE: This may be considered a form of stop payment, and you may be subject to the fees noted by your institution. Source: [Uniform Commercial Code - Article 4A § 4-401] (c) A bank may charge against the account of a customer a check that is otherwise properly payable from the account, even though payment was made before the date of the check, unless the customer has given notice to the bank of the postdating describing the check with reasonable certainty. [...] If a bank charges against the account of a customer a check before the date stated in the notice of postdating, the bank is liable for damages for the loss resulting from its act. The loss may include damages for dishonor of subsequent items under Section 4-402.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8ed69326033342048f4ff5475443c516	Do you have to be mega-rich to invest in companies pre-IPO?	[ { "docid": "93860154dd97e77e09750e016a2bb41c", "text": "\"Short answer: No. Being connected is very helpful and there is no consequence by securities regulators against the investor by figuring out how to acquire pre-IPO stock. Long answer: Yes, you generally have to be an \"\"Accredited Investor\"\" which basically means you EARN over $200,000/yr yourself (or $300,000 joint) and have been doing so for several years and expect to continue doing so OR have at least 1 million dollars of net worth ( this is joint worth with you and spouse). The Securities Exchange Commission and FINRA have put a lot of effort into keeping most classes of people away from a long list of investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d78280a06f17c17e2f6b70609018051", "text": "\"No you don't have to be super-rich. But... the companies do not have to sell you shares, and as others mention the government actively restricts and regulates the advertising and sales of shares, so how do you invest? The easiest way to obtain a stake is to work at a pre-IPO company, preferably at a high level (e.g. Director/VP of under water basket weaving, or whatever). You might be offered shares or options as part of a compensation package. There are exemptions to the accredited investor rule for employees and a general exemption for a small number of unsolicited investors. Also, the accredited investor rule is enforced against companies, not investors, and the trend is for investors to self-certify. The \"\"crime\"\" being defined is not investing in things the government thinks are too risky for you. Instead, the \"\"crime\"\" being defined is offering shares to the public in a small business that is probably going to fail and might even be a scam from the beginning. To invest your money in pre-IPO shares is on average a losing adventure, and it is easy to become irrationally optimistic. The problem with these shares is that you can't sell them, and may not be able to sell them immediately when the company does have an IPO on NASDAQ or another market. Even the executive options can have lock up clauses and it may be that only the founders and a few early investors make money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b721bf929645a32770ca5320a4f2b5b7", "text": "There are a couple of ways to buy into a private company. First, the company can use equity crowd funding (approved under the JOBS act, you don't need to be an accredited investor for this). The offering can be within one state (i.e. Intrastate offerings) which don't have the same SEC regulations but will be governed by state law. Small companies (small assets, under $1 million) can be made under Regulation D, Rule 504. For assets under $5 million, there is Rule 505, which allows a limited number of non-accredited investors. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of 504 and 505 issues. Rule 506 issues are common, and it does allow a few non-accredited investors (I think 35), but non-accredited investors have to be given lots of disclosure, so often companies use a Rule 506 issue but only for accredited investors.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9a39855dd76f6d71894d271408f6887b", "text": "Yes. There are exceptions under the pre-JOBS laws to allow unaccredited investors (off the top of my head I don't remember the limit, but 35 sounds right). However, it increases the amount of information the company has to give to those investors. Post-JOBS you're allowed to have up to 500 unaccredited investors and as far as I know, it doesn't really change the information the company has to give.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ff8f21e99d612524de391740ba0928c", "text": "Two methods: 1: Become really close friend with Marky. Probably have to take a bullet for him or something. 2: Become a major client of the investment bank that will launch the IPO (most likely Goldman), and the bank will offer you some shares before the IPO. In order to become a major client you probably have to spend several millions per year in transaction fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96387f55bb095db0193bdbe95e7499a8", "text": "\"The \"\"coin flip\"\" argument made in the article is absurd. My old boss had a saying, \"\"the harder I work, the luckier I get.\"\" He came from nothing, worked maniacally to become an Olympian, and later in life became a multi-millionaire. This is a common story among self-made people. I DO think that the rich have significant advantages: education, contact networks, access to startup capital, etc. These are very helpful, but don't assure success. Their lack is not insurmountable by the ambitious. I also think those advantages have expanded in recent years. Monetary policy has resulted in a large pool of investable funds being made available to to the financial sector, who earn high incomes with rent-seeking tactics.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "899c9572b9f6b04a758c21d1e283dab3", "text": "\"Just skimming through the Wikipedia article on airberlin, I notice there is more to the story than simply \"\"airberlin's IPO failed, so they postponed it and did it anyways.\"\" 3 points to keep in mind about IPOs: 1) An IPO is the mechanism for taking a private company and setting it up for shares to be owned by \"\"the public\"\". 2) The process of selling shares to the public often allows original owners and/or early investors to \"\"cash out\"\". Most countries (including member nations of the EU) limit some transactions like pre-IPO companies to \"\"accredited investors\"\". 3) Selling shares to the public also can allow the company to access more funds for growth. This is particularly important in a capital-intensive business like an airline; new B737-MAX costs >$110M. New A320neo costs >$105M USD. Ultimately, the question of a successful IPO depends on how you define success. Initially, there was a lot of concern that the IPO was set up with too much focus on goal #2... allowing the management & owners to cash out. It looks like the first approach was not meeting good opinions in the market during 2006. A major concern was that the initial approach focused on management only cashing out its shares and no money actually going to the company to support its future. The investment bankers restructured the IPO, including the issuance of more new shares so that more $ could end up in the company's accounts, not just in the accounts of the management. If anything, it's still a pretty successful IPO given that the shares were successfully listed, the company collected the money it needed to invest and grow, and the management still cashed out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7967202b7921329aed481174711eebb7", "text": "Turukawa's answer is quite good, and for your own specific situation, you might begin by being sceptical about what you are getting for investing a few thousand dollars. With the exception of Paul Graham's Y-Combinator, there are very few opportunities to invest at that type of level, and Y-Combinator provides a lot of other assistance besides their modest initial investment. I can tell from your post that you think like an investor. It is highly unlikely that the entrepreneurial programmers that you will be backing will be wired that way. From the modest amount that you are investing, you are unlikely to be the lead investor in this opportunity. If you are interested in proceeding, simply stick along for the ride, examining the terms and documents that more significant investors will be demanding. Remain positive and supportive, but simply wait to sign on the dotted line until others have done the heavy lifting. For more insights into startups themselves, see Paul Graham's essays at www.paulgraham.com. He's the real deal, and his recent essays will provide you with current insights about software startups. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2f5def027a81c2bd2a43665ac808a3c", "text": "It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad8c31cf38ded9ae11e02d78b881164", "text": "\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c40f7111b9718afc316b8ae5b88bb84c", "text": "\"Previous answers have done a great job with the \"\"Should I invest?\"\" question. One thing you may be overlooking is the question \"\"Am I allowed to invest?\"\" For most offerings of stock in a startup, investors are required to be accredited by the SEC's definition. See this helpful quora post for more information on requirements to invest in startups. To be honest, if a startup is looking for investors to put in \"\"a few thousand dollars\"\" each, this would raise my alarm bells. The cost and hassle of the paperwork to (legitimately) issue shares in that small of number would lead me just to use a credit card to keep me going until I was able to raise a larger amount of capital.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba932ab7edd82cd583be7d0ce813cdbc", "text": "The most significant capability that an investor must have is the knowledge on the way to look for the high dividend stocks. Through accumulating good information relating to towards the stocks that you are finding is the better way of getting the perfect and profitable investments. It is really important to learn what makes a particular stock better and superior compared to other. Traders are essential to start a complete analysis and investigation before getting their money on any business projects. Obviously, investors certainly want to have an investment that could guarantee an effective expense for a very reasonable cost the moment of getting it. The chances of crucial to invest in a market that you might be aware and qualified about. So, creating a comparison and compare in one business to a different is totally essential so as to find the high dividend stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0e031045feb0f059b8f4d20233b164", "text": "\"We just got in an argument in another thread, and I don't necessarily want to continue it, but was browsing your comments and saw this. I can say from personal experience (I have several high net worth clients) that this isn't true. The rich do the opposite of leave their money laying around. They invest it to make more money. They buy office buildings, fund new companies, buy up stocks, and drive investment in general. Someone has to do these things. Office buildings can't just be owned by \"\"the people\"\". Someone with a ton of money has to come along and fund them. For example, one of my friends knows Elon Musk (founder of Pay-Pal, Tesla Motors, Solar City, and Space X). He is worth $2 billion, but was living on other people's couches (including my friend's) after he sold Pay-Pal because he had just poured all of his cash into starting Tesla Motors. He was a billionaire without a penny to his name (well I'm sure he had a little cash lying around, but was essentially asset rich, cash broke). THAT is what most ultra rich people are like. They invest their money, they don't just horde it away in a savings account. The things people like Musk do create jobs and sometimes entire industries (or three entire industries in his case). I'm by no means arguing that this is right or wrong, but to say rich people just have money lying around is absurd. You don't get rich by saving money in the bank, you get rich by spending it. I'm in my early 20's, but already own multiple apartment buildings. I'm not rich yet and am in the same boat as Musk was. I have tons of assets, but almost no cash I can spend. However, you bet my efforts are creating jobs. I'm employing people to renovate and people to repair and maintain these buildings. I'm helping stop the bleeding in the real estate market, but, according to the narrative, I'm evil because my \"\"income\"\" is six figures.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f130cbf649f1927e057d58350102db01", "text": "You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job. The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it. They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors. With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fbbb410b7ff1fb7eba4f60c84daad3f", "text": "There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f", "text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b31565f39a22a3c38bad6baeab2848a1", "text": "You can say it's a bad proxy but practically all the richest people have their money tied up in equities, and it would be foolish for them not to. You have to include that somehow. Net worth is not just liquid assets", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88ab9f9eb83e88b5b691d94aa1f7100e", "text": "Many CEOs I have heard of earn a lot more than 200k. In fact a lot earn more than 1M and then get bonuses as well. Many wealthy people increase there wealth by investing in property, the stock market, businesses and other assets that will produce them good capital growth. Oh yeh, and luck usually has very little to do with their success.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3c406daaad8198e5810c8e251b89b5e1	Recommended education path for a future individual investor?	[ { "docid": "b225057ac5a2daf8508875ece3977755", "text": "\"For a job doing that kind of stuff, what is PREFERRED is 4 year undergrad at ivy league school + 2 year MBA at ivy league school, and then several more years of experience, which you can sort of get by interning while in school this will of course saddle you with debt, which is counterintuitive to your plans basically, the easy way up is percentage based compensation. without knowing the right people, you will get a piss poor salary regardless of what you do, in the beginning. so portfolio managers earn money by percentage based fees, and can manage millions and billions. real estate agents can earn money by percentage based commissions if they close a property and other business venture/owners can do the same thing. the problem with \"\"how to trade\"\" books is that they are outdated by the time they are published. so you should just stick with literature that teaches a fundamental knowledge of the products you want to trade/make money from. ultimately regardless of how you get/earn your initial capital, you will still need to be an individual investor to grow your own capital. this has nothing to do with being a portfolio manager, even highly paid individuals on wall street are in debt to lavish expenditures and have zero capital for their own investments. hope this helps, you really need to be thinking in a certain way to just quickly deduce good ideas from bad ideas\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b108040bd2c34ec920bd9d6ec5d7bbd", "text": "My plan is that one day I can become free of the modern day monetary burdens that most adults carry with them and I can enjoy a short life without these troubles on my mind. If your objective is to achieve financial independence, and to be able to retire early from the workforce, that's a path that has been explored before. So there's plenty of sources that you might want to check. The good news is that you don't need to be an expert on security analysis or go through dozens of text books to invest wisely and enjoy the market returns. This is the Bogleheads philosophy. It's widely accepted by people in academia, and thoroughly tested. Look into it further if you want to see the rationale behind, but, to sum it up: It doesn't matter how expert you are. The idea of beating the market, that an index fund tracks, is about 'outsmarting' the rest of investors. That would be difficult, even if it was a matter of skill, but when it comes to predicting random events we're all equally clueless. *Total Expense Ratio: It gives an idea of how expensive is a given fund in terms of fees. Actively managed funds have higher TER than indexed ones. This doesn't mean there aren't index funds with, unexplainable, high TER out there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cd9c2b35628903a560ac635280aedbe", "text": "It depends on whether you want a career as a fund manager/ analyst or if you want to be an investor/ trader. A fund manager will have many constraints that a private investor doesn’t have, as they are managing other people’s money. If they do invest their own money as well they usually would invest it differently from how they invest the fund's money. Many would just get someone else to invest their money for them, just as a surgeon would get another surgeon to operate on a family member. My suggestion to you is to find a job you like doing and build up your savings. Whilst you are building up your savings read some books. You said you don’t know much about the financial markets, then learn about them. Get yourself a working knowledge about both fundamental and technical analysis. Work out which method of analysis (if not both) suits you best and you would like to know more about. As you read you will get a better idea if you prefer to be a long term investor or a short term trader or somewhere in-between or a combination of various methods. Now you will start to get an idea of what type of books and areas of analysis you would like to concentrate on. Once you have a better idea of what you would like to do and have gained some knowledge, then you can develop your investment/trading plan and start paper trading. Once you are happy with you plan and your paper trading you can start trading with a small account balance (not more than $10,000 and preferably under $5,000). No matter how well you did with paper trading you will always do worse with real money at first due to your emotions being in it now. So always start off small. If you want to become good at something it takes time and a lot of hard work. You can’t go from knowing nothing to making a million dollars per year without putting in the hard yards first.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a6538981686b2af921afea0fb21d7b9c", "text": "\"Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally \"\"out of sight - out of mind\"\", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f4d2782016a99449f0364ecead401b2", "text": "https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/most-important-finance-books-2017-1 Bloomberg, finacial times, chat with traders, calculated risk, reuters, wsj, cnbc(sucks), bnn (if canadian) Audio books on youtube helped me read a lot of finance books in a short amount of time, listen while working out. One thing that helped me stand out at my student terms (4th year here) was learning outside of the classroom and joining an investment club. Learning programming can help if thats a strength, but its really not needed and it can waste time if yoi wont reach a point to build tools. Other than that at 18 you have more direction than i did, good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29a40af24f93fca95608892442b874f3", "text": "There are all sorts of topics in finance that take a lot of time to learn. You have valuation (time value of money, capital asset pricing model, dividend discount model, etc.), financial statement analysis (ratio analysis, free cash flow & discounted cash flow, etc.) , capital structure analysis(Modgliani & Miller theories of capital structure, weighted average cost of capital, more CAPM, the likes), and portfolio management (asset allocation, security selection, integrates financial statement analysis + other fields like derivatives, fixed income, forex, and commodity markets) and all sorts. My opinion of Investopedia is that there is a lot of wheat with the chaff. I think articles/entries are just user-submitted and there are good gems in Investopedia but a lot of it only covers very basic concepts. And you often don't know what you don't know, so you might come out with a weak understanding of something. To begin, you need to understand TVM and why it works. Time value of money is a critical concept of finance that I feel many people don't truly grasp and just understand you need some 'rate' to use for this formula. Also, as a prereq, you should understand basics of accrual accounting (debits & credits) and how the accounting system works. Don't need to know things like asset retirement obligations, or anything fancy, just how accounting works and how things affect certain financial statements. After that, I'd jump into CAPM and cost of capital. Cost of capital is also a very misunderstood concept since schools often just give students the 'cost of capital' for math problems when in reality, it's not just an explicit number but more of a 'general feeling' in the environment. Calculating cost of capital is actually often very tricky (market risk premium) and subjective, sometimes it's not (LIBOR based). After that, you can build up on those basic concepts and start to do things like dividend discount models (basic theory underlying asset pricing models) and capital asset pricing models, which builds on the idea of cost of capital. Then go into valuation. Learn how to price equities, bonds, derivatives, etc. For example, you have the dividend discount model with typical equities and perpetuities. Fixed income has things like duration & convexity to measure risk and analyze yield curves. Derivatives, you have the Black-Scholes model and other 'derivatives' (heh) of that formula for calculating prices of options, futures, CDOs, etc. Valuation is essentially taking the idea of TVM to the next logical step. Then you can start delving into financial modelling. Free cash flows, discounted cash flows, ratio analysis, pro forma projections. Start small, use a structured problem that gives you some inputs and just do calculations. Bonuses* would be ideas of capital structure (really not necessary for entry level positions) like the M&M theorems on capital structure (debt vs equity), portfolio management (risk management, asset allocation, hedging, investment strategies like straddles, inverse floaters, etc), and knowledge of financial institutions and banking regulations (Basel accords, depository regulations, the Fed, etc.). Once you gain an understanding of how this works, pick something out there and do a report on it. Then you'll be left with a single 'word problem' that gives you nothing except a problem and tells you to find an answer. You'll have to find all the inputs and give reasons why these inputs are sound and reasonable inputs for this analysis. A big part that people don't understand about projections and analysis is that inputs don't exist in plain sight. You have to make a lot of judgment calls when making these assumptions and it takes a lot of technical understanding to make a reasonable assumption--of which the results of your report highly depend on. As a finance student, you get a taste for all of this. I'm gonna say it's going to be hard to learn a lot of substantial info in 2 months, but I'm not exactly sure what big business expects out of their grunts. You'll mostly be doing practical work like desk jockey business, data entry, and other labor-based jobs. If you know what you're talking about, you can probably work up to something more specialized like underwriting or risk management or something else. Source: Finance degree but currently working towards starting a (finance related) company to draw on my programming background as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40965c0ba17523dcab20b0d0a7b79a96", "text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d356e065a65de9c35e9d108e23d322f2", "text": "2 + 20 isn't really a investment style, more of a management style. As CTA I don't have specific experience in the Hedge Fund industry but they are similar. For tech stuff, you may want to check out Interactive Brokers. As for legal stuff, with a CTA you need to have power of attorney form, disclosure documents, risk documents, fees, performance, etc. You basically want to cover your butt and make sure clients understand everything. For regulatory compliance and rules, you would have to consult your apporiate regulatory body. For a CTA its the NFA/CFTC. You should look at getting licensed to provide crediabilty. For a CTA it would be the series 3 license at the very least and I can provide you with a resource for study guides and practice test taking for ALL licenses. I can provide a brief step by step guide later on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa0b060c38ae220ba77f07ca36750b24", "text": "I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5441f74c31fd065e750dc107af1495a4", "text": "\"This may be a great idea, or a very bad one, or it may simply not be applicable to you, depending on your personal circumstances and interests. The general idea is to avoid passive investments such as stocks and bonds, because they tend to grow by \"\"only\"\" a few percent per year. Instead, invest in things where you will be actively involved in some form. With those, much higher investment returns are common (but also the risk is higher, and you may be tied down and have to limit the traveling you want to do). So here are a few different ways to do that: Get a college degree, but only if you are interested in the field, and it ends up paying you well. If you aren't interested in the field, you won't land the $100k+ jobs later. And if you study early-childhood education, you may love the job, but it won't pay enough to make it a good investment. Of course, it also has to fit with your life plans, but that might be easier than it seems. You want to travel. Have you thought about anthropology, marine biology or archeology? Pick a reputable, hard-to-get-into, academic school rather than a vocation-oriented oe, and make sure that they have at least some research program. That's one way to distinguish between the for-profit schools (who tend to be very expensive and land you in low-paying jobs), and schools that actually lead to a well-paying future. Or if your interest runs more in a different direction: start a business. Your best bet might be to buy a franchise. Many of the fast-food chains, such as McDonalds, will let you buy as long as you have around $300k net worth. Most franchises also require that you are qualified. It may often make sense to buy not just one franchised store, but several in an area. You can increase your income (and your risk) by getting a loan - you can probably buy at least $5 million worth of franchises with your \"\"seed money\"\". BTW, I'm only using McDonalds as an example. Well-known fast food franchises used to be money-making machines, but their popularity may well have peaked. There are franchises in all kinds of industries, though. Some tend to be very short-term (there is a franchise based on selling customer's stuff on ebay), while others can be very long-lived (many real-estate brokerages are actually franchises). Do be careful which ones you buy. Some can be a \"\"license to print money\"\" while others may fail, and there are some fraudsters in the franchising market, out to separate you from your money. Advantage over investing in stocks and bonds: if you choose well, your return on investment can be much higher. That's generally true for any business that you get personally involved in. If you do well, you may well end up retiring a multimillionaire. Drawback: you will be exposed to considerable risk. The investment will be a major chunk of your net worth, and you may have to put all your eggs in none basket. If your business fails, you may lose everything. A third option (but only if you have a real interest in it!): get a commercial driver's license and buy an 18-wheeler truck. I hear that owner-operators can easily make well over $100k, and that's with having to pay off a bank loan. But if you don't love trucker culture, it is likely not worth doing. Overall, you probably get the idea: the principle is to use your funds as seed money to launch something profitable and secure, as well as enjoyable for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24", "text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ca0852fdce161b965d5715975eb9a33", "text": "\"As foundational material, read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bf0ea6249344325dfb4fe3bbd68350f", "text": "If you want to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds I would suggest you take a portion of your inheritance and use it to learn how to invest in this asset class wisely. Take courses on investing and trading (two different things) in paper assets and start trading on a fantasy exchange to test and hone your investment skills before risking any of your money. Personally I don't find bonds to have a meaningful rate of return and I prefer stocks that have a dividend over those that don't. Parking some of your money in an IRA is a good strategy for when you do not see opportunities to purchase cashflow-positive assets right away; this allows you to wait and deploy your capital when the opportunity presents itself and to educate yourself on what a good opportunity looks like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf230205bb1a357e7a52292f2a695eb", "text": "\"There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the \"\"high-frequency trading\"\" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f43694d6b791a3c2cd5acf2302cdeffa", "text": "Investopedia does have tutorials about investments in different asset classes. Have you read them ? If you had heard of CFA, you can read their material if you can get hold of it or register for CFA. Their material is quite extensive and primarily designed for newbies. This is one helluva book and advice coming from persons who have showed and proved their tricks. And the good part is loads of advice in one single volume. And what they would suggest is probably opposite of what you would be doing in a hedge fund. And you can always trust google to fish out resources at the click of a button.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f06a650f6e12c270ce086e21c87761e3", "text": "\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b59fe9786d6d48d78ed18f3cca1785d1", "text": "Probably marketing if the degree is of high quality. Marketing is a the bottleneck of many businesses. But there are at least some things about entrepreneurship he should learn, like customer development by steve blank. But i actually think instead of learning, trying hard to think of a good business , and succeeding in getting into a good accelerator, like y-combinator, is the best education for funding a growth startup.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2", "text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4d9710f0469b5fb40e57dbb86606ddc9	Investing in low cost index fund — does the timing matter?	[ { "docid": "7c1e38777f47d8af6a0319a751443f2a", "text": "If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging). The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly. The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what. If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect. It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now. But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows. (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cce4d8af23bd44fdbf5219beb2a22e5b", "text": "Yes timing does matter. Using a simple Rate of Change indicator over the past 100 days and smoothed out with a 50 day Moving Average, I have plotted the S&P 500 since the start of 2007. The idea is to buy when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. I have compared the results below of timing the markets from the start of 2007 to dollar cost averaging starting from the start of 2007 and investing every 6 months. $80k is invested in both cases. For the timing the market option $80k was invested at the start of 2007, then the total figure was sold out when a sell signal was given, then the total amount reinvested when a new buy signal was given. For the DCA option $5000 was invested every 6 months starting from the start of 2007 until the last investment at the start of July 2014. The results are below: Timing the markets results in more than double the returns (not including dividends and brokerage). Edit It has been brought up that I haven't considered tax in my Timing the Market option. So I have updated my timing the market spread-sheet to take into account both long-term and short-term CGT in the USA for someone on the highest tax bracket. The results are below: The result is still almost a 2x higher returns for the timing the markets option. Also note that even with the DCA option you will have to sell one day and pay CGT on any profits there. However, the real danger with the DCA option is if you need to sell during a market downturn and not make any profits at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "381ec6f947d378c9d3e409794f266954", "text": "When you start investing makes a very large difference to the outcome, but that is on the time scale of what generation you were born into, not what week you choose to open your 401(k). As you note in your last sentence, there is nothing that you can do about this, so there is no point in worrying about it. If you could successfully market time successfully, then that would make a difference even at smaller time scales. But you probably can't, so there is no point in worrying about that either. As BrenBarn points out, your statement about not regaining their net worth until 2013 applies to someone who invested a lump sum at the 2007 peak, not to someone who invested continuously throughout. By my calculation, if you started continuously investing in a broad market index at the peak (around Jun 4, 2007), you would have recovered your net worth (relative to investing in a safe instrument that merely kept up with inflation, a hard thing to find these days) around April 12, 2010. I've done the computation on each business day because that is easier, so it might be slightly worse if do the periodic investment on each payday which is much more realist for a 401(k). (And of course if you need to preserve/recover you net worth in 3 years, you shouldn't be in stocks in the first place)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2875e76becfe37726ffc8acfec2224e", "text": "A much less verbose answer is. Don't worry about buying low. You have a whole lifetime to dollar cost average your retirement dollars.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "871395ecfbafbbcb330ce375e66550b0", "text": "\"Kind of matters because your definition of \"\"cost\"\" is solely based on a hindsight view of market movement. Lack of gain is not cost except from an inflationary perspective, versus actual value loss of entering near a top. On a long time scale, yes, the market will probably go up and value will return - but telling someone that now is the perfect time to enter is entirely debatable. Momentum is not fundamental and could reverse tomorrow for all you know.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d233b4aaff599f1666c92147468e89e", "text": "The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8", "text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80df8f80a32972fa0445cd1e0d529ac9", "text": "This is the chart going back to the first full year of this fund. To answer your question - yes, a low cost ETF or Mutual fund is fine. Why not go right to an S&P index? VOO has a .05% expense. Why attracted you to a choice that lagged the S&P by $18,000 over this 21 year period? (And yes, past performance, yada, yada, but that warning is appropriate for the opposite example. When you show a fund that beat the S&P short term, say 5 years, its run may be over. But this fund lagged the S&P by a significant margin over 2 decades, what makes you think this will change?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "418c1aba4dd73fbeabded92cc00ddb0c", "text": "The question is valid, you just need to work backwards. After how much money-time will the lower expense offset the one time fee? Lower expenses will win given the right sum of money and right duration for the investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51ba00c23f92bc5cdada42a26cbd229f", "text": "What you choose to invest in depends largely on your own goals and time horizon. You state that your time horizon is a few decades. Most studies have shown that the equity market as a whole has outperformed most other asset types (except perhaps property in some cases) over the long term. The reason that time horizon is important is that equities are quite volatile. Who knows whether your value will halve in the next year? But we hope that over the longer term, things come out in the wash, and tomorrow's market crash will recover, etc. However, you must realize that if your goals change, and you suddenly need your money after 2 years, it might be worth less in two years than you expect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f5297c019677d5e757c6de33dcde6e5", "text": "When you are putting your money in an index fund, you are not betting your performance against other asset classes but rather against competing investments withing the SAME asset class. The index fund always wins due to two factors: diversity, and lower cost. The lower cost attribute is essentially where you get your performance edge over the longer run. That is why if you look at the universe of mutual funds (where you get your diversification), very few will have beaten the index, assuming they have survived. -Ralph Winters", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc493cfe1797cefdcc73b62863b7e062", "text": "The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1dfb162d65f623da2b72fdde166cbe5", "text": "This is largely dependent on your overall investment goals. GIC's provide protection of the invested capital and a guaranteed return at the end of the term. However, in real terms, 1.4% over 18 months results in a loss of capital in real terms. This is because inflation in Canada is just about at or higher than 1.4% per year. In other words, at best, you are equalling inflation and gaining nothing in those 18 months. If their typical rate is 1.2% over 12 months, you are only gaining an additional 0.2% for the additional 6 months. You know as well as I do, 0.2% for 6 months is abysmal. If you have no use for the money in the medium to long term, you should look in to an index fund that is balanced, and diversified and more likely to get you a higher real return over the time period of a few years. Look in to: If you want to preserve the capital over the short term because you might need it after the 18 months period, the GIC is the safer and recommended option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fabea6350f01303b2b65be7350ad13c9", "text": "Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f4ac385f7644ab2dc73f205d9ff41c2", "text": "Timing the market and by extension the efficient market hypothesis is one of the most hotly debated subjects in finance academia. If you are to believe the majority of finance professors and PHD's out there chances of timing a market like the NYSE, NASDAQ or LSE is not possible. If you are to take into account the huge amount of hedge funds and money managers who make it their job to prove the efficient market hypothesis wrong then you may have a chance. My opinion is that the EMH is true and that timing a highly efficient market like the NYSE is very difficult or impossible even for those who spend their whole lives trying to beat it. For someone whose primary job isn’t in investments I would put the idea of timing the markets out of your head.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a45d1335104ace690d1de07daca77cc3", "text": "\"I'd question whether a guaranteed savings instrument underperforming the stock market really is a risk, or not? Rather, you reap what you sow. There's a trade-off, and one makes a choice. If one chooses to invest in a highly conservative, low-risk asset class, then one should expect lower returns from it. That doesn't necessarily mean the return will be lower — stock markets could tank and a CD could look brilliant in hindsight — but one should expect lower returns. This is what we learn from the risk-return spectrum and Modern Portfolio Theory. You've mentioned and discounted inflation risk already, and that would've been one I'd mention with respect to guaranteed savings. Yet, one still accepts inflation risk in choosing the 3% CD, because inflation isn't known in advance. If inflation happened to be 2% after the fact, that just means the risk didn't materialize. But, inflation could have been, say, 4%. Nevertheless, I'll try and describe the phenomenon of significantly underperforming a portfolio with more higher-risk assets. I'd suggest one of: Perhaps we can sum those up as: the risk of \"\"investing illiteracy\"\"? Alternatively, if one were actually fully aware of the risk-reward spectrum and MPT and still chose an excessive amount of low-risk investments (such that one wouldn't be able to attain reasonable investing goals), then I'd probably file the risk under psychological risk, e.g. overly cautious / excessive risk aversion. Yet, the term \"\"psychological risk\"\", with respect to investing, encompasses other situations as well (e.g. chasing high returns.) FWIW, the risk of underperformance also came to mind, but I think that's mostly used to describe the risk of choosing, say, an actively-managed fund (or individual stocks) over a passive benchmark index investment more likely to match market returns.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4787628c60d6a60b91a5d4684dfa6b6", "text": "What are the risks pertaining to timing on long term index investments? The risks are countless for any investment strategy. If you invest in US stocks, and prices revert to the long term cyclically adjusted average, you will lose a lot of money. If you invest in cash, inflation may outpace interest rates and you will lose money. If you invest in gold, the price might go down and you will lose money. It's best to study history and make a reasonable decision (i.e. invest in stocks). Here are long term returns by asset class, computed by Jeremy Siegel: $1 invested in equities in 1801 equals $15.22 today if was not invested and $8.8 million if it was invested in stocks. This is the 'magic of compound interest' and cash / bonds have not been nearly as magical as stocks historically. 2) How large are these risks? The following chart shows the largest drawdowns (decreases in the value of an asset) since 1970 (source): Asset prices decrease in value frequently. Financial assets are volatile, but historically, they have increased over time, enabling investors to earn compounded returns (exponential growth of money is how to get rich). I personally view drawdowns as an excellent time to buy - it's like going on a shopping spree when everything in the store is discounted. 3) In case I feel not prepared to take these risks, how can I avoid them? The optimal asset allocation depends on the ability to take risk and your tolerance for risk. You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high. From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk). Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source): Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors. For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended. Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f808b8d1725ffbfba52d761ec9baee52", "text": "I would say that the three most important skills are: Note that some costs are hidden. So, for example, a mutual fund investing in other countries than where you live in may mean the investment target country charges a certain percentage of dividends going to the mutual fund. The mutual fund company doesn't usually want to tell you this. There may be clever financial instruments (derivatives) that can be used to avoid this, but they are not without their problems. If you diversify into equities at low cost, you will have a very wealthy future. I would recommend you to compare two options: ...and pick from these options the cheaper one. If your time has a high value, and you wish to take this value into account, I would say it is almost always far better option to choose an index fund. Whatever you do, don't pay for active management! It is a mathematical truth that before costs, actively managed investments will yield the same return than indexed investments. However, the costs are higher in active management, so you will have less total return. Don't believe that good historical return would imply good future return. However, if for some reason you see an index fund that continuously loses to the index more than by the amount of stated costs, beware!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1402c618145c984650ff00198caab0f", "text": "Remember that unless you participate in the actual fund that these individuals offer to the public, you will not get the same returns they will. If you instead do something like, look at what Warren Buffet's fund bought/sold yesterday (or even 60 minutes ago), and buy/sell it yourself, you will face 2 obstacles to achieving their returns: 1) The timing difference will mean that the value of the stock purchased by Warren Buffet will be different for your purchase and for his purchase. Because these investors often buy large swathes of stock at once, this may create large variances for 2 reasons: (a) simply buying a large volume of a stock will naturally increase the price, as the lowest sell orders are taken up, and fewer willing sellers remain; and (b) many people (including institutional investors) may be watching what someone like Warren Buffet does, and will want to follow suit, chasing the same pricing problem. 2) You cannot buy multiple stocks as efficiently as a fund can. If Warren Buffet's fund holds, say, 50 stocks, and he trades 1 stock per day [I have absolutely no idea about what diversification exists within his fund], his per-share transaction costs will be quite low, due to share volume. Whereas for you to follow him, you would need 50 transactions upfront, + 1 per day. This may appear to be a small cost, but it could be substantial. Imagine if you wanted to invest 50k using this method - that's $1k for each of 50 companies. A $5 transaction fee would equal 1% of the value of each company invested [$5 to buy, and $5 to sell]. How does that 1% compare to the management fee charged by the actual fund available to you? In short, if you feel that a particular investor has a sound strategy, I suggest that you consider investing with them directly, instead of attempting to recreate their portfolio.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
984dc291c3c96d71ab6c506d3d910429	Are index trackers subject to insolvency risk?	[ { "docid": "9b71e9fe1fe68aa7cedc11fde57b91e3", "text": "The Financial Services Compensation Scheme says: Investments FSCS provides protection if an authorised investment firm is unable to pay claims against it. For example: for loss arising from bad investment advice, poor investment management or misrepresentation; when an authorised investment firm goes out of business and cannot return investments or money. Investments covered include: stocks and shares; unit trusts; futures and options; personal pension plans and long-term investments such as mortgage endowments. An index-tracking fund provided by an authorised investment firm would seem to qualify in the cases where: The critical points here then are: I can't find anything easily to hand about FSCS on Blackrock's website, so I would imagine that you'd need to consult the documentation on your investment product to be sure.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8", "text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e05c685c62c30e55083a20b8a08571f7", "text": "\"My original answer contained a fundamental error: it turns out that it is not true that any exchange can create its own product to track any underlying index. If the underlying index is copyrighted (such as the S&P indices, Russell indices, Dow Jones indices, etc.) then the exchange must enter into a licensing agreement (usually exclusive) with the copyright holder in order to use the index's formula (and name). Without such a license the exchange would only be able to approximate the underlying index, and I don't think that happens very much (because how would you market such a product?). The CME offers several futures (and other derivatives) whose face value is equivalent to some multiple of the S&P500's value on the date when the product expires. When such a product is actively traded, it may serve as a reasonable indicator of the \"\"market\"\"'s expectation of the S&P500's future value. So, you could pay attention to the front month of the CME's S&P 500 Mini future, which trades from 17:00-16:00 Chicago time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But remember that the prices quoted there are As another example, if you care about the Russell 2000 index, until 2017 the ICE Exchange happened to hold the license for its derivatives. They traded from 20:00-17:30 New York time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But in mid-2017 CME bought that license as well, so now you'll want to track it here. Moral: There's almost always some \"\"after hours\"\" product out there tracking whatever index you care about, but you may have to do some digging to find it, and it might not be all that useful for your specific purpose.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f48ee61d0fa063f3059b12daf532bf28", "text": "\"Oh please. Most of the unsecured creditors who get screwed in bankruptcy are large banks. They know the risk going in which is why unsecured lends at a high interest rate. Yes, trade creditors often do get screwed but it's a cost of doing business -- it's why a vendor needs to monitor its receivables and watch for signs of insolvency and adjust the terms of trade accordingly. You should have made sure you were covered by brokerage insurance before handing money to a company like that. The \"\"I'm the little guy\"\" argument is just weak.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cd5e8af0b5545ab3beca350d62578d0", "text": "Yes an index is by definition any arbitrary selection. In general, to measure performance there are 2 ways: By absolute return - meaning you want a positive return at all times ie. 10% is good. -1% is bad. By relative return - this means beating the benchmark. For example, if the benchmark returns -20% and your portfolio returns -10%, then it has delivered +10% relative returns as compared to the benchmark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e943b5dfc6ee58b28c96d9ace2cb507", "text": "Why would they do that? The data has value. Bankruptcy isn't just shutting the doors, it's selling off the data. I predict this will start a new firestorm around what happens to your data that you don't own. People are about to realize that they're going to be fucked both ways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20c9e9ae8c397b3bcdda3a75e314265a", "text": "You can write industry loss warrants. This is the closest thing I’ve found since I’ve been interested in this side of the ILS trade. Hedge funds and asset managers can do this. From what I understand it’s you selling the risk. Want to start a fund? 🤔", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3277d01f335f35f5d19c74329b26e4ea", "text": "\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \"\"clumping\"\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101539eaf2a1c7edd0566ddfeec41f5f", "text": "As an ordinary shareholder, yes you are protected from recourse by the debtors. The maximum amount you can lose is the amount you spent on the shares. The rules might change if you are an officer of the company and fraud is alleged, but ordinary stockholders are quite well protected. Why are you worried about this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f0601be1f9b011df688d8b6ebf0f923", "text": "An index will drop a company for several reasons: A fund decides how close they want to mirror the index. Some do so exactly, others only approximate the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c02eb5b892813e13c4810bef3b337252", "text": "Presumably you mean to ask what happens if State Street files chapter 7 bankruptcy, since not all bankruptcy proceedings end in liquidation. SPY is a well known ticker, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an eager bank willing to pay to pick up that ticker and immediately acquire all the assets related to it. The most likely scenario is that another bank would assume control of the ticker and assets, and the shares would continue trading as they always have. A less likely scenario is that no other financial institution wanted to acquire SPY, and the shares would be liquidated and the proceeds would go to the owners of shares of the ETF. Since the underlying assets are in companies that have actual value, the shares shouldn't trade at much of a discount prior to liquidation. Additionally, if there is a black swan event, there will probably be losses on the underlying assets, so it might even be helpful if the SPY fund was tied up in legal proceedings while everyone gets their heads straight in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4746c7f0338bf0b473f7030d7e6dc408", "text": "You can obtain a stocklist if you file a lawsuit as a shareholder against the company demanding that you receive the list. It's called an inspection case. The company then has to go to Cede and/or the Depository Trust Company who then compiles the NOBO COBO list of beneficiary stockholders. SEC.gov gives you a very limited list of people who have had to file 13g or 13d or similar filings. These are large holders. To get the list of ALL stockholders you have to go through Cede.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88edd029ff0f292e8b015f2b0773a604", "text": "\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9810fb83e7253b932c4b16a16d9e55", "text": "\"Yes, many hedge funds (for example) did not survive 2008-2009. But hedge funds were failing both before and after that period, and other hedge funds thrived. Those types of funds are particularly risky because they depend so much on leverage (i.e. on money that isn't actually theirs). More publically-visible funds (like those of the big-name index fund companies) tended not to close because they are not leveraged. You say that \"\"a great many companies\"\" failed during the recession, but that's not actually true. I can't think of more than a handful of publically-traded companies that went bankrupt. So, since the vast majority of publically-traded companies stayed in business, their stocks kept some/most of their value, and the funds that owned those stocks stayed afloat. I personally did not see a single index fund that went out of business due to the recession.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0943e45e3c60536cea418a843e1c6250", "text": "There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "591f5e587da93d2643580b54097602c9", "text": "I have done this, and the reason is to make sure that I don't run out of money in my account to place the order if there is an unexpected upswing in price. Suppose I have $1000 in my account and I want to buy 10 shares of ABCD that are currently at $99. If the price doesn't change, then I am all set, but if the price goes up to $101 then I don't have sufficient funds to make the purchase. By placing a limit order at $100 I can ensure that I have enough money to place the order. In general, it is a rather unlikely scenario that it could happen, but placing the limit order is easy to do and it gives me peace of mind. I don't know what you mean about bypassing the queue.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
644256c4438825487c49b6d7781d9882	Why is Net Asset Value (NAV) only reported by funds, but not stocks?	[ { "docid": "145a5decacc13be14030121db03b4578", "text": "The (assets - liabilities)/#shares of a company is its book value, and that number is included in their reports. It's easy for a fund to release the net asset value on a daily basis because all of its assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) are given values every day by the market. It's also necessary to have a real time value for a fund as it will be bought and sold every day. A company can't really do the same thing as it will have much more diverse assets - real estate, cars, inventory, goodwill, etc. The real time value of those assets doesn't have the same meaning as a fund; those assets are used to earn cash, while a fund's business is only to maximize its net asset value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31ddc4ebffed415c057593a0a676c33a", "text": "Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks'). Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different. They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks. (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets. Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "81ec14fc701de02e845c914aa6aa8ca4", "text": "No, this is quite wrong. Almost all hedge funds (and all hedge fund investors) use Sharpe as a primary measure of performance. The fact that they don't consider themselves risk-free has no bearing on the issue (that's a bizarre line of reasoning - you're saying Sharpe is only relevant for assets that consider themselves risk-free?). And as AlphaPortfolio rightly points out, most funds have no explicit benchmark and they are usually paid for performance over zero. I've never seen a hedge fund use a benchmark relative information ratio - for starters, what benchmark would you measure a CB arb fund against? Or market neutral quant? Or global macro? Same for CTAs...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88df300e6b133556974c6289f78c352f", "text": "The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe7136d0ad975b808acb88e334ef023", "text": "The company that runs the fund (Vanguard) on their website has the information on the general breakdown of their investments of that fund. They tell you that as of July 31st 2016 it is 8.7% emerging markets. They even specifically list the 7000+ companies they have purchased stocks in. Of course the actual investment and percentages could [change every day]. Vanguard may publish on this Site, in the fund's holdings on the webpages, a detailed list of the securities (aggregated by issuer for money market funds) held in a Vanguard fund (portfolio holdings) as of the most recent calendar-quarter-end, 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, except for Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (60 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter), Vanguard index funds (15 calendar days after the end of the month), and Vanguard Money Market Funds (within five [5] business days after the last business day of the preceding month). Except with respect to Vanguard Money Market Funds, Vanguard may exclude any portion of these portfolio holdings from publication on this Site when deemed in the best interest of the fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6ff181f6984f73fd45717d9330d42c4", "text": "Mutual funds don't work like stocks in that way. The price of a mutual fund is set at the end of each day and doesn't fluctuate during the day. So no matter when you put in your order, it will be filled at the end of the day at whatever the closing price is for that day. Here is some good information on that There is no continuous pricing of fund shares throughout the trading day. When an investor places an order to buy or sell a fund's shares, the order is executed based on the NAV calculated at the end of that trading day, regardless of what time during the day the order was placed. On the other hand, if the investor were to check the price of his or her fund shares halfway through the business day, the price quoted would be the previous day's NAV because that was the last time the fund calculated and reported the value. -http://www.finweb.com/investing/how-mutual-funds-are-priced.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "402212bfb569a8f87f74352254c9928e", "text": "Yahoo's primary business isn't providing mutual fund performance data. They aim to be convenient, but often leave something to be desired in terms of completeness. Try Morningstar instead. Their mission is investment research. Here's a link to Morningstar's data for the fund you specified. If you scroll down, you'll see:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ede31fcc47e5b8ff627c7d2387e5796", "text": "Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f9c71289d37594b5040af9865061a3a", "text": "\"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page. (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"lit\"\" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other. Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"non-lit\"\" exchanges. These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA. There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF. They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're \"\"located at\"\" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring. (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further. (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.) I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities. Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dc0c905c71416bca38ebeb58f9d7f7c", "text": "You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c1812f3fbceba34e9a196440b30e9e3", "text": "Mutual funds don't have intraday prices. They have net asset values which are calculated periodically (daily or weekly or any other period depending on the fund).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d22e351c9ec928739d7ed725da136615", "text": "How is it possible that a publicly traded investment company's net asset value per share is higher than their share price? Wouldn't you (in theory) be able to buy the company and liquidate it to make a profit of (NAV/share - price/share)*number of shares, ignoring transaction costs and such? I realize that since part of their portfolio is in private equity, NAV is hard to calculate and hard to liquidate as well, but it doesn't really seem to make sense to me. Would love some input. The company I'm talking about in this instance is 180 Degree Capital Corp, but this isn't the first time I've seen this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20eaa2ce1822366372a8b6126a2f940c", "text": "There is a survivorship bias in the mutual fund industry. It's not about individual stocks in which those funds invest. Rather, it's in which funds and fund companies/families are still around. The underperforming funds get closed or merged into other funds. Thus they are no longer reported, since they no longer exist. This makes a single company's mutual funds appear to have a better history, on average, than they actually did. Similarly, fund companies that underperform, will go out of business. This could make the mutual fund industry's overall history appear to be better than it actually was. Most companies don't do this to deliberately game the numbers. It's rational on the part of fund companies to close underperforming funds. When a fund has a below average history, investors will likely not invest in it, and will remove their existing money. The fund will shrink while the overhead remains the same, making the fund unprofitable for the company to run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b0513ea719821872a14f80eda6c8c71", "text": "ACWI refers to a fund that tracks the MSCI All Country World Index, which is A market capitalization weighted index designed to provide a broad measure of equity-market performance throughout the world. The MSCI ACWI is maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is comprised of stocks from both developed and emerging markets. The ex-US in the name implies exactly what it sounds; this fund probably invests in stock markets (or stock market indexes) of the countries in the index, except the US. Brd Mkt refers to a Broad Market index, which, in the US, means that the fund attempts to track the performance of a wide swath of the US stock market (wider than just the S&P 500, for example). The Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, the Wilshire 5000 index, the Russell 2000 index, the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and the CRSP US Total Market Index are all examples of such an index. This could also refer to a fund similar to the one above in that it tracks a broad swath of the several stock markets across the world. I spoke with BNY Mellon about the rest, and they told me this: EB - Employee Benefit (a bank collective fund for ERISA qualified assets) DL - Daily Liquid (provides for daily trading of fund shares) SL - Securities Lending (fund engages in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) Non-SL - Non-Securities Lending (fund does not engage in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) I'll add more detail. EB (Employee Benefit) refers to plans that fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which are a set a laws that govern employee pensions and retirement plans. This is simply BNY Mellon's designation for funds that are offered through 401(k)'s and other retirement vehicles. As I said before, DL refers to Daily Liquidity, which means that you can buy into and sell out of the fund on a daily basis. There may be fees for this in your plan, however. SL (Securities Lending) often refers to institutional funds that loan out their long positions to investment banks or brokers so that the clients of those banks/brokerages can sell the shares short. This SeekingAlpha article has a good explanation of how this procedure works in practice for ETF's, and the procedure is identical for mutual funds: An exchange-traded fund lends out shares of its holdings to another party and charges a rental fee. Running a securities-lending program is another way for an ETF provider to wring more return out of a fund's holdings. Revenue from these programs is used to offset a fund's expenses, which allows the provider to charge a lower expense ratio and/or tighten the performance gap between an ETF and its benchmark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2051b0442778b10df3a99b7fb3ac4b96", "text": "\"That share class may not have a ticker symbol though \"\"Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index\"\" does have a ticker for \"\"Investor A\"\" shares that is BDOAX. Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways. Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider. Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8e6b1e733931958f9180e8ad4a2b7d7", "text": "No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6db8ff167a2027d4fa6c4eb9c132fc41", "text": "\"I think the key concept here is future value. The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities. For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom. I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously. A definition I like to use for market cap is \"\"the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company\"\"... so let's dissect that a little. The term \"\"present value\"\" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year. A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later. The \"\"all future earnings\"\" part is exactly what it sounds like. So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that \"\"the market\"\" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars).\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
753821c283ac64b64736d9ae2b544bcc	Is it correct to call an exchange-traded note a type of ETF?	[ { "docid": "6515286ee6ba2472db2ccfacf71192a3", "text": "They're exchange traded debt, basically, not funds. E.g. from the NYSE: An exchange-traded note (ETN) is a senior unsecured debt obligation designed to track the total return of an underlying market index or other benchmark, minus investor fees. Whereas an ETF, in some way or another, is an equity product - which doesn't mean that they can only expose you to equity, but that they themselves are a company that you buy shares in. FCOR for example is a bond ETF, basically a company whose sole purpose is to own a basket of bonds. Contrast that to DTYS, a bear Treasury ETN, which is described as The ETNs are unsecured debt obligations of the issuer, Barclays Bank PLC, and are not, either directly or indirectly, an obligation of or guaranteed by any third party. Also from Barclays site: Because the iPath ETNs are debt securities, they do not have any voting rights. FCOR on the other hand is some sort of company owned/managed by a Fidelity trust, though my EDGAR skills are rusty. AGREEMENT made this 18th day of September, 2014, by and between Fidelity Merrimack Street Trust, a Massachusetts business trust which may issue one or more series of shares of beneficial interest (hereinafter called the Trust), on behalf of Fidelity Corporate Bond ETF (hereinafter called the Fund), and Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc., a New Hampshire corporation (hereinafter called the Adviser) as set forth in its entirety below.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0e6602bd884bae5981aa067b8b0c3763", "text": "\"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield. Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got \"\"enhanced\"\" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument. Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly. I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual \"\"ease of transacting\"\") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to compare your alternatives before investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "413d3bf0ea58ed81d3f3075a50cae56d", "text": "Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a9e38527d7e1f9e8e0d36c2cc010dfc", "text": "\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "490bb8b4274d1c87b42ffd73851a06fd", "text": "\"This article fails to explain that paper gold doesn't \"\"necessarily\"\" guarantee the owner to physical gold. An index fund tracking the price of gold per ounce guarantees the owner the market value of gold at the termination of the contract. This keeps markets liquid, and allows investors to diversify into precious metals without the inconvenience of storage and delivery fees. As long as we are using currency that can be exchanged for gold this shouldn't pose a problem. If we move to a post currency world of barter and trade, you're better invested in weapons and ammunition.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6cf13ea4d096712e382bab3746657bf", "text": "\"BestInvest is a UK site looking at that URL, base on the \"\"co.uk\"\" ending. Yahoo! Finance that you use is a US-based site unless you add something else to the URL. UK & Ireland Yahoo! Finance is different from where you were as there is something to be said for where are you looking. If I was looking for a quarter dollar there are Canadian and American coins that meet this so there is something to be said for a higher level of categorization being done. \"\"EUN.L\"\" would likely denote the \"\"London\"\" exchange as tickers are exchange-specific you do realize, right?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f22e40edd6be3fb6f5e338904500d122", "text": "It depends on what site you're looking on and what exchange they're pulling the data from. Even though funds and stocks are called the same thing, they have different ticker symbols in each country's exchange or could be traded as pink sheet stocks in the US. If a company or fund is based in another country (like Canada or the UK) they probably also trade on that country's exchange (Toronto or London) under a different symbol. This can cause a lot of confusion when researching these tickers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6df9aaf93abcadc5cca5ee2fbf2dce9", "text": "\"An ETF does not track any one individual stock. It \"\"is a marketable security that tracks an index, a commodity, bonds, or a basket of assets like an index fund.\"\" Check out this link to learn more about ETFs. The easiest way see what ETF tracks a stock is to determine what sector and industry that company is in and find some ETF that trade it. The ETF will likely trade that stock, assuming that its market cap and exchange it trades on fits within the parameters of the ETF.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbae56ad4aca8a1caeb2c6a7ab08472", "text": "\"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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "704b6900ee772c3bc8f88707d1921036", "text": "I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f1adf878c5b0b42402fc0a764163ad9", "text": "Yes, it would be incorrect to refer to BATS Chi-X Europe as a market maker. Market makers make markets on BATS Chi-X Europe, which is a stock exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db1d6dbabfd82180886694f24033d49f", "text": "PST, or any of the Ultra Short/Long funds aren't actually holding any traditional securities -- just swaps that are betting on the underlying asset. They also don't track the value of the underlying security over time -- just for one day. (And they're not even guaranteed to do that!) IEF is an actual treasury bond fund that holds real-life treasury securities, not swaps. Shorting a fund like IEF is one option, another is to buy options on a fund like IEF. Be very careful investing with ETFs, and don't buy any until you fully read and understand the prospectus. I got burned by an Ultra Long ETF because I didn't do my homework.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbb037d43fbddf31cc04e52bfcb39196", "text": "\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdb0d925b58ea2b1b9af8fe85c545a4c", "text": "E&P can be valid throug Net Present Value methods, on a field-by-field basis. As no field is ever-lasting, and there Are not an unlimited number of fields, perpetuity-formulaes Are shitty. FCFF on a per-field basis with WC and Capex, with a definite lifetime. Thank you for the compliment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c630f8c6a118525e354eb02b4005abf8", "text": "No ETN or ETF yet. There are beta funds, that aim to track the market. What's really needed is a liquid market for cat risk trading/transfer, enabling users to buy protection, or take the other side. You can write cat swaps, so derivative forms, including ILW's or with parametric triggers. But these aren't liquid at all yet. Cat bonds are most liquid, but it dries up pretty quickly when events threaten as there's no true hedging market yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "793ccb71f403b6df10f6d9e5aeef7d72", "text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
38ab04ea302b9d66cf3bed53568b0342	How can you possibly lose on investments in stocks?	[ { "docid": "7586147cc335126f7bc08f20bff2f746", "text": "In your own example of VW, it dropped from its peak price of $253 to $92. If you had invested $10,000 in VW in April 2015, by September of that year it would have gone down to $3,600. If you held on to your investment, you would now be getting back to $6,700 on that original $10,000 investment. Your own example demonstrates that it is possible to lose. I have a friend who put his fortune into a company called WorldCom (one of the examples D Stanley shared). He actually lost all of his retirement. Luckily he made some money back when the startup we both worked for was sold to a much larger company. Unsophisticated investors lose money all the time by investing in individual companies. Your best bet is to start searching this site for answers on how to invest your money so that you can see actual strategies that reduce your investment risk. Here's a starting point: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? If you want to better illustrate this principle to yourself, try this stock market simulation game.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c2dde5217bba8832a2d722576b1c794", "text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afb2b27ef5043f88ddb4453d7898f1c5", "text": "\"If you're talking about a single stock, you greatly underestimate the chances of it dropping, even long-term. Check out the 12 companies that made up the first Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1896. There is probably only one you've heard of: GE. Many of the others are long gone or have since been bought up by larger companies. And remember these were 12 companies that were deemed to be the most representative of the stock market around the turn of the 20th century. Now, if you're talking about funds that hold many stocks (up to thousands), then your question is a little different. Over the long-term (25+ years), we have never experienced a period where the overall market lost value. Of course, as you recognize, the psychology of investors is a very important factor. If the stock market loses half of its value in a year (as it has done a few times), people will be inundated with bad news and proclamations of \"\"this time it's different!\"\" and explanations of why the stock market will never recover. Perhaps this may be true some day, but it never has been thus far. So based on all the evidence we have, if you hold a well-diversified fund, the chances of it going down long-term (again, meaning 25+ years) are basically zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebc7a9bdb55bbc95582fbac9cab1c480", "text": "\"For whatever it's worth. Judging from the comments in the other answers, I think everyone is addressing your question, \"\"How can you possibly lose money,\"\" there are a lot of ways to possibly lose money in the stock market. Here are my thoughts. This is a chart of the S&P 500 from about 1996 to about 2012. At the top from the first arrow the entire S&P500 index fell about 45%. From the top of the second arrow the entire S&P500 index fell about 52%. It is really easy to look at our sustained bull market and feel invincible. And while I'll concede that not every company in the index fell over these two periods, bear in mind that the S&P500 index is a collection of the 500 largest companies in the United States, and the entire index lost half it's value twice. As the companies contained in the index shrink in value, they were replaced by companies that are the new biggest 500 in the country, then those fell too, and so on and so forth until the entire index lost half. Value is a funny thing because it isn't necessarily tied to the performance of the business (look at the current rosy valuations of all these non-earnings tech-companies). It could be that a company is still performing very well but there are just no buyers for the stock. So, how can you lose money in the stock market? Very easily. In A practical sense, it's when you need the money and can no longer weather the storm. People who went out for retirement around 2000 couldn't sit around and wait until 2007 for their account values to be replenished. This is why you roll off your stock exposure as you age. As you get older you don't have time and if you stop having income you can find yourself selling your assets at the least opportune time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b31af198fa10e9b9452c1f78618b999", "text": "I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover. Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier. Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bfc351c9143b98206dae397687e2531", "text": "\"Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is \"\"in the long term\"\". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aedf2391fb10d1b8a89979464f555c0b", "text": "\"Easiest thing ever. In fact, 99% of people are loosing money. If you perform worse then 10% annually in cash (average over 5-10 years), then you better never even think about trading/investing. Most people are sitting at 0%..-5% annually. They win some, loose some, and are being outrun by inflation and commissions. In fact, fall of market is not a big deal, stock indexes are often jump back in a few months. If you rebalance properly, it is mitigated. Your much bigger enemy is inflation. If you think inflation is small, look at gold price over past 20 years. Some people, Winners at first, grow to +10%, get too relaxed and start to grow already lost position. That one loose trade eats 10% of their portfolio. Only there that people realize they should cut it off, when they already lost their profits. And they start again with +0%. This is hard thing to accept, but most of people are not made for that type of business. Even worse, they think \"\"if I had bigger budget, I would perform better\"\", which is kind of self-lie.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "50f0f55d05c9ca3afe2902f82d83e655", "text": "You can't have even a hundred dollars without it being invested somewhere. If it's cash, you're invested in some nation state's currency. If that currency is USD, you have lost about 6% so far this year. But what if you were in the stock market? It's been doing pretty well, no? Thing is, American stocks are priced in American dollars. You have to put those variables together to see what a stock has really been doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "382415f3c945cb086cf025a9d8ea6b61", "text": "The principle behind the advice to not throw good money after bad is better restated in economics terms: sunk costs are sunk and irrelevant to today's decisions. Money lost on a stock is sunk and should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Similarly, the stock going up should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Any advice other than this is assuming some kind of mispricing or predictability in the market. Mispricings in general cannot be reliably identified and stock returns are not normally predictable. The only valid (efficient markets) reason I know of to allow money you have lost or made on a stock to affect your decision today is the tax implications (you may want to lock in gains if your tax rate is temporarily low or vice versa).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "025adc914ef3b24720ad4fd4af995e8d", "text": "\"I did once read a book titled \"\"How I made a million dollars on the stock market\"\". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck. (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, \"\"smart\"\" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal). Clearly not a matter of \"\"playing your cards right\"\", but of having an enormous amount of luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f000b3d3ea91278770cbb20cd4af0ced", "text": "What you're describing is called timing the market. That is, if you correctly predict when the market will drop, you can sell before the drop, wait for the drop, then buy after the drop has occurred. Sell high, buy low. The fundamental problem with that, though, is: What ends up happening, on average, is you end up slightly behind. There's quite a lot of literature on this; see Betterment's explanation for example. Forbes (click through ad first) also has a detailed piece on the matter. Now, we're not really talking HFT issues here; and there are some structural things that some argue you can take advantage of (restrictions on some organizational investors, for example, similar to a blackjack dealer who has to hit on 16). However, everyone else knows about these too - so it's hard to gain much of an edge. Plenty of people say they can time the market right, and even yourself perhaps you timed a particular drop accurately. This tends to lead to false confidence though; how many drops that you timed badly do you remember? Ultimately, most investors end up slightly down when they attempt to time the market, because of the transaction costs (if you guess two drops, one 'right' and one 'wrong', and they have exactly opposite gains/losses before commissions, you will lose a bit on each due to commission), and because of the overall upward trend in the market (ie, if you picked at random one month a year to be out of the market, you'd lose around 10% annualized gains from doing that; same applies here). All of that aside, there is one major caveat: risk tolerance. If you are highly risk tolerant, say a 30 year old investing your 401(k), then you should stay in no matter what. If you're not - say you're 58 and retiring in a few years - then knowledge that there's a higher risk time period coming up might suggest moving to a less risky portfolio, even at the known cost of some gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "766ba9a0a0e7c1d6325b6344da388fe8", "text": "If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01bfef7eb36808691beb9f1d8e5b1480", "text": "\"In the UK there are Premium Bonds, http://www.nsandi.com/. In simple terms these get you a \"\"raffle ticket\"\" for each £1 you invest. Each month multiple tickets are drawn and they each win between £25 and £1m. Your capital does not go down but you aren't guaranteed to win. So you can't lose your money but there's potential to not make any either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5085b7413e9cb158544dce5b32e82066", "text": "According to my calculations, you always lose money on group B. x = average monthly balance Income for a year = 0.015 * (12 * x) = 0.18 * x Cost of funds for one month = 0.04 * x Cost of funds for one year = 12 * (0.04 * x) = 0.48 * x Profit? at end of year = income_for_year - cost_of_funds_for_one_year = (0.18 * x) - (0.48 * x) = forever loss", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8615e9a68e1874e10f12d06764d16009", "text": "Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0a22865d3c92a8476bba9a888093840", "text": "No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game. Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade. But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question. But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts. Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that. But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game. All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money. And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e777dfc794cdba76f71224179043151b", "text": "\"A key principle of economics is: Sunk costs are irrelevant. You bought the stock at 147 and it has now fallen to 144. That's too bad. This has nothing to do with whether it is wise or foolish to buy shares at 144. The only relevant thing to consider is: Do I expect the stock to go up or down from 144? You have lost $3 per share on the original buy. Buying more shares will not \"\"reduce your loss\"\" in any way. Suppose you bought 100 shares at 147. The price then drops to 144. You have lost $3 per share, or $300 total. You buy another 50 more shares at 144. The price stays at 144. So your average purchase price is now (147 x 100 + 144 x 50) / 150 = 146. So I guess you could say that your \"\"average loss per share\"\" is now only $2. But it's $2 x 150 shares instead of $3 x 100 shares. You still lost $300. You didn't reduce your loss by a penny. Maybe it made you feel better that you reduced your average loss per share, but this is just an arithmetic game. If you believe that the stock will continue to drop, than buying more shares just means you will lose even more money. Your average loss per share may go down, but you're just multiplying that average by more and more shares. Of course if you believe that the stock is now at an unjustifiably low price and it will likely go back up, then sure, buy. If you buy at 144 and it goes back up to 147, then you'll be making $3 per share on the new shares you purchased. But I repeat, whether or not you buy more shares should have nothing to do with your previous buy. Buy more shares if you think the price will go up from the present price; don't buy more shares if you don't think it will go up. The decision should be exactly the same as if you had never previously bought shares. (I'm assuming here that you are a typical small investor, that you not buying enough shares to have any significant effect on the market, nor that you are in a position to buy enough shares to take control of the company.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e729fd9708142d3b72345705f9ccda9c", "text": "\"This depends strongly on what you mean by \"\"stock trading\"\". It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between \"\"trading\"\" and \"\"investing\"\", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that \"\"market rate of return\"\" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the \"\"great recession\"\" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dc4fec57148f221da98f849fa2699b5", "text": "\"....causes loses [sic] to others. Someone sells you a stock. The seller receives cash. You receive a stock certificate. This doesn't imply a loss by either party especially if the seller sold the stock for more than his purchase price. A day trading robot can make money off of the price changes of a stock only if there are buyers and sellers of the stock at certain prices. There are always two parties in any stock transaction: a buyer and a seller. The day trading robot can make money off of an investment for 20 years and you could still make money if the investment goes up over the 20 years. The day trading robot doesn't \"\"rob\"\" you of any profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49a17c74d8a56c4d9ce3ca3f118234c7", "text": "You can't predict when to buy a stock during the day to guarantee not having a loss for the day. In the short run stock prices are really pretty random. There are many day traders who try to accomplish exactly this and most of them lose money. If you don't believe me, create an account on Investopedia and use their free stock market simulator and try day trading for a few months.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baff06bf28cd635f0ae8ac8f028df2fb", "text": "It's whatever you decide. Taking money out of an S-Corp via distribution isn't a taxable event. Practically speaking, yes, you should make sure you have enough money to afford the distribution after paying your expenses, lest you have to put money back a few days later in to pay the phone bill. You might not want to distribute every penny of profit the moment you book it, either -- keeping some money in the business checking account is probably a good idea. If you have consistent cash flow you could distribute monthly or quarterly profits 30 or 60 days in arrears, for example, and then still have cash on hand for operations. Your net profit is reflected on the Schedule K for inclusion on your personal tax return. As an S-Corp, the profit is passed through to the shareholders and is taxable whether or not you actually distributed the money. You owe taxes on the profit reported on the Schedule K, not the amounts distributed. You really should get a tax accountant. Long-term, you'll save money by having your books set up correctly from the start rather than have to go back and fix any mistakes. Go to a Chamber of Commerce meeting or ask a colleague, trusted vendor, or customer for a recommendation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1033620e57abedf226a7348b6797f25", "text": "\"When we say \"\"stock market,\"\" we are usually thinking of the publicly traded stocks, such as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ. Shares of individual products do not go on these exchanges, only large corporations. You won't see a stock ticker symbol for The Force Awakens or for the iPhone 6s Plus. The reason for this is that when investors buy a stock, they are looking for something that will grow in value theoretically forever. Individual products usually have a limited lifespan. Your movie will (hopefully) generate revenue when it comes out, but after a while sales will slow down after people have seen it. If someone bought a share of stock in a movie on the stock market, they have to realize that eventually the movie will stop making money, and their share of stock won't be worth anything anymore. Instead, people invest in companies that have the potential to make new products, such as Disney or Apple. So if you were envisioning seeing the ticker symbol of your movie going across the screen on CNBC, sorry, that's not going to happen. However, you could theoretically sell shares to individual investors for a percentage of the profit. You figure out how much money you need to create the movie, and estimate how much profit you think the movie will earn. Then you find an investor (or group of investors) that is willing to give you the money you need in exchange for a percentage of the profit. Unlike a stock market investor, these investors won't be looking for the long-term growth potential of the resale value of the stock, but simply a share of the profit.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f743176e9113d06d75b32bb777560926	Why do governments borrow money instead of printing it?	[ { "docid": "8e1162224e7de57d4ba2000d60312f68", "text": "\"Governments borrowing money doesn't create new money. When banks \"\"borrow\"\" money (i.e. take deposits), it does effectively create money because the depositor expects to be able to get the money back at any time, but the bank assumes that most won't actually do this and lends out most of the money to other people. If everyone did actually ask for their money back at once, the illusion of the extra money created by this process would collapse, and the bank would go bust. In contrast when governments borrow money, the loan isn't repayable on demand, it has a fixed maturity and the money is only repaid at the end of that period (plus interest at defined points during the period). So holders of government debt don't have money they can spend (they can turn it into money they can spend but only by finding someone else to buy it). So government debt doesn't create inflation in itself. If they printed money, then they'd be devaluing the money of everyone who had saved or invested, whereas if they borrow money and use taxes to repay it, the burden falls more evenly across the economy and doesn't disproportionately penalise certain sets of people.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "974dba9596ea8e2448e7dc1f906a4e7a", "text": "“Why do governments borrow money instead of printing it? (When printing money, one doesn't need to pay interest).” Good question. Numerous leading economists, including a couple of economics Nobel Laureates have asked the same question and concluded that borrowing can be dispensed with. First, Milton Freidman set out a monetary system in a paper in the American Economic Review which involved no government borrowing, and govt just printed money (in a responsible fashion of course) as and when needed. See: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1810624 A second Nobel Laureate with similar views was William Vickrey. A third economist with similar views (of Keynes’ era) was Abba Lerner. Keynes said of Lerner, “Lerner's argument is impeccable, but heaven help anyone who tries to put it across to the plain man at this stage of the evolution of our ideas”.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9d73e9c38b453f3ed9a969eedcf0102", "text": "\"Yes - Simply put, printing money is called \"\"monetizing the debt\"\" and would result in some nasty inflation. It's a no-no as it quickly devalues the currency and makes it far more difficult to borrow in the future, an entire generation will remember getting burned by it. If, say, Canada's currency were suddenly worth half as much and you received half your investment back in US dollars (e.g. you paid US$10,000, but now have US$5000) would you ever trust them again? The economy is far more complex than one can discuss here, but the fractional reserve system is the next creator of money, although it's not unlimited, the reserve requirement throttles it back. The demand for loans is impacted both by the rate itself and the bank's willingness to lend. The housing bubble had multiple causes. In a sense Tucson is right. Anything we do to make houses more affordable can cause house price inflation. But - the over the top underwriting had more impact in my opinion. People lost sight of good lending practices. The option rate interest only ARMs were financial time bombs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "318d8f36eb6e2ab8c6c7ecbd948c3e6f", "text": "One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c4b8111a06c166734d39353af973e28", "text": "\"If the government prints money recklessly and causes inflation, people will come to expect inflation, and the value of the currency will plummet, and you'll end up like Zimbabwe where a trillion dollars won't buy a loaf of bread. If the government actually pays people for the money they borrow, they don't have this problem - and as it turns out, the US government can get pretty good rates on borrowing in general, in part because they're extraordinarily good about paying them back. (Also, inflation expectations are low, so people will accept 1-2% interest rates. If you expected inflation of 10%, you'd see people demanding something more like 12% interest rates.) (The downside of too much of this sort of borrowing is that it \"\"crowds out\"\" other borrowing, which may harm the economy. Who would lend money to / invest in a small business, if the government is paying good money and there's almost no risk at all?) Now, inflation can come into play afterward, if the Fed decides it needs to maintain \"\"easy money\"\" policies to stimulate the economy (because taxes are too high because we're paying off the debt, or because we've crowded out smaller borrowers, or something). -- In general, you can count on the the principle that if you, as the government, try to play too many games with people's money... well, people aren't stupid; they will eventually catch on, and adjust their behavior to compensate, and then you're right back where you started, but with less trust.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4e87a814da9242f7855873f3fdeff89", "text": "I believe there are two ways new money is created: My favorite description of this (money creation) comes from Chris Martenson: the video is here on Youtube. And yes, I believe both can create inflation. In fact this is what happened in the US between 2004 and 2007: increasing loans to households to buy houses created an inflation of home prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "484865bc376aca15ff872884d30cce0a", "text": "The Government doesn't borrow money. It in fact simply prints it. The bond market is used for an advanced way of controlling the demand for this printed money. Think about it logically. Take 2011 for example. The Govt spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in. This is real money that get's credited in to people's bank accounts to purchase real goods and services. Now who purchases the majority of treasuries? The Primary Dealers. What are the Primary Dealers? They are banks. Where do banks get their money? From us. So now put two and two together. When the Govt spends $1.7 trillion and credits our bank accounts, the banking system has $1.7 trillion more. Then that money flows in to pension funds, gets spent in to corporation who then send that money to China for cheap products... and eventually the money spent purchases up Govt securities for investments. We had to physically give China 1 trillion dollars for them to be able to purchase 1 trillion dollars in securities. So it makes sense if you think about how the math works in the real world.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aed7fb7aa5aec51da13434fa017415d", "text": "The government could actually do either one to expand the money supply as necessary to keep up with rising productivity / an increased labor supply. The question is merely political. In the case of the US, printing money involves convincing politicians to spend it. While we currently run a deficit, there is a large lobby within the US who are incredibly anti-deficit, and are fighting against this for no good reason. If the money supply were left in their hands, we would end up with a shrinking money supply and rapid deflation. On the other hand, the Fed can simply bypass the politicians, and control the money supply directly by issuing bonds. It's easier for them, they don't have to explain it to voters (only to economists), and it gives them more direct control without any messy political considerations like which programs to expand or cut.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d4e003d38fa9badb0bb254eaf214e95", "text": "My own simple answer is that it will affect and reduce productivity (e.g. Zimbabwe). it will also cause inflation which mean that no one will want to work for production again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f67202d9b27a52fcd4463f249befbb94", "text": "\"My answer is that when confronted with the obvious, the most common human reaction is to seek reasons for it, because things have to be right. They have to have a reason. We don't like it when things suck. So when finding out that you are being ripped off every day of your life, your reaction is \"\"There must be a logical reason that perfectly explain why this is. After all, the world is fair, governments are working in our best interest and if they do it this way, they must have a very good reason for it.\"\" Sorry, but that not the case. You have the facts. You are just not looking at them. Economics, as a subject, is the proper management of resources and production. Now, forget the fancy theories, the elaborate nonsense about stocks and bonds and currencies and pay attention to the actual situation. On our planet, most people earn $2,000 per year. Clean water is not available for a very sizable percent of the world's population. Admittedly, 90% of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of the most wealthy 10%. A Chinese engineer earns a fraction of what a similarly qualified engineer earns in the States. Most people, even in rich countries, have a negative net value. They have mortgages that run for a third of their lifetimes, credit card debts, loans... do the balance. Most people are broke. Does this strike you as the logical result of a fair and balanced economic system? Does this look like a random happenstance? The dominant theory is \"\"It just happened, it's nobody's fault and nobody designed it that way and to think otherwise is very bad because it makes you a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists are nuts. You are not nuts are you?\"\" Look at the facts already in your possession. It didn't just happen. The system is rigged. When a suit typing a few numbers in a computer can make more money in 5 minutes than an average Joe can make in 100 lifetimes of honest, productive work, you don't have a fair economic system, you have a scam machine. When you look at a system as broken as the one we have, you shouldn't be asking yourself \"\"what makes this system right?\"\" What you should be asking yourself is more along the lines of \"\"Why is it broken? Who benefits? Why did congress turn its monetary policy over to the Federal reserve (a group of unelected and unaccountable individuals with strong ties in the banking industry) and does not even bother to conduct audits to know how your money is actually managed? This brilliant movie, Money as debt, points to a number of outrageous bugs in our economic system. Now, you can dream up reasons why the system should be the way it is and why it is an acceptable system. Or you can look at the fact and realize that there is NO JUSTIFICATION for an economic system that perform as badly as it does. Back to basics. Money is supposed to represent production. It's in every basic textbook on the subject of economics. So, what should money creation be based on? Debt? No. Gold? No. Randomly printed by the government when they feel like it? No (although this could actually be better than the 2 previous suggestions) Money is supposed to represent production. Index money on production and you have a sound system. Why isn't it done that way? Why do you think that is?\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "89a7ef5ff873b07c2785dce4cda5b1e0", "text": "That's effectively borrowing on margin from the government. You too can borrow on margin, just not from the government. It is true that the government perverts the finance system through. I would imagine it would be very hard to play basketball too, if the ref didn't play basketball.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2393a44dc0901577a7086d3f55c7bdc7", "text": "\"Sovereign states borrow money explicitly in a two primary ways: A sovereign cannot be compelled to repay debt, and there isn't a judicial process like bankruptcy to erase debt. When sovereigns default, they negotiate new terms with creditors and pay back some fraction of the actual debt owed. They can also print money to repay debt, which has other nasty consequences. But, while a state cannot be compelled to repay a debt, creditors cannot be compelled to loan money to the state either! Any enterprise of sufficient size needs access to capital via loans to meet daily obligations in anticipation of revenue -- even when times are good. Defaulting makes borrowing impossible or expensive, and is avoided. Regarding using your military to avoid repaying debt... remember what Napoleon said: \"\"An army travels on its stomach\"\". Military campaigns are expensive... no borrowing ability means the soldiers don't get paid and the food, fuel and ammo don't get delivered. Smaller countries have other risks as well. Many nations are essentially forced to use US Dollars as a reserve currency, or are forced by the market to borrow money in a foreign currency. This creates a situation where any risk of non-payment results in a deep devaluation of the local currency. When your debt is denominated in dollars, these shifts can dramatically increase your debt obligations from a local currency point of view. You also run the risk that a larger or richer company will park warships in your harbor and seize assets as payment -- the US and Britain engaged in this several times during the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, not paying the bills has a cascading effect. Bad situations get worse, and they do so quickly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89640a1a93a92d0cbcc9d6d3da310f6a", "text": "As long as we remember that debt is the only option when the government has to borrow their money at interest or take it from taxes. When taxes don't cut it, we borrow. Ever wondered why the government doesn't just spend money into the economy instead of borrowing at interest?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0389ef13c4efdfebeb2cfe9c55344eb3", "text": "\"This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment. If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as looong as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets. Heck, if you can take on even more debt at 3%, you should still do the same. Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, but, doing so is effectively a form of \"\"loan\"\" to yourself. We call the \"\"interest\"\" on that loan \"\"inflation\"\", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart). So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%. But someone has to take that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of. There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much. If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially \"\"invested\"\" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "901f2c8cb32f9bbb3b3737c43cd6f6fd", "text": "\"The Federal Reserve is not the only way that money can be \"\"printed.\"\" Every bank does fractional reserve banking, thereby increasing the money supply every time they make a new loan. There's a number called the reserve requirement which limits how much money each bank can create. Lowering the reserve requirement allows banks to create more money. Raising it will destroy money. But banks can also destroy money by calling in loans or being less willing to make new loans. So when you look at the number of banks in the US, and the number of loans they all have, it's impossible to figure out exactly how much the money supply is expanding or contracting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d4cbb754fb5e260bca5cc7130399d9c", "text": "\"Gold is not debt, \"\"money\"\" is debt (whatever it is made of). In the example above, everything could have been exactly the same, except using certificates written on sharks instead of on paper. Now, sharks have value, paper has value, and gold has value. When you print money, the stuff you make it out of has some utility separate from its use as currency. But when you are using it as currency (regardless of what it is made from), it is a marker for debt. You go to work for an hour, your boss gives you a marker that you can trade for a cheeseburger or some gasoline or a ferret or cantaloupes, or whatever you want. That marker is an IOU for the work you did. You give it to the cantaloupe store, and it becomes an IOU for the value of one cantaloupe. They give it to the store employees or the cantaloupe-grower or whatever, and so on. It doesn't matter what that marker is made out of, its function is the same. If it were gold, you could melt it down and make a ring out of it. If it's paper, you could use it as a bookmark or a shopping list or to blow your nose, if it's a shark you scare people with it in the pool. N.B., this is totally separate from the question of whether we should be using gold as a currency, which has to do with the fact that the gold supply is a lot more stable than the paper supply, and whether being able to easily print more money on demand is a good thing or a bad thing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6e444f254d171aade7bf0b62c90b74d", "text": "\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \"\"printing their way out of it\"\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b12b0aabd80cb5c2609e5f39ae7a7ad3", "text": "The debt is absolutely real. China loans money to US via buying the US treasury bonds. The bond is essentially a promise to pay back the money with interest, just like a loan. As you point out, the US can print money. If this were to happen, then the USD that the owner of a treasury bond receives when the bond matures are worth less that than the USD used to purchase the bonds. There are lots of reasons why the US doesn't want to print lots of money, so the purchaser of the bond is probably confident it won't happen. If for some reason they think it is possible, then they will want to cover that risk by only purchasing bonds that have a higher interest rate. The higher interest offsets the risk of the USD being worth less. Of course, there are lots more details, e.g., the bonds themselves are bought and sold before maturity, but this is the basic idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "949fc768dba52d0febfd534e468933d7", "text": "Indirect exchange (the common units of which are called 'money') is not debt (though the commodity of indirect exchange may be debt). Physical gold is not debt (it is mined, not conjured into existence from someone's promise of future goods). Gold-backed paper currency is gold debt. Indirect exchange is an extension of barter, not a replacement. The advantage of indirect exchange over direct exchange is that it solves the coincident of wants problem. (Alice may want a telescope, but Charlie doesn't want 500 apples for it. Alice finds out that Charlie would trade the telescope for 1 unit of gold. Alice then finds Bob who is willing to trade 1 unit of gold for 500 apples. Alice then trades with Bob and then trades with Charlie to get what she wants.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd88f6c443a1535b5c8861a194ec061a", "text": "Up until 1913, the printing press was at the US treasury under the jursidiction of Congress. Congress needs to take back the printing press and perform their constitutional duties as described. Right now, our government pays interest to borrow in its own currency. If the printing press was at the treasury, that wouldn't happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e51bfc41028fd9988f5636bea1bf842", "text": "\"Hah! In so far as the financial sector isn't making money off the government, then I would say it is truly \"\"financed through the financial sector\"\". The financial sector doesn't operate at a loss, which is what you are suggesting here. They aren't paying the government to have roads and power and plumbing and water, etc. The financial sector is paying because they make more money back. You want to admit who is paying to have roads and water and power and plumbing, etc? Every person who gets a paycheck or owns a house is. Not big money. Ordinary people. Taxes and Tariffs, and printing money pays for all of this. We, the tax payer, aren't seeing a financial reimbursement for our expenses on these projects. But Big Money is. Our reimbursement is: Roads, Power, plumbing, Police, Fire Departments. Which means we are the consumers buying products. Big Money is the middle man making bucks off the system. Perhaps Big Money is necessary, but now it is out of control, and needs to be held accountable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d7882c298cb26a09da949ad3a233ca7", "text": "\"Its definitely not a stupid question. The average American has absolutely no idea how this process works. I know this might be annoying, but I'm answering without 100% certainty. The Fed would increase the money supply by buying back government bonds. This increased demand for bonds would raise their price and therefore lower the interest return that they deliver. Since U.S. treasury bonds are considered to be the very safest possible investment, their rate is the \"\"risk free\"\" rate upon which all other rates are based. So if the government buys billions of these bonds, that much money ends up in the hands of whoever sold them. These sellers are the large financial organizations that hold all of our money (banks and large investment vehicles). Now, since bond rates are lower, they have an incentive to put that money somewhere else. It goes into stocks and investment in business ventures. I'm less certain about how this turns into inflation that consumers will recognize. The short answer is that there is only a finite number of goods and services for us to buy. If the amount of money increases and there are still the same number of goods and services, the prices will increase slightly. Your question about printing money to pay off debts is too complex for me to answer. I know that the inflation dynamic does play a role. It makes debts easier to pay off in the future than they seem right now. However, causing massive inflation to pay off debts brings a lot of other problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "440a586735e707c8207b09ed7ea6c8fb", "text": "Lots of countries have printed themselves away from debt. Not all inflation turns into a death spiral like Zimbabwe (or Weimar Germany) did, for that you need to have a really shitty economy that no-one believes in. The problem with Japan right now is that they are trying to print their debt away, but as they do so, their currency appreciates. Gold medal for the first one who manages to explain that one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "563370102cb9f40dac98d141693dfb3a", "text": "For now we can pay off our debt in United States dollars. If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. If we continued printing money we would be debasing our currency against the new reserve currency, which would mean that after we took on too much debt we wouldn't really be able to pay our creditors back after exchanging our devalued currency for the new one on the international markets. We are lucky enough not to have to worry about this now. But I think OP was referring to all countries in these situations. Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. That is why I am saying that America has a very disillusioned view of reality when it comes to deficit spending. We wouldn't have that any more if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard (I don't think the second option is nearly as realistic but we never know).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83f2433f686f5fbcb2335dd11835eddd", "text": "The answers provided so far as good and informative, but I just thought I'd add one small point... There are super-national organisations that commonly lend to governments, in particular those in the developing the world. The World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) are the two primary ones. Also quite notably, the Greek economy was bailed out only this year by the EMF (European Monetary Fund) spearheaded by Germany - this is a rare occurrence however and was done mainly because Greece was a relatively developed country and others had an obligation to assist it as an EU member state.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.